Land of the free, if you have money.

[ibx 2]

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[kelpdiver 2]

close to academic paper than "scientific study."

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

close to academic paper than "scientific study."

It's "Political Science."

Oh, the Humanities.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grue 1]

ibx

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

There are no democracies, as far as I'm aware.

cavete terrae.

[kallend 1,648]

kelpdiver

close to academic paper than "scientific study."

Try to get 5 minutes alone with your Senator. Then see how easy it is for a billionaire to get 5 minutes alone with his Senator.

The top 0.1% are running away with the wealth of the nation because they've bought the government, lock, stock and barrel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[base698 1]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/081299342X?pc_redir=1397582649&robot_redir=1

They also don't go to jail:

Quote

"Poverty goes up; crime goes down; Prison populations doubles"
"Fraud by the rich wipes out 40% of the worlds wealth. The rich get massively richer. No one goes to jail."

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***close to academic paper than "scientific study."

Try to get 5 minutes alone with your Senator. Then see how easy it is for a billionaire to get 5 minutes alone with his Senator.

The top 0.1% are running away with the wealth of the nation because they've bought the government, lock, stock and barrel.

You've now gone from academic paper to "sound bite."

If you live in Wyoming, like that guy who dammed up the river, it's a lot easier than if you live in California along with 36M other people.

[kallend 1,648]

The richest 1% doubled its share of income in the past thirty years. From 1980 to 2006, according to both IRS and CBO figures, the top 1% nearly TRIPLED its share of after tax income.

In the first two years of the recovery from the Bush recession, the richest 1% captured 121% of the income gains (others saw debt rise faster than income).

In 1983 the poorest 47% of Americans owned about 2.5 percent of the nation's wealth, an average of $15,000 per family.

In 2009 the poorest 47% of Americans owned ZERO percent of the nation's wealth (their debt exceeded their assets).

And all this time government policy has favored this upwards redistribution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

And all this time government policy has favored this upwards redistribution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Now you're arguing correlation = causation, without providing any foundation.

In the past couple days, you've shown a level of understanding of statistics that would get you failed in an intro level course.

[kallend 1,648]

kelpdiver

***
And all this time government policy has favored this upwards redistribution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Now you're arguing correlation = causation, without providing any foundation.

In the past couple days, you've shown a level of understanding of statistics that would get you failed in an intro level course.

Translation: - you can't dispute what I wrote so you resort to insults.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

******
And all this time government policy has favored this upwards redistribution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Now you're arguing correlation = causation, without providing any foundation.

In the past couple days, you've shown a level of understanding of statistics that would get you failed in an intro level course.

Translation: - you can't dispute what I wrote so you resort to insults.

I disputed it in my first paragraph. Now it's not surprising you don't understand this - that was the conclusion of the second paragraph.

[kallend 1,648]

Are you really denying that government policy since Reagan's administration has led to an upward redistribution of the nation's wealth? Really?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 200]

kallend

The richest 1% doubled its share of income in the past thirty years. From 1980 to 2006, according to both IRS and CBO figures, the top 1% nearly TRIPLED its share of after tax income.

In the first two years of the recovery from the Bush recession, the richest 1% captured 121% of the income gains (others saw debt rise faster than income).

In 1983 the poorest 47% of Americans owned about 2.5 percent of the nation's wealth, an average of $15,000 per family.

In 2009 the poorest 47% of Americans owned ZERO percent of the nation's wealth (their debt exceeded their assets).

And all this time government policy has favored this upwards redistribution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I'm starting to think you've got a big case of guilt for the riches you enjoy. I don't own an aircraft. I think those that do must be rich. I don't own antique cars. I think those that do must be rich. You must be one of the 1%.

See, it's all in your point of view.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,648]

airdvr

***The richest 1% doubled its share of income in the past thirty years. From 1980 to 2006, according to both IRS and CBO figures, the top 1% nearly TRIPLED its share of after tax income.

In the first two years of the recovery from the Bush recession, the richest 1% captured 121% of the income gains (others saw debt rise faster than income).

In 1983 the poorest 47% of Americans owned about 2.5 percent of the nation's wealth, an average of $15,000 per family.

In 2009 the poorest 47% of Americans owned ZERO percent of the nation's wealth (their debt exceeded their assets).

And all this time government policy has favored this upwards redistribution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I'm starting to think you've got a big case of guilt for the riches you enjoy. I don't own an aircraft. I think those that do must be rich. I don't own antique cars. I think those that do must be rich. You must be one of the 1%.

See, it's all in your point of view.

Some of us consider what's best for the country rather than our own selfish interest. You, apparently, are not in that set.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Are you really denying that government policy since Reagan's administration has led to an upward redistribution of the nation's wealth? Really?

What is factual is that the upper deciles's income has grown faster than the lower ones. What is at question is why, and you assert it was some backroom dealings, but without proving an actual cause and effect.

The mere lowering of the highest marginal tax brackets and investment taxes has an obvious effect. So does the decline of the semi skilled manufacturing sector, and union corrupted (my opinion) businesses that negotiated for unrealistic pay and took their companies down. The rise of the developing worlds labor force at a wide spectrum of skill level (mainland China's Foxconn -> India's Wipro) meant that high school dropouts here would do less well, and we're still dealing with a 25% rate that fail to graduate on time. (by 24, 92% either graduated or got the not so respected GED).

None of these are conspiracies by the rich to kill the poor. As you and others state, it's really not in our best interests to do so. So yes, I'm denying your claim as unsubstantiated.

[kallend 1,648]

kelpdiver

***
Are you really denying that government policy since Reagan's administration has led to an upward redistribution of the nation's wealth? Really?

What is factual is that the upper deciles's income has grown faster than the lower ones. What is at question is why, and you assert it was some backroom dealings, but without proving an actual cause and effect.

The mere lowering of the highest marginal tax brackets and investment taxes has an obvious effect.




Indeed - government policy since the Reagan era. QED.

Quote

So does the decline of the semi skilled manufacturing sector, and union corrupted (my opinion) businesses that negotiated for unrealistic pay and took their companies down.

Not government policy - you're just throwing dust in the air to avoid admitting that I'm right.

Quote

The rise of the developing worlds labor force at a wide spectrum of skill level (mainland China's Foxconn -> India's Wipro) meant that high school dropouts here would do less well, and we're still dealing with a 25% rate that fail to graduate on time. (by 24, 92% either graduated or got the not so respected GED).

Not government policy - you're just throwing dust in the air to avoid admitting that I'm right.

Quote

None of these are conspiracies by the rich to kill the poor. As you and others state, it's really not in our best interests to do so. So yes, I'm denying your claim as unsubstantiated.

Strawman, I didn't claim that. The rich just care about getting richer, they aren't conspiring against the poor. I'm sure some, like Marie Antoinette, don't have a clue about the poor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

***
Not government policy - you're just throwing dust in the air to avoid admitting that I'm right.
***

correct- I'm saying that factors that have nothing to do with government policy are direct drivers in the slower rates of income growth. Seems like you agree with me, so we're both right. Cupcakes for everyone.

[kallend 1,648]

kelpdiver

***
Not government policy - you're just throwing dust in the air to avoid admitting that I'm right.

Quote

correct- I'm saying that factors that have nothing to do with government policy are direct drivers in the slower rates of income growth. Seems like you agree with me, so we're both right. Cupcakes for everyone.

Lame-o excuses: I never claimed that government policy was the only thing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.