"Winner take all": How did we get here?

[Arbopa]

And. . .obviously the "256%" rise in income for the top 1% has had a negative impact on everyone's income!

Only if you think 'money' is a fixed total sum game.

It is not.

Of course those with loads of money, make more money. Money makes money. It is a basic truth.

 

[Gipper]

Even if the (R)'s advance policies to limit spending and growth, it doesn't matter when they ignore those items when they gain power. Which seems to be the norm for both parties. Talk a good game, but when in charge, fo-get-abow-dit.

Who among the two major parties has had success limiting government and balancing budgets? There can be no denying that the Rs have made many mistakes and are infected with many progressive members. But, they are the only party that has had some success and contains members prepared to do the right thing. Remember Reagan? Remember the 90s? Yes, under the progressive Bush they did stupid progressive things, which lead us into the current morass. But, the Dems under BO The Marxist have greatly worsened things and offer no effective solutions.

What I am saying is sadly, we have the choice of the lesser of two evils. One we know is completely evil. The other, at least offers a slim glimmer of hope.

 

[Arbopa]

Remember Reagan? Yeah, he too, increased spending like money was made on trees.

 

[Gipper]

Remember Reagan? Yeah, he too, increased spending like money was made on trees.

Oh brother. If you really believe that, we can go no further.

 

[Arbopa]

Oh brother. If you really believe that, we can go no further.

I realize the politically polarized extremes do not want to think poorly of their 'heroes'. But the reality is when he took office, spending was over half a trillion, when he left office, it was over a trillion.

A grade schooler can figure out that is an increase in spending.

 

[Gipper]

I realize the politically polarized extremes do not want to think poorly of their 'heroes'. But the reality is when he took office, spending was over half a trillion, when he left office, it was over a trillion.

A grade schooler can figure out that is an increase in spending.

You need to get a history book...an accurate one...not one written by a scummy liberal. The House sets the budget and at that time, who ran the House? Secondly, Reagan did control government regulations and limited the growth of government. No president in recent history did more to stop the march of socialism. Yes, the spending went up. But, income to the Treasury went up much more thanks to his abilities.

 

[GenSeneca]

Rising to the "next quintile" is meaningless. . .

Rising to the next quintile is the very definition of upward mobility. Complaining about the fact that income in the second quintile is still lower than that of higher quintiles, does not change the fact that upward mobility has occured. Additionally, I doubt you would ever argue that dropping from the second quintile (lower middle class) to the first (lower class) is "meaningless" to the individual who must live on a reduced income.

obviously the "256%" rise in income for the top 1% has had a negative impact on everyone's income!

That is an illogical conclusion unsupported by the empirical data and it ignores the statistical methodology by which these statistics are calculated.

For example, someone with an income of $20k/yr is at the top of the bottom quintile but only $2k away from reaching the bottom of the second quintile. If that individual were to see their income increase by 256%, they would be making $71,200/yr. Only $2k of that increased income would count towards a rise in income for the bottom quintile. The rest does not count toward the bottom quintile because that individual is no longer within that quintile.

Someone in the top quintile cannot move into a higher quintile, so any additional income will count towards that specific quintile. If that individuals income were to increase by 256%, the entire 256% would be applied as an increase of income for the top quintile because all of it remains within the same quintile.

In a fair society, the increase in income over time should be more levelled.

Exactly how do you believe government is capable of increasing income within the specific quintiles? The bottom quintile is the bottom 20%, the lower class. The second, third and fourth quintiles are those of the lower middle, middle, and upper middle class. The top 20% is the fifth quintile, the upper class. These are statistical designations that are not affected by increases in income within the specific quintiles.

If one looks at the way the top 1% has increased its income by 256%. . ..

If one did look, one would find that what I stated above is true: If one's increased income causes them to move into a higher quintile, only a portion of their increased income will count toward an increase of income for the quintile they left. One who is already in the highest quintile cannot go any higher among the quintiles, so the entire amount of his increased income is applied to the quintile in which he resides. It is only while you remain within a specific quintile that increased income will count toward and increase of income for that quintile.

If you can't see that. . . you can continue to feel self-righteous and very arrogant, and continue to believe that you are the only one who understands the system. . .but it really doesn't much in real life!!!

Many people understand the concepts of quintiles, income mobility, their relationship to each other and the statistical methodology by which they are calculated. Insulting me for pointing out your misconceptions about these subject does not change the reality of what they are or how they are calculated.

Using the power of government to fix what you percieve as a problem, without understanding the subject, does matter in real life. I hope to avoid such a real life disaster by pointing out the fallacies and misconceptions inherent to such flawed arguments.

But I had enough of this. . .so enjoy this thread as long as you wish, and leave me alone.

If you did not post false or inaccurate statements, I would have little cause to correct you.

 

[Gipper]

Using the power of government to fix what you perceive as a problem, without understanding the subject, does matter in real life. I hope to avoid such a real life disaster by pointing out the fallacies and misconceptions inherent to such flawed arguments.

If you did not post false or inaccurate statements, I would have little cause to correct you.

It is very likely she has you on 'ignore' now. Hahahaha.......

Well done!

 

[Arbopa]

You need to get a history book...an accurate one...

Typical response you see from an extremist.

Government figures are out there, they show that spending DOUBLED in his 8 years in office. Period.

Did your incomes double in that same 8 years? Prices double in those same 8 years? No? Of course not, the only thing that doubled was government spending.