The Sun's not yellow it's chicken

floridiabq:

I still think you’re full of shit. Poc (minus Asians) are more likely to have lower incomes than white people.

So your theory demands that non-white equals poor, and here you have a non-white group that’s economically better off than whites….  and you just ignore them rather than changing your position.

That’s dogma.  You’re pushing dogma.

(Source: holymotherofrowling)

pragmatic-realist:

The US Census Bureau breaks down income in the US into five quintiles. In 2007, the middle quintile reported an average income of 38k to 57k. The middle class generally doesn’t too much involved in the stock market or other kinds of income making schemes. Most of the middle classes income comes from wages. We have seen an economic crash since then but middle class wages have simply not fallen that low. And even if they did, a couple making 27k would put their income at 54k, not bad.

Income = Could be “Wages” from numerous jobs and other sources (social security, pensions, ect).

This is why “Income” isn’t very useful. Add the word “Household” and it’s far more useless as it includes EVERYONE living in that household, including children. So a “Household” might, say, have a total income of $60 thousand — and you’d say how good that it — but it could be from parents working two full time jobs and a daughter working at McDonalds after school, thus nobody is earning even $15 thousand at a job….

Mind you:  The median wages is about $27 thousand. This means that 50% of the country earns LESS.  and, as you already showed with a different cite (no reason of either of us to disbelieve it), the median household income is below $50 thousand, so in all probability we’re looking at two people each earning closer to $25K  than $27K.

NOTE:  This is a drop. It has gone done. It is lower now than it was ten years ago. The overall trend is DOWNWARD.

So, the average American not only doesn’t have a lot of income, but when you account for inflation it has been dropping steadily with the lone exception of the Clinton years. Under Bill Clinton it went up, wages went up, the percentage of America’s Net Worth held by the bottom 80% went up. Poverty went down.

Gee, and you thought that the Republicans hated Clinton for his foreign policy…   Sheesh!  Nobody pissed them off more than success. Nothing.

pragmatic-realist:

Of course taxes are necessary, and infrastructure is important. However, if you’re a business owner, do you want to pay a 15% tax rate or a 40% tax rate? Which tax rate would allow you more money to invest, continue business growth, and so on? It’s true that taxes were higher during the Clinton years and the economy boomed, but the dot com boom was a one time deal. We can’t very well invent the internet again can we? Infrastructure and other government activities make up a small portion of the economic output of our society. If this demand side economic idea worked, we’d have an economic boom on our hands. The question is, when is Obamanomics going to work for Americans, and not for Solyndra executives who ran a company into the ground, and still walked away with millions of taxpayer dollars? Obviously there is no full proof plan. If the Federal Reserve is doing something stupid, like printing too much money and deliberately blowing up a bubble, even a good tax policy wouldn’t save you. Remember that Paul Krugman said “We have to create a housing bubble” to end the 2001 recession. So maybe liberal economics does work, but certainly not for long.

Obama’s economic policies are identical to Bush’s, except that Obama increased the size of the tax cuts and then cut some social programs to offset almost half the loss in revenue.

Government already made up more than 20% of the economy — one out of every five dollars — before Bush went on his mad spending spree with the wars, a new cabinet level position and an enormous new government agency.

We haven’t tried “Demand Side” economics since Reagan, when his tax cuts were more than matched with spending increases (putting people to work). Unfortunately, because of those tax cuts the growth in the economy was never enough to cover the loss in revenue, and the debt exploded…

You’re just plain wrong when you claim that demand-side economics has been given any opportunity at all in the last decade.

70% of all businesses in America have ZERO employees. Source:  The U.S. Census Bureau.

If you’re in the 25% tax bracket you have to earn $40 thousand to buy a $30 thousand car. If you own a corporation which pays 35% tax, on the other hand, you only have to earn $30 thousand to buy a $30 thousand car — you call it an “Expense,” a business expense. It’s not taxed. Instead of costing you an extra ten-points off your income, that “Higher Rate” actually saved you $7,500 in taxes!

Major corporations?  Please. They’re giant piggy banks for the people who control them. The CEO of GM is paid the same as 14 CEOs of Toyota. Wall Street is not practicing Capitalism, it’s practicing Feudalism. “Executive Compensation” is not even performance driven, let alone market driven. There isn’t a major corporation in America that couldn’t significantly cut executive “Compensation” without any registrable effects on demand for the positions.

Executives take the money because there is literally nothing stopping them. The boards — their boards — approve it, and the cash is gone.

The fact is, if we raised taxes, put people back to work and created new demand for products and services, companies would invest in bringing new products in services to the market. If they didn’t have the money they would borrow it.

Again, we’ve been trying it your way since 2001 — starting with Bush AND CONTINUING under Obama. Your way failed miserably. It’s time to change course.