Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally I think the wealth sharing started under Johnson's great society that started in mid 60's are drawing to a end. Its fiscal conditions are drawing it to a end. It has basically ended in unsustainably. They may try to revive it but in the end it will be a Greek type tragedy we see in much of Europe who started before the 60's.
Because raising taxes (which never should have been lowered in the first place; thanks GWB) during the worst economic meltdown in 80 years is suicide. You can only raise them in small increments even now, 5 years after the bottom fell out of the economy.
Don't take this as a vindication of the GOP's destructive policies. It isn't, not by a long shot.
16.1%
The percentage of people 65 and older who were in the labor force in 2010, up from 12.1 percent in 1990. These older workers numbered 6.5 million in 2010, up from 3.8 million in 1990. By 2011, this rate had increased to 16.2 percent.
Source: Labor Force Participation and Work Status of People 65 and Older
22.3%
The percentage of people 65 and older in Alaska in the labor force in 2011. Labor force participation rates for people 65 years and over ranged from 22.3 percent in Alaska to 12.5 percent in West Virginia.
Source: Labor Force Participation and Work Status of People 65 and Older
44.3%
Among those 65 and older who worked in 2011, the percentage who worked full-time, year-round. Among states and equivalents, the District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 62.2 percent.
Source: Labor Force Participation and Work Status of People 65 and Older
And just for comparison sake, here is what things looked like back when Reagan was in charge, (you'll have to scroll to the graph that illustrates how during the 1980s, poverty was reduced for the elderly):
Quote:
...poverty became less prevalent during the 1980's for every elderly sex/race/ethnic group...
And just for comparison sake, here is what things looked like back when Reagan was in charge, (you'll have to scroll to the graph that illustrates how during the 1980s, poverty was reduced for the elderly):
Well dang...I wonder who was president during the 80s.
That deserves closer inspection; there's not enough information in that document.
There was an incremental rise out of poverty among seniors, but where did that incremental income come from? Did it come from delayed retirement or re-entry into the workforce? That might be something not worthy of boasting about if it were a coping mechanism for financially distressed seniors rather than a byproduct of increased affluence.
Rents necessarily skyrocketed during those years, so those with rental income did better and of course the flip side of rental income is rental outgo - I think many seniors were squeezed by soaring rents, and responded by delaying retirement or by going back to work, allowing them to rise out of poverty without becoming meaningfully better off.
That deserves closer inspection; there's not enough information in that document.
There was an incremental rise out of poverty among seniors, but where did that incremental income come from? Did it come from delayed retirement or re-entry into the workforce? That might be something not worthy of boasting about if it were a coping mechanism for financially distressed seniors rather than a byproduct of increased affluence.
Rents necessarily skyrocketed during those years, so those with rental income did better and of course the flip side of rental income is rental outgo - I think many seniors were squeezed by soaring rents, and responded by delaying retirement or by going back to work, allowing them to rise out of poverty without becoming meaningfully better off.
If I were to take a guess, I would say it had something to do with defined benefit pension plans. In the 80s, those who retired had them. In the late 80s, they were, for the most part, phased out. Now people rely on defined contribution: 401(k)s and Social Security....and their personal savings is a joke.
I'm not an economist, (clearly), but you hear it everywhere, and have been hearing it everywhere, for decades:
"Back in the day..." what you would do is get a job, stay with that job for umpteen years, and you would then retire at around 62 years of age, and you had a nice little pension plan to help you through it all. (I have purposely not included real estate in this because I know less about real estate than I do economics....having said that, many of those who retired did have their own homes that they sold, got a chunk of change...as you said, "rents skyrocketed", and bought a smaller home for their retirement years. That's not so easy to do today when we are competing against conglomerates with large sums of cash buying up all of the foreclosed homes out there. It is doable, it's just not as easy as it once was.)
Meanwhile, younger people were complaining about putting in to Social Security because, and I know you've heard this, "It won't be there for me when I get older! Why can't I save my own money?"
Well, that's something Bush did try to push through...but, that was knocked down.
Now, we have extremely few people who go through life getting a job and staying with it for umpteen years, and that pension plan of the past? Yah, that doesn't really exist so much anymore. Now we are paying for the retirement of others, and as we can see, that Social Security isn't working out so well. We need to start saving our own money, much more than we ever did in the past. Problem is, far too many people are NOT saving their own money. They have their 401(k)s, and they have a little bit of Social Security. It's not enough, they have to go back to work.
So...what is the root problem here? Again, I'm not an economist, (seriously, it should be very evident), but it seems to me that if we had been allowed to invest in our own retirement, and not someone elses, maybe we would have more in our retirement years. (I say "we", but I'm not retired, not even close to it, I just mean 'we' Americans.)
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 01-11-2014 at 10:22 AM..
The argument was put forth on the first page that Trickle down economics worked, that is why Reagan and Bush were both mentioned.
Also, President Obama did not change tax policies. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect and those tax cuts never worked.
in 8 years of Bush, only 2 years met GDP expectations while none met budget obligations(deficit borrowing instead of surpluses)
"and those tax cuts never worked. "
If you say so!
"In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. "
You forget that the deficit AND debt wwere going down in 2005, 06 and 07.
It assumes wrong. The wealthy just pocket the money. That's why Bush's economy was characterized by stagnant job creation and declining wages. It only looked semi-decent in the middle of the decade because of the massive housing bubble...which eventually nuked the entire economy.
Trickle-down = enormous fail. The rich get a bigger share of the pie and the rest get less. Try to reverse the trend and the Bushbots accuse you of socialism. It's a joke.
Your post is a "fail".
Where do you come up with this stuff?
" Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms. "
Has anyone seen any redistribution of wealth? The 100th of 1% control more than ever before. CEO's have seen several hundred % income increases while the work force has been static for 30 years.
reaganomics has been clearly identified as BAD economics that did nothing good.
The record number of plant closings has increased unemployment and worked to eliminate the middle class. over 7 million middle class jobs went overseas under bush.
If you want us to believe your warped sense of reality, pass the drugs first.
" The 100th of 1% control more than ever before."
I have always question this assertion.
The Biltmore's and Vanderbilts, Rockafeller's etc. come to mind.
"The Progressive Era Part 1: A Better Life for Americans
The late 1800's and early 1900's were a time when America was making its power felt around the
world. At the same time there were many problems causing unhappiness for Americans at home.
People began to look for ways to take care of these problems.
Big Business had become even bigger. Large corporations were making a great deal of money, and some owners and managers became very rich. However, most of the people working in business and industry were not getting rich. Farmers were having trouble. Railroads were charging higher prices to ship their crops to market.
As the farmers tried to produce more crops, they bought new farm machinery and more land. Often
the money they got for their crops was barely enough to pay for the machinery and land. They could
not make a living. Many workers were working in unhealthy places for little pay. Young children worked long hours alongside older workers. Many people lived in overcrowded cities, paying high rent for poor housing."
Wrong again. The wealthy do not just stick money in a pillow case, they invest it and put it to work.
Well, what Obama does is either borrow money from China, which you and I and our children have to pay back, or he takes it from the working people in the form of income taxes, and redistributes our money to people who did not earn it, so they can spend our money instead.
It's theft, it's socialism, and it is a joke like all of modern US progressivism.
"The wealthy do not just stick money in a pillow case,"
Don't blame them. They watched too much Uncle Scrooge and believe he is real.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
