So Manny... why are you so pissed off all the time? Things are actually pretty good.

[MannyGoldstein]

No, they're not. Here's why I'm pissed:

Daily Kos, "Chart of the Day: Median income"



The blue line is *real* median income, after accounting for inflation.

The 1% have been bailed out mightily - they're doing better, far better, than ever before. But the rest of us... let us eat cake.

[BainsBane]

1. Naturally that's all Obama's fault

and nothing to do with the economic direction of the nation over the past several decades.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. First off, where did I say that?

Link or slink.

[BainsBane]

6. You post negative stuff about the administration

all the time.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Where did I say this was all President Obama's fault?

Link or slink.

[BainsBane]

9. Where did I say you said you did?

Two can play the literalism game.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. It's pretty clear you strongly implied it.

I sense that you're slinking.

[BainsBane]

13. Ah, so now we're going with implied

Then that applies to you as well.

[Jakes Progress]

14. Slither off. You lost.

[frazzled]

10. Since the beginning of the chart is 2000 ...

and the big drop happens in Obama-territory, after 2009, when he took office, it's easy to draw that conclusion. Maybe a chart starting, say in 1974 would be more informative?

[BainsBane]

27. Ask and you shall receive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024559558
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024408740

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024408740

[MannyGoldstein]

29. In a total of zero of those, I wrote what you claim

Or implied, then didn't claim, now claim again.

Zero.

[BainsBane]

34. You make a clear link between poverty and the president

but having done a search I do concede that your criticism of the president pales in comparison to your views toward Secretary Clinton.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. It says he bears some responsibility for today's situation.

And that he's suddenly changed course, but not that it's all his fault as you're claiming.

[BainsBane]

42. Three points

Who said things are pretty good, Manny? Link or sink.

As for your above post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4778180

As for the yawn, I agree. Your shtick is getting very old.

[MADem]

54. +7,000,000!

I wish he'd pack up that negative schtick, too all that "No matter what we do, they win" foolishness.

I've had ENOUGH of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. And give up his spot as reigning ...

DU Rec Getter/Eyeball Getter post? No way.

Though WP, gave him a run for his money last month.

[MADem]

153. I take your point!

[treestar]

129. Agreed

The "I never said that" schstick does not apply here and the demand for the link is unreasonable. It's that we understand the schstick. It is from our general familiarity with OP that we know what he intends.

[SunsetDreams]

35. You didn't?

You were not blaming Obama?

We've been hearing for five years that the President is playing a game of 11-dimensional chess which mere mortals don't understand. Meanwhile, the real unemployment rate is staggeringly high and barely budging and more school children are homeless than ever before. Oh, and the wealthy are doing better than ever, and the banks have never been bigger, etc.

It sure seems that way...I could be wrong though. Maybe you can clear it up.

How about that gray area in the chart? Was the recession Obama's fault too?

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Of course the gray area was not his fault. nt

[SunsetDreams]

45. Then what was Manny?

A better question is what could he have done differently to turn all that around in a few short years?

Things could be a hell of a lot better, I know. I am damn sick of going to the grocery store with skyrocketing prices, not to mention getting gas so I can go back and forth to work or wherever it is I need to go. I know things are bad. I'm serious with the question, what could he have done differently realistically with Congress?

[MannyGoldstein]

55. Question: why did SCHIP expansion get through Congress

in early 2009?

Would a vast expansion of Medicaid get through Congress, say, in 2010?

[SunsetDreams]

70. Good question..

Don't you need 60 votes for a majority in the Senate?

Theoretically, a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate is 67 out of 100 senators, while a two-thirds supermajority in the House is 290 out of 435 representatives. However, since few votes take place with every seat in the House filled and representative participating, it does not often require 67 senators or 290 representatives to achieve this supermajority.

Apart from these constitutional requirements, a Senate rule requires a supermajority of three fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate, 60 of the 100 senators if every seat is filled and voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

Party Breakdown
In the 111th Congress, the current party alignments are 261 Democrats in the House of
Representatives (including five Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and 180 Republicans.
The Senate has 57 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, and 41
Republicans.
https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D%0A
Membership of the 111th Congress: A Profile
Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist
December 27, 2010


I realize it says that those two Independents caucus with the Democrats, it doesn't mean they always vote with them or that you can get all 57 Democrats on board and even if you did that is not 60. How many Blue Dogs were there?

It seems to me even in the 2009-2010 Senate, things were not rosy as far as getting a lot of stuff that needed to be done.

[MannyGoldstein]

163. SCHIP expansion added 3 million or so people to Medicaid, IIRC

And passed with bipartisan support.

*I* think it passed with Republican support because it was at the start of Obama's presidency, a time when Republicans were scared. They had just gotten a serious spanking at the polls, and were afraid of what the new President might do to them.

Instead of whuppin' Republicans upside the head to show he was in charge - which is, sadly, the only way to deal with schoolyard bullies - Obama invited them to the White House for beers, listened carefully to their insane ramblings, and started negotiations by meeting them half way.

Republicans quickly learned that Obama was not to be feared, so they ran all over him.

Frankly, we have no way to know whether the country we have today is the country Obama wanted to have or not. But if we assume that he wanted a better outcome for the 99%, then I think the first place he screwed up is by not dealing with Republicans the way they need to be dealt with. Most of today's Republicans are not our friends - they are a pack of wild animals.

There are other issues too - listening to people like Summers instead of Krugman, fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve banker bonuses, mooning FDR Democrats instead of listening to us, etc. These all contributed to where we are today.

[GoneFishin]

167. Spot on Manny. He could have banged heads, but instead tried to make friends with those

assholes. He is still trying, and they will have no part of it, EVER.

He must have a pack of fucking idiots for advisers. I wonder who picked them.

[MADem]

154. Sunset Dreams ASKED YOU A QUESTION. You failed to respond.

Instead, you tried to divert the conversation with another question.

I noticed that. Bet I wasn't the only one.

[Progressive dog]

161. Because SCHIP expansions had already passed twice while GWB was president

and he vetoed it both times. Tobacco taxes were increased to pay for the expansion in 2009. You can't believe that cigarette taxes could fund a large expansion of medicaid or that the Republicans would allow higher taxes on the wealthy.

[Bobbie Jo]

43. Recycled, Repackaged, and Resubmitted

for consumption.

[A Simple Game]

94. Is that always your first response, to blame our President? Shame on you. n/t

[hfojvt]

3. pretty sure the BLUE line is the real income

and the red is the nominal.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. D'oh!

Brain fart, I'll fix.

Thanks!

[frazzled]

4. Yeah, bring back those golden Bush years!

Those were the halcyon days, when there was a pot in every chicken and the streets were paved with gold. I know you miss them. Everything was so perfect until that car salesman Obama came along.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. That's just what I said!

In your imagination.

[frazzled]

12. Then get a chart that doesn't start in 2000

What else is anyone supposed to think?

[MannyGoldstein]

18. OK

[frazzled]

25. Thanks, now get down and dirty with some economic theory

A review of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He's the sort of economic genius of income inequality, which he's been studying for decades, and has a different theory than most economists:

The question is what’s driving the upward trend. Piketty didn’t think that economists’ standard explanations were convincing, largely because they didn’t pay enough attention to capital accumulation—the process of saving, investing, and building wealth which classical economists, such as David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill, had emphasized. Piketty defines capital as any asset that generates a monetary return. It encompasses physical capital, such as real estate and factories; intangible capital, such as brands and patents; and financial assets, such as stocks and bonds. In modern economics, the term “capital” has been purged of its ideological fire and is treated as just another “factor of production,” which, like labor and land, earns a competitive rate of return based upon its productivity. A popular model of economic growth developed by Robert Solow, one of Piketty’s former colleagues at M.I.T., purports to show how the economy progresses along a “balanced growth path,” with the shares of national income received by the owners of capital and labor remaining constant over time. This doesn’t jibe with modern reality. In the United States, for example, the share of income going to wages and other forms of labor compensation dropped from sixty-eight per cent in 1970 to sixty-two per cent in 2010—a decline of close to a trillion dollars.

Piketty believes that the rise in inequality can’t be understood independently of politics. For his new book, he chose a title evoking Marx, but he doesn’t think that capitalism is doomed, or that ever-rising inequality is inevitable. There are circumstances, he concedes, in which incomes can converge and the living standards of the masses can increase steadily—as happened in the so-called Golden Age, from 1945 to 1973. But Piketty argues that this state of affairs, which many of us regard as normal, may well have been a historical exception.

...

Piketty calls the tendency for inequality to rise during periods when the rate of return on capital is higher than the economy’s rate of growth “the central contradiction of capitalism.” Of course, the logic can also run in reverse. If the rate of growth exceeds the rate of return, wages and salaries will grow more rapidly than income from capital, and inequality will fall.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/31/140331crbo_books_cas

[MannyGoldstein]

32. At 11:40 PM?

LOL, my brain cells are too cooked at this point.

Mañana, I'll try to remember!

[MADem]

155. You were able to fling that pile of OP "chart" at 11:19 PM without any trouble.

Your brain cells cook quickly, apparently....

[sabrina 1]

73. 'He has a different theory than most economists'! Lol, I bet he does.

Just read his 'theories'. He has a lot to learn about the past couple of decades. He is puzzled by the 'upward trend'?? Did he ever hear of 'trickle down' economics, a guy called Reagan? Did he miss the Wall St corruption that collapsed the economies of the WORLD?

Does he know that wages have remained stagnant while inflation has sky rocketed?

Where has this guy BEEN?

I'm not surprised you found someone who has a 'different theory than most economists'. Most economists are aware of the reason for the 'upward trend' and didn't miss the Wall St. Corruption that has gone unpunished for years now. The theft of the people's pension funds, remember Enron eg?

This guy needs to talk to some of those economists, or better yet talk to a few of the victims, real people, who have suffered from the corruption, from the takeover of our system by Wall St eg.

Manny's not the ONLY one who is 'pissed'. And for good reason.

[frazzled]

105. You'd better read that article again, and the whole thing

The guy is a Marxist economist, and a socialist, and was the only one who has been looking at income inequality over long terms, historically. For f*%@'s sake: Occupy Wall Street's vocabulary came directly from Piketty (and Saez). Here's an interview with him.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/qa-thomas-piketty-on-the-wealth-divide/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I think you'd better stop trying to embarrass yourself. This is complex, theoretical, mathematical stuff that neither you nor I have the training or minds to fully comprehend. Your derisive dismissal is typical of those who don't even want to try to learn anything, and jump to your first and easiest slogan.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. But clearly the thing started during the Reign of Error

Obama showed up in mid-plummet.

[Progressive dog]

160. So you admit that Bush Co. did drive the economy into

the ditch, but you won't give him credit for getting it out. In fact, it becomes his fault that he didn't get it out and repair it fast enough.

[dionysus]

16. todays episode of "everyone look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!11!!"

[Jakes Progress]

22. Is it nice being sedated?

I don't know what your mass it, but your attitude reflects group think sedation.

[dionysus]

26. that's nice, Jake. nt

[Jakes Progress]

93. Give and get.

[Autumn]

104. A little sedation would help a lot. They can't stand Manny but won't stay out of his threads

now what does that tell you? Attack the poster is all they have, they want Manny gone. Manny makes them very uncomfortable. Manny posts outside their little box. Can't have that now.

[Jakes Progress]

127. Too true.

Any liberal Democrat who is not concerned/angry about the direction the party is going needs to be made uncomfortable.

Too many who claim to be liberal are just too comfortable to worry about those who aren't. Shake 'em up, Manny.

[awoke_in_2003]

164. "They can't stand Manny but won't stay out of his threads"...

that just about sums it up.

[treestar]

92. +1

[Jakes Progress]

132. Another sedated poster

with no argument, no point of view other than to attack the messenger that is making them have to work hard to not think. And all you had to do was put a +1 after a snark. Whoo. Way to not think.

[TBF]

97. You got away with it -

but that doesn't mean you added anything at all to the discussion. Of course this is what folks do when they can't attack the merits - they attack the messenger instead.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

todays episode of "everyone look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!11!!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4778126

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Empty, childish personal attack that adds nothing to the discussion, continuation of a months-long stalking campaign.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:27 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Juvenile.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Uh, no. Valid commentary. Leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have grown weary of empty, childish complaints about personal attacks.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I actually agree with the sentiment, but the expression of it is rude.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DCBob]

165. unbelievable someone would alert on that.

[TBF]

171. I didn't send the alert -

only participated in the jury.

Personal attacks used to be against the rules here because it's a senseless disruption in the flow of conversation (much loved by trolls of course). On DU3 we instead have "community standards" and I think the honest members of DU3 see where that has gotten us.

[Jakes Progress]

17. I would ask why people aren't pissed off.

Of course that's because for them, things are actually pretty good. They got jobs. They got health insurance. They got retirement. They got education.

As for those who don't . . . well, they're just fucked and should realize it. Worrying about other people is foolish and not at all sensible.

[octoberlib]

19. Have you seen this?

The NYT won't let me copy and paste for some reason.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/were-not-no-1-were-not-no-1.html?hp&rref=opinion

[840high]

142. Thank you.

[quinnox]

20. Yep. I think its a case of some Obama hard core supporters thinking these are the best days ever,

living in comfortable suburbia. They have to be, because Obama has been such a great president, right?

They don't see the reality of the situation, things are too rosy from their glasses.

[1000words]

28. I got to believe ...

some are just doing their jobs.

[quinnox]

30. lol, definitely agree, in at least one case

the blue links that go in circles, as a form of "argument".

[jeff47]

31. And many people are wearing pitch-black glasses.

Whatever you do, make sure you ignore any positive developments. Those would get in the way of claiming it's all hero-worship.

[BainsBane]

51. .

[BainsBane]

50. Who said that?

Looks like a case of making shit up to me.

[quinnox]

62. As you are a newbie to Du, you missed the history of this, its a common meme

for certain loyalists to squawk and deny or minimize whenever someone posted bad economic news.

The cognitive dissonance can be profound, because if they admit the bad news, in their minds, they are criticizing and being disloyal to Obama.

[BainsBane]

68. I don't believe that

It depends on how the issue is discussed. A few people are clearly more interested in spreading FUD than talking bout issues, as is evidenced by a refusal to follow up with any substantive discussion. If it's presented as an economic problem to explore, that's another matter.

[Purveyor]

21. thrash this thread is a wonderful feature, indeed.

[Mnpaul]

23. I don't need a chart to see that

All I need to do is look at my wallet. The younger crowd has no idea of what we have lost.

What I could use is a chart that points out where you blamed Obama and thought things were better under Bush.

[NYC_SKP]

24. You want fancy charts? I got yer fancy charts right HERE:

It confirms any suspicion that the middle class has been sinking for some time, virtually all incomes but the few at the very top have been suffering for decades.



http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/Inequality

And, even among that top quintile, only the top tier of earners really made gains:



And that damned one percent"

[Rex]

44. Yeah when we talk about the 1%, we actually mean the 1% of the 1%.

As crazy as that sounds! Nice charts btw.

[jeff47]

33. Yes, it's utterly horrific we haven't reversed 50 years of work in 5 years.

Clearly, we need to spend the next few decades pissing on the Democrats and ignoring anything positive. That'll fix everything!

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. ^^^^THIS.....

NAILED it!

[DCBob]

69. +1

[Fumesucker]

84. Democrats haven't held the Senate, the House or the Presidency for 50 years?

[Ichingcarpenter]

85. People cheer the 'new history'

by making up their own to fit the argument.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

[jeff47]

110. Good job incinerating that strawman!!!

If you were not suffering from cranial-rectal inversion, you'd realize I'm talking about how the Republicans have been working to bring us here since Goldwater lost.

It will take time to undo what they have done in those 50 years.

If you'd prefer, we can spend our time beating up on Carter, Mondale and O'Neil for not sufficiently resisting. Alternatively, we could work on fixing it. The latter option takes time.

[Maedhros]

156. Democrats certainly had a hand it all of that as well.

The trends accelerated during Clinton's terms.

[JoePhilly]

99. So they know why they are pissed ...

... but still haven't figured out who to be pissed at.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Make my cake gluten free

[zappaman]

37. Just saw Bill O'Reilly saying the same thing!

It was on tonight's Colbert Show.
What a coincidence!
Good to know Bills talking point are are DU!
You better believe it!

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Not a coincidence at all.

We both get our talking points from Karl

[quinnox]

52. That's because its all part of the conspiracy

O'Reilly, Manny, and the so-called "progressive" website, Daily KOS, all in on it.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Hey! We weren't supposed to talk about the Kos front group. nt

[quinnox]

64. I let it slip about KOS. It won't happen again, hopefully this thread will sink, and it can remain

top secret.

[SunsetDreams]

63. Daily KOS was not blaming Obama and neither

was Financial adviser Doug Short.

Kos

As can be seen, the trend has been upward since late 2010, 16 months after the National Bureau of Economic Research says the Great Recession ended. In fact, as Short notes, the "latest monthly gain was the second largest of the 170 data points in this series since the turn of the century."

Short

The next chart is my preferred way to show the nominal and real household income—the percent change over time. Essentially I have taken the monthly series for both the nominal and real household incomes and divided them by their respective values at the beginning of 2000. The advantage to this approach is that it clearly quantifies the changes in both series and avoids a common distraction of using dollar amounts ("How does my household stack up?&quot . [...]

The stunning reality illustrated here is that the real median household income series spent most of the first nine years of the 21st century struggling slightly below its purchasing power at the turn of the century. Real incomes (the blue line) hit an interim peak at a fractional 0.7% in early 2008, far below the nominal illusionary peak (as in money illusion) of 27.2% six months later and now at 30.3%, an all-time high. In contrast, the real recovery from the trough has been depressingly slight, although at first blush the latest monthly data, as I mentioned above, is the second largest of the century so far.

Kos

Just one more example of how the guys who wrecked the economy keep taking their toll on the rest of us.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/01/1288929/-Chart-s-of-the-Day-Median-income

Surely you don't think they mean Obama do you?

[quinnox]

67. And neither was Manny in the OP, despite the Fox news style spin efforts

[SunsetDreams]

75. I agree that he did not specifically say

that in this OP.

[Autumn]

116. See post 81, it makes it all clear as glass .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024778085#post81

I have seen the term "ratfucker" often used here on DU but I have never seen an explanation, till now.

[randome]

117. Look, Manny frequently calls out the President for things many of us don't see as his fault.

Now he makes a sly reference to that by referring to his own 'pissed off' nature, thereby linking his previous posts criticizing the President to this one.

We don't need to hear about Manny or about his 'pissed off' moods or whatever. Information is all we need, not personalities.

(No offense, Manny.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

123. Some of us get Manny's satire obviously some don't.

And just so we are clear, what information have you posted in this thread on this important issue other than Manny sucks?

Try this link and discuss it there "if" you need information you can process since you don't like Manny's personality. No one forces you people to come into Manny's threads and read about how he feels and his opinion on things. Skinner is a big advocate of using ignore to make DU a pleasant experience. Try it, it will make things pleasant for more than just you, it will help us all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024778085

[zappaman]

169. Nah.

I just thought it was great minds thinking alike.

[DCBob]

38. The real question is..

Why you're pissiness is misdirected towards those who are actually on you're side.

[quinnox]

41. I forgot, recommended, just in case there are some keeping score out there

And you can quote me on that.

[brooklynite]

47. BTW - how's the "Warren 2016" campaign coming along?

I'm meeting with "Ready for Hillary" on Monday. Anything I should be worried about?

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Let's see.. Warren's autobiography is coming out this month,

She's polling wonderfully:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024774793

and hasn't done a multimillion dollar victory lap on Wall Street.

All-in-all, things are falliing into place.

[brooklynite]

53. To bad about that "doesn't want to run and supporting Hillary" thing...

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Hillary's said repeatedly that she's not running.

Warren supports a Hillary candidacy? Link or slink.

[joshcryer]

59. Hillary Clinton says she will decide in 2014

[Enthusiast]

95. Hopefully she will decide not to run.

[randome]

109. Here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

But again, why are we talking about this when our common enemy is the GOP?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

57. Would Warren be able to win after Oligarch United?

[MannyGoldstein]

58. As long as the vote is reasonably fair.

High signal overcomes high noise.

[joshcryer]

65. Obama had to spend a billion dollars.

The next candidate might have to come up with twice that.

How would we reconcile Warren doing this as economic stratification is so high and she would have to invariably get donor money from the new oligarchs? I suppose we could accept it since she's no more liberal than Tom Udall...

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Nah, she's at least as inevitable™ as last time!

Remember how inevitable™ Hillary was in 2008?

[joshcryer]

66. Yes she is!

[PoliticAverse]

71. She's now even inevitabler. n/t

[Fumesucker]

86. Open the pod bay doors, Hal

[Live and Learn]

83. Yikes, are we already starting the infighting on 2016?

I don't understand why anyone would attack Warren for this thread which if I understand Manny's point correctly is that the richer are still getting richer and it needs to stop. I believe both Clinton and Warren are aware of that and wish to do something about it.

Warren has been most the most active in that cause and certainly doesn't deserve the snide remarks posted here (and neither does Manny) just because you support Hillary in a future campaign that wasn't the subject of this post.

[Fumesucker]

87. Already?

The infighting over 2016 has been going on for months if not years now..

[Live and Learn]

88. Not to this point from what I have seen.

Bringing it in on a totally unrelated post is unwarranted. If you want to argue about 2016 potential (declared or not) candidates, then it should be a separate post so that those of us not wanting to see such disparaging comments yet, can ignore it.

[sendero]

103. Warren?...

... yes I believe she wants to help. Clinton? Her husband is as culpable for this mess as anyone and I've never seen any indication she cares at all.

[blue14u]

162. You and the Ready for Hillary

should be worried about EVERYTHING!!!!

[Vashta Nerada]

72. My median income is $40,000 less than the current median income.

[BainsBane]

76. That number is for a family of four

[progree]

80. I think it is all households regardless of whether 1 person or a dozen or more

I know I don't have a link, just something I read, I think from State Of Working America (and that source could be wrong). But anyway they say conceptually it is lining up the households sorted from the lowest household income to the highest household income, and then the one right in the middle of this is the median. (In actuality, it is produced by a survey of a sample which aims to produce the same result)

Consequences are that as the number of single person households has grown over the past several decades, that has exerted a downward force on both the median and the average household income.

Another consequence is that during worsening economic times, there is less household formation and increasing average household size, thus tending to increase the number of working age people per household (which would tend to increase median and average household income except that unemployment also goes up in bad economic times).

And the reverse effects occur during improving economic times (such as the last 4 years): less unemployment (good for average and median household income) but more household formation and decreasing household sizes (exerting downward pressure on average and median household income).

I did Google this and the source of the statistic is the Census Bureau, but it would take hours to find the page that explains the methodology.

Maybe somebody will provide the link, I sure could use it because some day I hope to add an incomes section to my economic pages (see my signature line).

Anyway, I tend not to think too much of household median income because it is distorted by changes in household sizes.

[blkmusclmachine]

74. MUST.

LOOK.


FORWARD.

[tclambert]

77. Dammit! Now I'm hungry for cake.

Maybe I should indulge that craving before it gets to the point only the 1% can afford cake.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

78. I don't mind you being pissed, Manny.

I mind when you mindlessly attack Democrats.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. I wasn't intensely happy with the Bush years either, or the GOP refusing to do anything in the House.

[WillyT]

79. So... We're Reduced To This Now, Eh ???

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4777820

[BrotherIvan]

81. All this defense is fucking PATHETIC

No one has anything to say about how we--AS DEMOCRATS--plan to fix this? How we want the candidates WE SUPPORT (as we GOTV 2014) to address this problem? All the people with their GOTV cheery gifs on this fucking thread think the most important thing IN ALL THE UNIVERSE is that they must DEFEND OBAMA who isn't even mentioned in this post, and is NOT RUNNING????

Thereby, revealing the ratfucker agenda of taking all energy out of any discussion of making this country better for the lower and middle classes.

What do they really care about? It is as plain as fucking day all over this thread.

[Ichingcarpenter]

82. "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

the phrase is often used to refer to those who deal with impropriety by turning a blind eye.

“For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”

- Niccolo Machiavelli



“People convince themselves of their own lies, becoming victims of their own inventions as they begin to direct their lives by standards of behavior, ideas, feelings, or instincts which do not correspond to their inner reality. What is truly serious in this matter is that the individual loses all points of reference regarding what comprises truth, and what comprises lies. He becomes used to considering as true only that which is convenient for his personal interests; everything that is in opposition to his self-esteem or in conflict with already established prejudices, he considers false.”

- John Baines


“An Ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what is. To have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin not to live an ideal life but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform them.”

- J. Krishnamurti



“Cowardice asks the question: “Is it safe”?
 Expediency asks the question: “Is it politic”?
 Vanity asks the question: “Is it popular?”
But conscience asks the question: “Is it right?”
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular
but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one what is right.”

- Martin Luther King, Jr.



?w=490

[BrotherIvan]

159. All excellent & food for thought

Looking over this thread, I still cannot believe the sheer madness going on here. To the point of even trying to say those stats are lies concocted to make Obama look bad? Really? Millions of people suffering mean far less than defending "the most powerful man in the world"? Really.

What goes on in the BOG should stay in the BOG. It's just insufferable. Fuck me.

[treestar]

91. The Democrats would have a plan

But the voters continue to elect Republicans.

[Autumn]

111. BrotherIvan you are wise indeed.

You win the thread.

[randome]

89. So Manny...why do so many of your threads talk about you?

And then end up causing divisiveness? It can't be everyone else's fault, can it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

90. +1

[MannyGoldstein]

102. As to divisiveness...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

People either resolve their beliefs or get angry.

As to your first question... only a small percentage, I think.

[randome]

108. Our common enemy is the GOP. For some reason, you want it to be the President.

The level of divisiveness would go down if we focussed on the things that unite us and not those that divide us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

112. You shouldn't make it about Obama then, the OP is about inequality.

From the article,

"But there is a big difference between nominal dollars (the red line) and real dollars (the blue line), that is, inflation-adjusted dollars. We all know from personal experience that a 2001 dollar is not worth the same as a 2014 dollar. There's considerable dispute over exactly how inflation should be calculated, but even using the Consumer Price Index, which some critics say underestimates the true inflationary increase, the damage can be seen. Median annual inflation-adjusted income is 6.8 percent lower—about $3,892—than it was in January 2008. Not chicken feed unless you're a one-percenter.

We know why. Fewer people are working. On average, those who are working, even if they are employed at quite similar jobs as they were before the recession clobbered them, are getting paid less. (Their benefits are lower, too, but that's a chart for another day.)"

Try reading this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024778085#post81

[randome]

113. I was going by all the side-threads about Obama, Clinton and Warren.

As if the President can simply dictate the state of the economy.

There's no dispute that things need to change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

114. The OP isn't about Clinton or Warren either.

Damn right things need to change. No one is saying that the President can simply dictate the state of the economy, I think we are all smart enough to realize that.

[Enthusiast]

96. Kicked and Recommended!

[MineralMan]

98. I don't really think anyone wonders why you are so pissed off all the time.

You tell us frequently, so we already know.

[LordGlenconner]

144. But is it Manny who is pissed off or the character he plays on the internet?

I have a feeling these are two separate beings.

[randome]

145. It's Mirror-Manny! New and improved!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747008#post120
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

146. I have no idea. We don't really know anything

about the person with that screen name. All we have are that screen name's posts. Do they reflect that person's real beliefs?

Who knows?

[Autumn]

173. Same with anyone. Words posted on a screen. Here at DU and elsewhere.

Do they reflect that person's real beliefs?

Who knows?

[ProSense]

100. You're "pissed off all the time"

because...

...median income is up, but it's still not up to where it was at its peak in January 2008

As can be seen, the trend has been upward since late 2010, 16 months after the National Bureau of Economic Research says the Great Recession ended. In fact, as Short notes, the "latest monthly gain was the second largest of the 170 data points in this series since the turn of the century."

That's from the thread you linked to.

IOW, progress is being madem, albeit slow, to reverse the declines of the recession. After decades of decline, the "latest monthly gain was the second largest of the 170 data points in this series since the turn of the century."

What's weird is that this thread has more rec's than the thread you cited.

[Autumn]

107. Strange, more responses too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. According to Bernie Sanders....

we HAVE made progress...

Why are you calling Bernie Sanders a liar? What have you got against Bernie?

[MannyGoldstein]

106. Where did I say that we haven't made any progress?

We haven't made *much* progress. But the 1% sure has. Huge, huge progress.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. Then why do you continuously BASH the party that HAS given us progress?

According to Bernie we have progress that we MUST defend....why are you against Bernie?

What have Republicans done FOR YOU lately Manny?

[Fumesucker]

119. Because they are giving a small number of those who already have far more of the pie

Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own

Yes, the strong gets more
While the weak ones fade
Empty pockets don't ever make the grade
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own

Money, you've got lots of friends
Crowding round the door
When you're gone, spending ends
They don't come no more
Rich relations give
Crust of bread and such
You can help yourself
But don't take too much
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own

Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own
He just worry 'bout nothin'
Cause he's got his own

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. My Grandmother who VOTED for FDR told me ALL Boats rise under Democrats....ONLY

the Wealthy do under Republicans....

Do try to keep up....

[Fumesucker]

121. That hasn't been adequately the case for the last thirty plus years unfortunately

Not nearly.

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. Oh really?

want to bet?



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/why_elections_matter_in_one_gr.html

[Fumesucker]

124. Evidently everything is peachy in your neighborhood

How nice for you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. I did not say that....but FACTS don't lie...

see previous post editted...

[Fumesucker]

128. I love your Sgt Friday impression, it's fabulous

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. What do you have against facts SIR?

Do they get in the way of a bullshit narrative?

[Fumesucker]

139. Pure projection

Somehow I'm reminded of the Dubya worshiping Bushistas I used to argue with back in the days of the Cheney Regency.

[BrotherIvan]

140. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

How I finally understood, in pictures. I never really understood the 23%ers before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110223006

They must have installed the same bat signal as the gunners because their response time and endurance is getting faster, better, stronger. Maybe it's a special google alert, but damn, a Manny thread is like a code red.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. Projection? Where are YOUR facts...

what do YOU have to prove what YOU said ....

YOU got nothing....therefore bullshit narrative...

According to Ezra Klein:

The graph shows that, except for the top 5 percent, everyone's income grows more under Democrats than Republicans, and the poor and middle class do much better. Even the top earners do almost as well under Democrats as Republicans.

One might consider this an anomaly or statistical fluke, but it has proved to be consistent at least since the end of World War II, spanning five Democratic and six Republican presidents.

EXACTLY as I said it did....

It's a FACT Jack!

[Autumn]

131. I always loved Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

The Neighborhood of Make-Believe, it really was a wonderful place.

"You always make each day a special day. You know how: By just your being you/yourself. There's only one person in the (whole) world

that's like you, and that's you. And people can like you just/exactly the way you are." "I'll be back next time. Bye-bye!"

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. You are defending the make believe....FACTS are ALL Boats rise under Democrats...

or are you calling Ezra Klein a liar too?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/why_elections_matter_in_one_gr.html

[Autumn]

135. WRONG Sir, I am defending and promoting Mr. Rogers.

A wonderful man and a true hero. I don't know what you are going on about and neither do I care to decipher it. Good Day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. I am not a Sir...

and then why are you in this conversation?

[Autumn]

138. Because I adore and so enjoy talking to Fumesucker. Why are you in this conversation?

I certainly did not address you, you chose to address me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

148. I am trying to make a point....

I have no idea what you are doing....

[Autumn]

149. I have no interest in any point you are attempting to make. My post was

to Fumesucker. You have no reason to attack me for my friendly post to another DUer....

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. Of course you don't....BECAUSE its the very fact you want to ignore...

The graph shows that, except for the top 5 percent, everyone's income grows more under Democrats than Republicans, and the poor and middle class do much better. Even the top earners do almost as well under Democrats as Republicans.

One might consider this an anomaly or statistical fluke, but it has proved to be consistent at least since the end of World War II, spanning five Democratic and six Republican presidents.

http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/economy_better_under_democrats/economy_does_better_under_democrats.html

[Autumn]

152. Not interested. Here is a post you may like

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024779766

namaste

[VanillaRhapsody]

176. Good comeback when you have something to add....

[MannyGoldstein]

170. That's not 30 or so years

That chart also includes decades of two-fisted Democrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

172. FACTS are facts Manny...

Everyone does better under Democrats....ALWAYS have all the way back to FDR!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/02/the-u-s-economy-does-better-under-democratic-presidents-is-it-just-luck/?tid=up_next



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2008/09/politicians_lie_numbers_dont.html

Here’s an interesting calculation: Suppose that in 1929, you put $100,000 in a 401(k) fully invested in stocks. Under the 40 years of Republican presidents, you would have ended up with only $126,000. Under the Democrats, you would have amassed a retirement nest egg of $3.9 million!

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/01/3497904/democrats-produce-the-better-economic.html#storylink=cpy

Speaking of income inequality, the gap between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent widened 20 percent in the 40 years Republicans ran the Oval Office. In the Democratic presidential years, it narrowed 16 percent.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/01/3497904/democrats-produce-the-better-economic.html#storylink=cpy


So you are full of MALARKEY! and Grandmom was SPOT ON!

[MannyGoldstein]

174. Are you real? Or performance art?

You continue to avoid addressing Fumesucker's contention.

[VanillaRhapsody]

175. Uh you would be the "performance art" in this situation....

EVERYONE does better under Democrats...as told to me by my Grandmother who was a lifelong FDR Democrat. And my Grandfather who was in the Civilan Conservation Corps. the CCC's

And I have PROVEN their contentions to be true...with those pretty graphs and statements...

Denial is not a river in Egypt. You can have your own opinions...but NOT your own facts.

How one can call themselves a "Democrat" and disagree with this contention is beyond me...

[snooper2]

115. there are good things you can do to yourself

but I don't think talking is one of them

[polichick]

126. Excuses like the ones on this thread is how it happened.

[BainsBane]

134. That's your economic analysis?

Not union busting, deindustrialization, and outsourcing?

[polichick]

137. Where did I say it was an "economic analysis?"

I simply commented on how it was allowed to happen.

Keep making those excuses though - Viva Third Way!

[840high]

143. I'm pissed - k/r

[CJCRANE]

151. The global economy imploded in 2008.

I think that's what some of these threads about this topic are missing.

Things have improved since then but would have improved even more, if not for those people who cannot be blamed in a Manny OP...you know...Republicans.

[reformist2]

157. Yes, and Dems are pretending like we're actually recovering from it.

[CJCRANE]

158. The bottom of the nosedive was in 2010 and we are now recovering from it.

If you take over a plane in mid-dive you have to slow the dive first, then pull even, then pull up.

The nose-dive started in 2008 but the old pilots refused to help pull out of it.

[IronLionZion]

166. Are you going to channel your anger into get out the vote efforts? nt

[steve2470]

168. excellent point ! nt

[Laelth]

177. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth