1. Your fight against the pie is bad sophistry. At any given point in time, there exists an aggregate amount of goods and services, denominated in dollars here in the US, that is given the designation "income" because it is tracked as it flows to individuals and entities. When you argue that the pie doesn't exist, you are arguing that we can't add up total amount of income in the country. Yes, that is really your argument. I call it bad sophistry because you continually fixate on the words used instead of the ideas behind them.
You claimed that no group can take a share of the national income. Yet, you used the designation "the rich" in the sentences preceding this claim. You don't get to have it both ways. It's clear that you understand, and share, the commonly accepted delineations of American society. It's also clear that you're attempting to obscure those delineations by trying to obscure their common meanings in order to advance your arguments. Essentially, your argument is that America consists of atomized individuals, each pursuing his or her own maximal economic gain. Thatcher was wrong when she said it and so are you.
2. Your definition of income mentioned what one produces. In plain English, that means labor. Labor can be mental or physical, so your asides about coal miners and software engineers are pointless. Your definition did not include investment income. Go back and read it. You may have meant something else, but that is not what you wrote.
3. Reagan was elected in an electoral vote landslide, not a popular vote landslide. Clinton was re-elected in a three-way race while taking less than half of the popular vote. Gore squeaked out a victory in the popular vote.
If you're going to quote me, read what I actually wrote. You emphasize Reagan and Clinton, yet you ignore the cases that disprove your point. If your assertion can't withstand the slightest bit of contrary evidence, it's false.
4. Yeesh. Seriously, you're going to rehash what I wrote with an emphasis on the part that makes your arguments look better? How about you account the ever-increasing financialization of the economy? Maybe quantify that bald assertion on the "massive" contributions from increased productivity? You didn't make an argument, you tried to piggyback off mine.
= new reply since forum marked as read