General Discussion

okaawhatever

(9,565 posts)

65. I'm not referring to anything other than cold numbers and how wealth is calculated by the BLS.

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 06:51 PM

Apr 2015

Mine isn't a statement on the very large problem of wealth inequality. I was only disputing that wealth inequality had grown or shrank as the sole result of the sitting President.
There are many factors and certainly a President's policies and Congress' laws affect that, (such as Clinton & Obama increasing taxes on the wealthy & Bush cutting them for the same group.). I was cautioning that when one discusses wealth the top 10% derive the majority of their wealth from stocks, etc. As a result, when the stock market increases or decreases their welath is greatly affected. If one attributed those swings solely to the sitting President then we would have to say that Bush Jr. decreased wealth inequality in this country (due to the dot com bust that happened shortly after he took office) and Clinton & Obama increased it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Paul Krugman nails it: Why we're on DEMOCRATIC Underground [View all] Faygo Kid Apr 2015 OP

Short and sweet! kr OffWithTheirHeads Apr 2015 #1

I Agree But... billhicks76 Apr 2015 #108

good analisys. OffWithTheirHeads Apr 2015 #127

"May the best party win", indeed. n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2015 #2

The Parties may indeed differ in their character and rhetoric. Maedhros Apr 2015 #3

The same policies do not march forward. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #4

Ditto! Iliyah Apr 2015 #17

What do you mean 'you could ask everyone who died in Iraq'? Aside from the fact that over one sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #80

It was so obvious he was lying Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #115

They don't think about important issues like that and the Environment.. just knee jerk reaction Cha Apr 2015 #94

Social policy differences are indeed stark, yet fiscal policy differences, not so much. Dustlawyer Apr 2015 #122

Have you seen the Paul Ryan and Rand Paul budgets? geek tragedy Apr 2015 #123

I should have been more specific. You are correct as far as that is concerned. I was thinking how Dustlawyer Apr 2015 #124

That is a troublesome area. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #125

What rot. riqster Apr 2015 #6

Krugman knows this as well as anyone - he has written about it extensively: Maedhros Apr 2015 #8

Really? riqster Apr 2015 #9

As I wrote in my first post, there ARE differences. Maedhros Apr 2015 #12

No, they aren't. riqster Apr 2015 #24

Elective wars? The same. Repressive trade agreements? The same. Maedhros Apr 2015 #39

"Same"? riqster Apr 2015 #51

Yes. There are differences. bvar22 Apr 2015 #55

And LGBT rights have expanded dramatically. riqster Apr 2015 #59

You deserve a freaking medal for even trying with that crowd. Number23 Apr 2015 #117

I had some free time yesterday. riqster Apr 2015 #119

Agree - keep up this argument. There's something going on in the counter-arguments. erronis Apr 2015 #42

Indeed. One wonders why some people here want our candidates to LOSE. riqster Apr 2015 #52

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ Tarheel_Dem Apr 2015 #90

Yep! Not much difference at all between McCain & Obama! Just tiny differences. 7962 Apr 2015 #27

Boggles the mind, it does. riqster Apr 2015 #29

Their heads have been notoriously buried in the sand for 7 years now. You'd think they come up for Cha Apr 2015 #96

And the USA's economy is better off during a Democratic Administration is a myth Iliyah Apr 2015 #33

Yep. The absence of perfection is proof of equivalence, to the Pony Platoon. riqster Apr 2015 #36

The RWers say it all the time, it must be true... Blanks Apr 2015 #41

The reason it took off under Clinton is because of gains in the stock market. The wealthy have okaawhatever Apr 2015 #14

No misinformation. Maedhros Apr 2015 #18

No, that is exactly misinformation. You claimed it was because of Presidential policies. It is okaawhatever Apr 2015 #23

You are correct. Its like gas prices 7962 Apr 2015 #30

Absolutely. He did help some with prices though. I don't know if you remember the outrage over Obama okaawhatever Apr 2015 #38

Government policies, not simply Presidential ones. Maedhros Apr 2015 #32

Yes, thank you for posting that. nt okaawhatever Apr 2015 #132

Actually THAT is the misinformation.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #37

No. I am correct, and I have a Nobel prize winning economist who backs it up. I didn't say "what's okaawhatever Apr 2015 #40

I'm old enough to remember when they counted how much the working class had in savings. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #43

They still do.. nt okaawhatever Apr 2015 #44

Maybe on CNBC as an "employees are overpaid" story. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #48

I'm not referring to anything other than cold numbers and how wealth is calculated by the BLS. okaawhatever Apr 2015 #65

We've been letting the rich define a good economy since Reagan. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #101

Krugman has a Nobel Prize Maedhros Apr 2015 #70

Um, the dot.com bubble started bursting in 2000 Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #126

During Clinton's administration wages rose after falling under Reagan and Bush I, then pampango Apr 2015 #97

I was referring to wealth inequality, not income inequality. Wealth inequality fluctuates more with okaawhatever Apr 2015 #134

Trickle down econ still with us ErikJ Apr 2015 #7

Elect more dems. riqster Apr 2015 #10

yup, but ErikJ Apr 2015 #15

S'truth. riqster Apr 2015 #25

And here I thought that warm stream was due to my ageing. Eleanors38 Apr 2015 #11

You must be thinking about tinkle-down economics. Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2015 #13

u-rine the right territory. Eleanors38 Apr 2015 #20

great heaven05 Apr 2015 #22

It's true that America's business corporations have too much say in running the country and Cal33 Apr 2015 #49

Agreed. Maedhros Apr 2015 #50

I believe things have changed quite a bit in this respect. For example, Democratic politicians Cal33 Apr 2015 #62

Do you have some examples of the 'progressive projects'? Maedhros Apr 2015 #64

I've read similar articles, but can't remember where I read them. This morning something not Cal33 Apr 2015 #137

Bullshit tabasco Apr 2015 #73

Politicians? nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #77

Parties. aquart Apr 2015 #113

Hey - at least I presented some evidence for my position, Maedhros Apr 2015 #130

Yep Omaha Steve Apr 2015 #5

Krugman turbinetree Apr 2015 #16

He sure does - no more Naders! MaggieD Apr 2015 #19

Then push for passage of Instant Runoff Voting rules then... cascadiance Apr 2015 #26

That won't solve the problem.... MaggieD Apr 2015 #35

In a democracy, "reality" can be changed for the better... cascadiance Apr 2015 #45

Nader is dead to me, sorry MaggieD Apr 2015 #54

You're blaming the wrong person. bvar22 Apr 2015 #56

No I'm not blaming the wrong person MaggieD Apr 2015 #60

When the two party system has been corrupted by money and special interest influence,... cascadiance Apr 2015 #68

You don't change it by making it easy for the republican to win.... MaggieD Apr 2015 #72

That's why IRV would be the solution to work on... cascadiance Apr 2015 #78

But third parties aren't careful MaggieD Apr 2015 #82

You are insulting Bernie Sanders when you say that. cascadiance Apr 2015 #83

Maybe Bernie isn't an egomaniac -we will see MaggieD Apr 2015 #86

Nader-blaming is the last refuge of the incompetent. [n/t] Maedhros Apr 2015 #76

If you blame Nader instead of wanting something like IRV in place... cascadiance Apr 2015 #81

Or we can just face reality MaggieD Apr 2015 #89

Two different issues... cascadiance Apr 2015 #93

That's hyperbole in the extreme MaggieD Apr 2015 #95

I guess we're more screwed up than Australia... They at least have IRV... cascadiance Apr 2015 #105

Your statement has no rational basis (nt) MaggieD Apr 2015 #87

it's fucking lazy. 200,000+ registered dems CONSCIOUSLY voted for Bush in FL.. frylock Apr 2015 #128

Anyone who really thinks that Nader is responsible for Gore's loss Maedhros Apr 2015 #131

PIcking (or being forced to pick Lieberman) as his running mate... bvar22 Apr 2015 #135

I guess you think we just have to live with Citizen's United and just accept corporate personhood... cascadiance Apr 2015 #66

Yes, that's probably a reality.... MaggieD Apr 2015 #69

So your solution is that the people who disagree with you should agree with you. Marr Apr 2015 #57

I think people should live in reality instead of fantasy land MaggieD Apr 2015 #58

Nader did not hand the White House to Bush. Marr Apr 2015 #63

Nader absolutely did MaggieD Apr 2015 #67

You excuse conservative Dems, but condemn liberals. Marr Apr 2015 #75

I blame Nader and the politically naive MaggieD Apr 2015 #79

"Swing voters" is just a label. Marr Apr 2015 #84

It only seems "odd" to you.... MaggieD Apr 2015 #85

You have a weird Nader fixation. Marr Apr 2015 #88

Never said you voted for him MaggieD Apr 2015 #92

Well, here's the thing, since we're just laying reality on each other. Marr Apr 2015 #100

Oh that's not true MaggieD Apr 2015 #103

Why don't you give us a specific example... cascadiance Apr 2015 #106

I got s million for you... MaggieD Apr 2015 #112

Screaming leftists harm Democrats, but screaming tea-partyers helped JDPriestly Apr 2015 #116

Screaming doesn't get you anywhere with rational people MaggieD Apr 2015 #118

Sometimes corporatist control that SHUTS OUT compromise with "the left" NEEDS screaming at! cascadiance Apr 2015 #120

you can't even deal with reality while you lecture others on it.. frylock Apr 2015 #129

Rand2016 ops have been peddling the 'no difference' meme on Dem sites blm Apr 2015 #21

Yeah,...like every video on YouTube having, "Ron Paul 08!!!" in the comments. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #46

Those "RON PAUL 2008/12" comments drove me nuts. Jamaal510 Apr 2015 #61

It was like "freeping" polls. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #102

Oh, yeah! n/t freshwest Apr 2015 #104

One thing he doesn't mention is the down ticket races. totodeinhere Apr 2015 #28

I already figured the House would launch impeachment hearings on day one. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #47

I'm sure some wanted to, but wiser heads prevailed. 7962 Apr 2015 #53

Republicans are tone deaf to the general public.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #98

Here Here! And points for Faulkner! nolabear Apr 2015 #31

K&R marym625 Apr 2015 #34

Exactly. DCBob Apr 2015 #71

Kick & recommended. William769 Apr 2015 #74

"the differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it�s hard to see how anyone who Cha Apr 2015 #91

uh-oh, he's bringing criteria into the mix again MisterP Apr 2015 #99

When we get to the Dem Candidates Debates fadedrose Apr 2015 #107

Wouldn't that be heaven!? Cha Apr 2015 #109

"I work for the 1%. Trust me." blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #110

URL: http://www.avantetech.com/uploads/images/products/voting-election-systems/small-dre1.jpg blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #111

The next election will hinge on voter intimidated and election fraud, which is why the DOJ McCamy Taylor Apr 2015 #114

I know the differences between the two parties, but Hotler Apr 2015 #121

but Krugman's point is that there's no Democrats close to Wall Street and big money MisterP Apr 2015 #136

K & R Surya Gayatri Apr 2015 #133