Great viewpoint on the 1%.

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Buffoon...

1) 99% of the wealth of this country is NOT in the hands of the top 1%
2) The top 1% in 1996 saw 57% of its members change by 2005... that is NOT an aristocracy
3) Try reading all of my posts, as you would see I addressed the legitimate points made by Oncelor.... when you decide to start actually posting your own thoughts rather than some bullshit nonsense you found on an ultra left wing trash site, then perhaps people will stop mocking your ignorance.


I don't consider what you call a 'mock' to be an insult. Coming from you it is a compliment and verification that I am not a pea brain like you.

Irony abounds...LOL. Maybe IF YOU HAD READ my post, you would know the context of my comment to WB. Whether 99% of the wealth of this country in the hands of the top 1% is irrelevant, because my criticism was based on HIS acceptance of that as fact, and HIS lack of concern that it would signify an aristocracy.

Keep trying pea brain, I always enjoy watching children play.
 
Yes, it was all liberal policies like the New Deal. No WAY did it have anything to do with the fact that all of our major competition was pounded into the ground during WWII. No WAY should we look at the fact that those SAME liberal policies existed from 1966 to 1982 when we had a very stagnant economy (once our competitors were able to actually.... COMPETE with us again). Nope... all New Deal... just ignore the 12 year DEPRESSION. That doesn't count.

If only you could go back and convince Hirohito to attack Pearl Harbor 10 years sooner you wouldn't be a pea brain. But you can't, so you are...LOL

Depression-GDP-output-1.gif
 
I don't consider what you call a 'mock' to be an insult. Coming from you it is a compliment and verification that I am not a pea brain like you.

Irony abounds...LOL. Maybe IF YOU HAD READ my post, you would know the context of my comment to WB. Whether 99% of the wealth of this country in the hands of the top 1% is irrelevant, because my criticism was based on HIS acceptance of that as fact, and HIS lack of concern that it would signify an aristocracy.

Keep trying pea brain, I always enjoy watching children play.

And had you read his posts you would know that the top 1% do not have 99% of the wealth in this nation. It's a simple "non-factual" statement. (In the past we would call those lies). And as an adult you shouldn't be at the park watching other people's children playing.
 
And had you read his posts you would know that the top 1% do not have 99% of the wealth in this nation. It's a simple "non-factual" statement. (In the past we would call those lies). And as an adult you shouldn't be at the park watching other people's children playing.

Tell that to Winterborn. Because MY comment was in the context of HIM accepting that as fact. Are adult things like 'context' too complicated for you to comprehend?
 
WTF are you rambling about now? What is it you think that chart displays?

The chart displays that the New Deal increased GDP BEFORE WWII.

So your ignorant and sarcastic comment is actually true:

"No WAY did it have anything to do with the fact that all of our major competition was pounded into the ground during WWII."
Quoted by Superfreak
 
Mott we didn't trade much with china in the 80's. The liberals wouldn't have it based on human rights issues. I'm not up on when that went away, kina assumed Clinton.
You're missing my point. Wages in the US had stagnated for nearly 30 years prior to any trade agreemens with China and still are fairly stagnant. In fast, they've gone down. Household median income, when adjusted for inflation, have not risen since 1975. When you factor that most households in 1975 had a single earner and that most households now have two, in terms of real wages, they have gone down significantly and that has happened long before any trade agreements with China.
 
The chart displays that the New Deal increased GDP BEFORE WWII.

So your ignorant and sarcastic comment is actually true:

"No WAY did it have anything to do with the fact that all of our major competition was pounded into the ground during WWII."
Quoted by Superfreak

1) You are pretending that it was the New Deal that caused GDP to go up
2) You stated that it created the greatest growth period in our history (referring to GDP) that period you are referring to came AFTER WWII. The fact that GDP growth bounced back after the worst of the depression doesn't change that time frame. You also ignore the fact that what I stated is absolutely correct.
 
You're missing my point. Wages in the US had stagnated for nearly 30 years prior to any trade agreemens with China and still are fairly stagnant. In fast, they've gone down. Household median income, when adjusted for inflation, have not risen since 1975. When you factor that most households in 1975 had a single earner and that most households now have two, in terms of real wages, they have gone down significantly and that has happened long before any trade agreements with China.

link
 
8 percent are millionaires not 1 percent.

Mott it matters because the real stagnation happened after outsourcing to china.
 
My post was not about accepting or not accepting that 1% of the population are millionaires. Perhaps rereading my post and trying to comprehend it would be the first step for you?

I knew taking Bfoon off ignore was a mistake.
 
1) You are pretending that it was the New Deal that caused GDP to go up
2) You stated that it created the greatest growth period in our history (referring to GDP) that period you are referring to came AFTER WWII. The fact that GDP growth bounced back after the worst of the depression doesn't change that time frame. You also ignore the fact that what I stated is absolutely correct.

I understand. Your regressive right wing austerity/liquidation' religion forbids you from accepting any FACTS that don't support your hyper-partisan hackery.

The greatest yearly increase in GDP occurred during the New Deal. The GDP growth leveled off after WWII.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9

1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7

1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5
<-----FDR dies.
1946 -0.4
1947 9.8
1948 10.3

1949 -0.7
1950 9.9
1951 15.5
1952 5.6
1953 5.9
1954 0.3
1955 9.0
1956 5.5
1957 5.4
1958 1.3
1959 8.4
1960 3.9
1961 3.5
1962 7.5
1963 5.5
1964 7.4
1965 8.4
1966 9.5
1967 5.7
1968 9.3
1969 8.2
1970 5.5
1971 8.5
1972 9.9
1973 11.7
1974 8.5
1975 9.2
1976 11.4
1977 11.3
1978 13.0
1979 11.7
1980 8.8
1981 12.1
1982 4.0
1983 8.7
1984 11.2
1985 7.3
1986 5.8
1987 6.2
1988 7.7
1989 7.5
1990 5.8
1991 3.3
1992 5.8
1993 5.1
1994 6.3
1995 4.7
1996 5.7
1997 6.3
1998 5.5
1999 6.4
2000 6.4
2001 3.4
2002 3.5
2003 4.7
2004 6.4
2005 6.5
2006 6.0
2007 4.9
2008 1.9

2009 -2.5
2010 4.2


FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

real_gdp_growth.80133152_std.JPG


AND, the largest drop in unemployment in America history.

Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010206/forgotten-math-pre-wwii-new-deal-saw-fastest-drop-unemployment-rate-american-h
 
Bfged looks like the highest numbers are during WWII to me. Maybe if you weren't a sorry dropout you could read your own charts that's twice in a row.
 
Tell that to Winterborn. Because MY comment was in the context of HIM accepting that as fact. Are adult things like 'context' too complicated for you to comprehend?

It couldn't possibly be in that context, considering you quoted a post that actually said that particular false "fact" was indeed false.

Your post was in the context of "didn't bother to try to comprehend anything", not in the context of him accepting that myth.
 
Last edited:
It couldn't possibly be in that context, considering you quoted a post that actually said that particular false "fact" was indeed false.

Your post was in the context of "didn't bother to try to comprehend anything", not in the context of him accepting that myth.

Context
n.
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.



WinterBorn said:
I saw this today and thought it was a great perspective on the 1% stuff.


"Before you get grouchy over this note, I understand the complaints of the Occupy movement and am not trying to belittle the struggles of the poor in this country, I just want to bring a sense of perspective to this debate.

Yes, it is true that 99% of the wealth in this country is in the hands of 1% of the population...
 
Bfged looks like the highest numbers are during WWII to me. Maybe if you weren't a sorry dropout you could read your own charts that's twice in a row.

The single highest yearly GDP growth was 1942, our first year of involvement in WWII. The second highest was 1941, the year before we entered the war.
 
When you posted the quote from the OP, you for got those pesky little quotation marks. I didn't say it was true, the person I quoted said that. And even that was just to say he understands the reasons for the protests. The point of the post was what followed that.

I can explain it in greater detail if you need me to do so.
 
Back
Top