Indeed, the idea that this range would qualify as upper indicates the issue.


…but to deny the consolidation of wealth is disingenuous. The curve within that upper bracket, where a slow rise ends in a dramatic climb as the “top of the food chain” takes almost all the spoils is a relevant aspect to any honest discussion.

Well it would be, had I denied the consolidation of wealth.

To me, the interesting part about the charts is that the “hollowing out” narrative, which requires both the rich and poor groups getting larger, is untrue. The lower group is also growing in wealth, which to me, largely explains why “income inequality” doesn’t resonate with the majority of the population as a voting issue. It resonates with some, in particular the people in smallish towns that have lost their major employer to overseas outsourcing or automation, but more people in the lower group are getting richer than are middle group people getting poorer.

The idealogues can spew whatever lies they like, the only president in modern times with a balanced budget had a (D) by his name. Give credit to Kasich and a Republican congress if you like, the prez ran as a (D).

Well, right. Clinton never intended to balance the budget, but he did intend to decrease the deficit; then dot-com happened and we (happily, surprisingly) went into surplus.

Obama left behind a deficit smaller than he inherited (semantics, and misguided notions, aside)… and the (R) has doubled it in a year. You can believe the propaganda of the magic of deregulation and tax relief… I know how this math actually works.

I know how the math works, too. Intimately. My take is all you’re doing is comparing endpoints at the beginning and end of terms and drawing too many conclusions from it. You cannot just look at the endpoints and declare if a president was fiscally responsible or not.

2008–9 was a great example. The blowup in 2008 had precisely *nothing* to do with any Bush policy — in fact, he was the only President in decades to stay completely away from housing policy. And, Bush had the economy moving back towards balance when the blowup happened. Do you just rub out the middle because of where the endpoints were?

So, in 2009, Obama inherited a deficit that was a statistical outlier. He did lower it from there, BUT (a) at a much higher level than it was under Bush, and (b) the CBO and OMB always projected, as early as 2012, that the deficit would start rising again, based on current policy at the time, starting as soon as Obama left office.

If Obama had been fiscally responsible, rather than using a crisis to permanently expand the size and scope of government, he would have done whatever was in his power to return to the Bush-era deficit slope from 2005–2007. But that wasn’t his goal; his goal was a more far reaching, more intrusive, more authoritarian model of government.

That’s not propaganda; those are documentable facts. It seems you wish to ignore them. Nor is the idea that deregulation and tax relief “propaganda”; it’s Economics 101 that regulations make business less fiscally efficient, and it’s Economics 101 that tax relief (and more importantly, a sane, corporate tax code, which we haven’t had since before the Great Depression) increases economic activity.

Just HOW those spoils get distributed is dependent on other variables; but the fact that regulations and a complex tax code detracts from GDP is not debatable.

At last count, corporations have committed $6 billion of their tax cut haul to assorted employee bonuses and $160 billion to stock buybacks… and y’all want to label me cause I’m aware?

Are you? What’s the problem with buybacks? Buybacks kick up stock prices, and the largest institutional owner of stocks in the country are public pension funds, which have been under tremendous pressure (somewhat eased by the bull market since mid 09) and have in some cases been unable to meet their obligations to their pensioners.

Besides, not all corporations got tax cuts; and the reason corporate taxes were cut was NOT to give the corporations a windfall; it was to decrease the fiscal pressure to offshore jobs and manufacturing. Europe, in particular Germany. went shit-crazy when we did that, because we now have created a scenario where German manufacturing jobs may end up in the United States.

I can’t say this too many times: the purpose of lowering those corporate tax rates was *not* to give our companies a windfall; it was to make US products more competitive abroad, a situation they haven’t been in for nearly forty years.

Which is why Mr. Obama wanted to do it, too, it should be said/

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.