PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Middle Class Sliding Toward Third World Status


L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-01-2013, 07:35 PM
More Evidence That Our Middle Class Is Sliding Toward the Third World

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18060-more-evidence-that-our-middle-class-is-sliding-toward-the-third-world

A recent article by Les Leopold informed us that our nation is near the bottom of the developed world in median wealth, probably the best gauge for the economic strength of the middle class. The source of the information, the Global Wealth Databook, provides additional evidence of our decline from our once-lofty position as an egalitarian country with opportunities for nearly everyone.

The data is summarized below. Column 4 reveals that the U.S. is near the top of the developed world in average wealth, in good part because of its many millionaires (Col 8). Median wealth per adult, in Column 5, is much lower. As a sign of the distance between America's middle class and its national wealth, Column 6 shows that the ratio of median to mean in the U.S. is lower than in any country except Russia.

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/images/Buchheitgraph20130701_Ineq_OECD.jpg

The impact of all this is shown in Column 7.

Median-level adults in the U.S. get a smaller percentage of their nation's wealth than in any other country except China and India.

To view Column 7 in another way, a middle-class adult in Finland owns $122 for every billion dollars of his or her nation's wealth. In Canada it's $13. In the U.S. it's 60 cents. Only China (40 cents) and India (30 cents) give their middle-class adults less.

America's middle class is sliding out of the developed world and toward third-world status. Column 9 makes it clear. Among all the nations of the world with at least a quarter-million adults, only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon are more unequal in their wealth distribution. Most of the third world countries are, sad to say and hard to believe, fairer to their middle classes than we are.

Missouribronc
07-01-2013, 10:05 PM
Thanks Obama

Hope and Change, right? This was supposed to turn around, but he obviously lied.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-02-2013, 12:58 AM
Thanks Obama

Hope and Change, right? This was supposed to turn around, but he obviously lied.

So you're admitting he's a huge failure as a socialist, then?

cutthemdown
07-02-2013, 07:47 AM
We know we know its still Bush's fault. We get your message.

barryr
07-02-2013, 08:03 AM
Obama was supposed fix this. That is what his defenders told us and still do. Looks like Wall Street is doing just fine. Those evil rich guys are doing great with Obama. Hmm.

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 08:18 AM
Obama was supposed fix this. That is what his defenders told us and still do. Looks like Wall Street is doing just fine. Those evil rich guys are doing great with Obama. Hmm.

Only need a quick look at his new commerce secretary to see where his real allegiances lie.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578499951071913328.html

Ms. Pritzker previously disclosed that last year she received $54 million from an offshore account and more than $30 million from U.S. accounts—all related to her work dividing her family's assets. The most recent documents indicated she earned at least $80 million more than that. The disclosure documents don't provide totals of a nominee's income or assets.

If confirmed, the Chicago businesswoman, 54 years old, would be among the wealthiest members of any presidential cabinet ever, with a net worth estimated by Forbes magazine to be $1.85 billion.

A granddaughter of the founder of Hyatt Hotels Corp., H +0.05% she has started five companies. She currently serves as chief executive of PSP Capital Partners, a real-estate investment company. She also steered the record-setting fundraising machine of President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign.

Great, a silver-spooned bundling champion. Just what we need to get the working class back on its feet.

baja
07-02-2013, 09:29 AM
The great hope of the Globalists is you continue to seek a political solution and with finger pointing at either tweedly dee or tweedly dum meanwhile they go unchecked and have you almost corralled in their pen of economic slavery.

Rohirrim
07-02-2013, 12:21 PM
Here, Robert Reich explains how the machinery works:
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111355

Oldest trick in the book: Divide and conquer.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-02-2013, 04:52 PM
The righties are as confused as ever.

"Obama is a socialist, and the problem is that he's trying to redistribute America's wealth from the top down."

"No, the problem is that Obama is in bed with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street."

L0L.

cutthemdown
07-04-2013, 10:02 AM
So Bush was a socialist? Ok now I am confused lol! Obama is trying to be everything and that is why he stinks. He does want to redistribute wealth but since he needs the rich he just redistributes middle class wealth to the poor. He wanted to ram healthcare through. The fact they rammed it through so fast was because they knew otherwise nothing this crappy and big would ever get passed. It was bad ****ing govt and we will be paying for Obamas arrogance for a long long long time. LOL the damage Bush did? give me a break Obama is the new king of ****ing up American. He takes his place along Jimmy Carter.

BroncoBeavis
07-04-2013, 10:10 AM
The righties are as confused as ever.

"Obama is a socialist, and the problem is that he's trying to redistribute America's wealth from the top down."

"No, the problem is that Obama is in bed with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street."

L0L.

Its clear you didn't learn anything from prior socialization experiments. There are two classes of "the rich" in real world socialism. Those who adequately massage political power and kiss rings enough to be allowed to keep what they have, and then those political adversaries who get redistributed as a sacrifice to the totem of social justice.

Socialism doesn't come near equality. Only a different set of ruling elites with the power not just to bankrupt you but to essentially own you.

Rohirrim
07-04-2013, 10:33 AM
Its clear you didn't learn anything from prior socialization experiments. There are two classes of "the rich" in real world socialism. Those who adequately massage political power and kiss rings enough to be allowed to keep what they have, and then those political adversaries who get redistributed as a sacrifice to the totem of social justice.

Socialism doesn't come near equality. Only a different set of ruling elites with the power not just to bankrupt you but to essentially own you.

Too bad the thinking of the average Rightie, like yourself, is so rigid and simplistic that they can only conceive of two different economic opposites - laissez faire capitalism, which feeds all wealth to the top (which is what we have now), and socialism, which pretty much nobody really follows, though many have different degrees of what could be called socialist facets to their economies. But to the average troglodyte, it's either all one thing or all the other. This is what will doom America, that rigid minority which will destroy this country before giving up on their ignorance.

BroncoBeavis
07-04-2013, 03:16 PM
Too bad the thinking of the average Rightie, like yourself, is so rigid and simplistic that they can only conceive of two different economic opposites - laissez faire capitalism, which feeds all wealth to the top (which is what we have now), and socialism, which pretty much nobody really follows, though many have different degrees of what could be called socialist facets to their economies. But to the average troglodyte, it's either all one thing or all the other. This is what will doom America, that rigid minority which will destroy this country before giving up on their ignorance.

It doesn't have to be completely lassez faire. But any time you see a system banking on a trial lawyer with an energy plan, just realize that there are worse things out there than leaving the market alone. :)

Rohirrim
07-04-2013, 03:44 PM
It doesn't have to be completely lassez faire. But any time you see a system banking on a trial lawyer with an energy plan, just realize that there are worse things out there than leaving the market alone. :)

Yeah. All we had to do was dismantle Glass/Steagle and we were on Easy Street. :oyvey:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-04-2013, 06:54 PM
Too bad the thinking of the average Rightie, like yourself, is so rigid and simplistic that they can only conceive of two different economic opposites - laissez faire capitalism, which feeds all wealth to the top (which is what we have now), and socialism, which pretty much nobody really follows, though many have different degrees of what could be called socialist facets to their economies. But to the average troglodyte, it's either all one thing or all the other. This is what will doom America, that rigid minority which will destroy this country before giving up on their ignorance.

Yep.

And the sad part is that he's not even aware that he's been brainwashed in this manner.

Missouribronc
07-04-2013, 10:03 PM
Six Congressional sessions into Democratic control and you're still blaming Republicans?

Come on, now.

Meck77
07-04-2013, 10:19 PM
The great hope of the Globalists is you continue to seek a political solution and with finger pointing at either tweedly dee or tweedly dum meanwhile they go unchecked and have you almost corralled in their pen of economic slavery.

Don't you mean the lizard people?

Bacchus
07-04-2013, 10:48 PM
The righties are as confused as ever.

"Obama is a socialist, and the problem is that he's trying to redistribute America's wealth from the top down."

"No, the problem is that Obama is in bed with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street."

L0L.

Socialist??? I thought he was a muslim, communist, radical Christian Kenyan??

Well, The rich in this country have NEVER done better than what they are doing now.

Its time to raise taxes and pull oil subsides. Time to get big banks out of politicians back pockets.

When the rich are doing better than ever and the middle class is struggling there is nothing wrong with the economy. There is something wrong with the government.

BroncoBeavis
07-04-2013, 11:35 PM
Yeah. All we had to do was dismantle Glass/Steagle and we were on Easy Street. :oyvey:

Yeah, that damn Burkean Clinton thought he had all the answers. LOL

TonyR
07-05-2013, 12:44 PM
Good read related to this topic. We should all tune it to PBS' Frontline on July 9.

If you screened “Two American Families” for Charles Murray and other social critics who believe that the decline of America’s working class comes from a collapse of moral values, social capital, personal responsibility, and traditional authority, they would probably be able to find the evidence they’d need to insulate themselves against the sorrow at the heart of the film. None of the four parents finished college. The Neumanns’ divorce leaves Terry and the children in worse straits than ever. The Stanleys don’t move to rural Mississippi, where life is cheaper. The kids make plenty of their own mistakes. None of them thinks of inventing Napster. The Stanleys and Neumanns are punished to the fullest extent of the economic law for every mistake made, and for all the mistakes they didn’t make.

But the intellectually honest response to this film is much less comforting, for the overwhelming impression in “Two American Families” is not of mistakes but of fierce persistence: how hard the Stanleys and Neumanns work, how much they believe in playing by the rules, how remarkable the cohesion of the Stanley family is, how tough Terry Neumann has to become. Both families devoutly attend church. Government assistance is alien and hateful to them. Keith Stanley says, “I don't know what drugs or even alcohol looks like.” In the words of Tammy Thomas, whose similar story is told in my new book, “The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America,” these people do what they’re supposed to do. They have to navigate this heartless economy by themselves. And they keep sinking and sinking.

On Sunday, the Times reported that C.E.O. pay in 2012 increased by sixteen per cent over the previous year, with the median compensation package now at $15.1 million. The blessings at the top grow more fruitful year by year, in good times and bad. There must be a social or economic theory somewhere that explains why all this is necessary and just. Read the whole thing here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/the-fall-of-the-american-worker.html

Rohirrim
07-05-2013, 12:52 PM
Yeah, that damn Burkean Clinton thought he had all the answers. LOL

Phil Gramm was the man who drove that change. Clinton couldn't have stopped it if he'd wanted to. You might have heard of Phil Gramm. Shortly after killing Glass/Steagle, he left government and became a VP at UBS, no doubt so he could rake in.

Rohirrim
07-05-2013, 12:55 PM
Good read related to this topic. We should all tune it to PBS' Frontline on July 9.

Read the whole thing here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/the-fall-of-the-american-worker.html

The story is older than the Old Testament: Greed.

mhgaffney
07-05-2013, 05:26 PM
The righties are as confused as ever.

"Obama is a socialist, and the problem is that he's trying to redistribute America's wealth from the top down."

"No, the problem is that Obama is in bed with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street."

L0L.

Exactly.

BroncoBeavis
07-06-2013, 07:08 AM
Phil Gramm was the man who drove that change. Clinton couldn't have stopped it if he'd wanted to. You might have heard of Phil Gramm. Shortly after killing Glass/Steagle, he left government and became a VP at UBS, no doubt so he could rake in.

Read Clinton's own signing statement where he goes out of his way to take credit for driving the bill to passage.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922

Guess as usual that D just stands for Dismissed from accountability. LOL

Rohirrim
07-06-2013, 09:01 AM
Read Clinton's own signing statement where he goes out of his way to take credit for driving the bill to passage.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922

Guess as usual that D just stands for Dismissed from accountability. LOL

Bubba had consummate political skills. If something was going to fail, he was nowhere in sight. If it was going to succeed, he would be in the spotlight taking credit. Who's name is on the bill? Clinton's? No. It was Gramm's baby from start to finish. Actually, it was Citicorp and the banking industry's baby, but Gramm was their stooge and got his payoff with a nice VP slot at UBS.

The truth is, this legislation got jammed up Clinton's ass. There is no way he could have stopped it so, like any clever politician, he pretended that he had some say in it. You posted his weak ass statement. Read it: "Last May, I proposed strong and enforceable Federal privacy protections for consumers' financial information. I am very pleased that the Act provides a number of the new protections that I proposed." Ha! That's like telling the fox, "Please clean up the feathers after you kill all the chickens."

You have very poor reading skills. Or maybe it's comprehension? I've considered Bill Clinton a traitor to his party for many years and said so on here. Reagan would have been proud of Bill Clinton's Right Wing accomplishments. He almost single-handedly drove the final stake through the heart of the American labor movement. You're so locked into binary political thinking that no other concept can penetrate your thick skull. The passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is the single, most dominant cause of the downfall of the American way of life. That, and Citizens United. But only an idiot would believe that Bill Clinton was the driving force behind the bill. No. That credit goes to the banksters and the Chamber of Commerce.

You know what a "real" liberal said about the act at the time? John Dingell of Michigan said it would lead to banks becoming "too big to fail" and the U.S. government would have to bail them out. What were Republicans saying? And now the Right Wingers try to blame that bill on liberals? That's ****ing comical.

BroncoBeavis
07-07-2013, 07:06 AM
From Clinton's statement...

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue. They will also be better equipped to compete in global financial markets.

And if you look at the preconference votes its pretty clear that if the President had raised a stink there was no way his veto was being overridden.

But once that writing was on the wall, everyone snapped right into line. But of course only the Rs are really responsible. D's are off the hook because they was just baby kissin. LOL

Oh and bills are never named after Presidents no matter how involved they were with them.

Rohirrim
07-07-2013, 07:28 AM
I'll use this LOL for my post too.

Here's what Majority Leader Trent Lott said when the bill was passed:

"So for all those involved--I won't begin at the top and go to the bottom--obviously Secretary Rubin was involved in earlier discussions; Alan Greenspan was involved; Secretary Summers has been involved. The administration did stay engaged when they could have said we are not going to talk anymore. Leaders in both the House and the Senate, the elected leadership, Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol worked to make this happen.

Let me say for the record--I know, because I watched it very carefully and had some meetings which, I think, helped give it some momentum, some impetus--it would not be where it is today, it would not have been achieved, without the leadership of the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. He has done a masterful job. Many people said: It won't happen. Many people said: He will kill it. I kept saying: No; you wait. He will make this happen through thick or thin. It will get done."

BroncoBeavis
07-07-2013, 08:18 AM
I'll use this LOL for my post too.

Here's what Majority Leader Trent Lott said when the bill was passed:

"So for all those involved--I won't begin at the top and go to the bottom--obviously Secretary Rubin was involved in earlier discussions; Alan Greenspan was involved; Secretary Summers has been involved. The administration did stay engaged when they could have said we are not going to talk anymore. Leaders in both the House and the Senate, the elected leadership, Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol worked to make this happen.

Let me say for the record--I know, because I watched it very carefully and had some meetings which, I think, helped give it some momentum, some impetus--it would not be where it is today, it would not have been achieved, without the leadership of the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. He has done a masterful job. Many people said: It won't happen. Many people said: He will kill it. I kept saying: No; you wait. He will make this happen through thick or thin. It will get done."

Funny that you're only interested in the R's Trent credited. Having led off with the name Rubin was pretty interesting though considering he's the biggest reason the Clinton admin can't claim they were just innocent bystanders to (cosigning) the whole thing.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/11/24/robert-the-architect-rubin-vs-phil-gramm

Rohirrim
07-07-2013, 08:26 AM
Funny that you're only interested in the R's Trent credited. Having led off with the name Rubin was pretty interesting though considering he's the biggest reason the Clinton admin can't claim they were just innocent bystanders to (cosigning) the whole thing.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/11/24/robert-the-architect-rubin-vs-phil-gramm

Man. You're thick. it would not have been achieved, without the leadership of the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. He has done a masterful job.

Fedaykin
07-07-2013, 06:18 PM
Pretty funny watching all the righting:

"OMG, look how horrible Obama is, he's acting just like our guys! .. but he's still an evil socialist!"

elsid13
07-08-2013, 06:08 AM
Doesn't matter who sponsored it or signed it, it was bad law that should been removed.

Rohirrim
07-08-2013, 07:54 AM
Interesting to revisit Gramm's statement at the bill's signing:

"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.

"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

Capitalism is a great invention. Like the locomotive. When operating as it should, it pulls the whole economy along. The mistake the greedy make is imagining how wonderful the locomotive would be if you just took it off the tracks. Gee! Then it can just travel all over the place, wherever it wants to go! Every time such "thinkers" get some power, dissolve old, hard-learned lessons, and write new regulations to "unleash" capitalism, the train wrecks.

Unregulated capitalism (what the Right likes to mislabel as "free markets") is simply a reversion to the law of the jungle: He with the most uses his power to grab more. Every so many decades Americans are taught this lesson again, and still, they can't seem to learn it.

The locomotive works best when it's kept on its tracks.

Rohirrim
07-08-2013, 08:01 AM
Meanwhile, those pesky little Right Wingers still haven't given up on their fiscal religion of "liberated capitalism." Now they're trying to gut Dodd-Frank, which was pretty much useless from the get-go anyway, by destroying its meager controls on the derivatives market. Even the pathetic regulations of Dodd-Frank are too much for the free-market fundamentalists. ;D

The funny thing is, they don't even have the guts to write new legislation. They're trying to attach deregulation loopholes for the derivatives market to the agriculture bill. :rofl:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/gop-wall-street-bill_n_3542999.html

From the article:
"The House bill is nothing more than a backdoor way of killing derivatives reform," said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of the financial reform advocacy group Better Markets. "It's Christmas in July for Wall Street."

I feel sad for the poor suckers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder who think the Right Wing revolution was designed for them.

BroncoInferno
07-08-2013, 10:07 AM
I feel sad for the poor suckers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder who think the Right Wing revolution was designed for them.

Yep. It's very frustrating. The financial crisis is clearly the end result of 30 years of deregulation and massive tax breaks for the wealthy starting with Reagan. But instead of admitting the failure of this philosophy, right-wingers bizarrely double-down. They say: "It wasn't too much deregulation, we haven't deregulated enough! It isn't that we went too wild on cutting tax rates on the wealthy by damn near half over the last 30 years....we haven't lowered them enough! The poor bastards are still overtaxed!" And the Democrats are culpable too. But face it: the right-wing way has been tried and failed. They've unraveled ~80 years of progressive policies from Teddy Roosevelt on through LBJ that helped build the middle class, and now all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, like a serfdom. And so many of these serfs are unwittingly doing the bidding of their masters under the BS guise of "freedom." The irony is they are only working to tighten their own shackles in the deluded hope that one day they'll run their own Pottersville.

Rohirrim
07-08-2013, 10:18 AM
It's amazing to me. Probably a failure of our media and our education system more than anything else. In the above statement, Gramm said that repealing Glass/Steagle would promote "economic growth" and "stability." Instead, it did the exact opposite! What it did do is remove a massive chunk of wealth from the middle class and redistribute it upwards. And still, these guys are making the exact same argument while arguing to "liberate" the derivatives market! It's astonishing. But nobody calls them on it other than a handful of progressives, so they get away with it. I don't know how much wreckage it will take for the American people to awake from their slumber and realize that progressive politics was the best we ever had it.

And now Gramm is a VP at UBS! What does it take for people to wake the **** up?

houghtam
07-08-2013, 12:23 PM
And once again, Beavis disappears after being shown the door.

:yayaya:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-08-2013, 08:58 PM
Pretty funny watching all the righting:

"OMG, look how horrible Obama is, he's acting just like our guys! .. but he's still an evil socialist!"

No kidding! L0L!

Or, in the case of Clinton and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the lesson to be learned (are you listening, Obama?) is that compromise with the right will avail you nothing except the right's contempt and further efforts to destroy you.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-08-2013, 09:00 PM
And once again, Beavis disappears after being shown the door.

:yayaya:

He had to go replenish his supply of Heritage talking points. :giggle:

Rohirrim
07-10-2013, 09:35 AM
No kidding! L0L!

Or, in the case of Clinton and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the lesson to be learned (are you listening, Obama?) is that compromise with the right will avail you nothing except the right's contempt and further efforts to destroy you.

Yep. I don't care what you stand for, but for chrissakes, stand for something. It reminds me of Don Corleone slapping Johnny Fontaine - "You can act like a man!"