axt113 said:
Income dispartiy may have declined .2 from its peak (a tiny amount) but it didn;t stop the wealthy from getting richer http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/22/us-wealthreport-idUSTRE65L36T20100622 In North America, the ranks of the rich rose 17 percent and their wealth grew 18 percent to $10.7 trillion. At the same time the country is experiencing 8.8% unemployment and the middle class is seeing wages pretty much stagnate http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm Basically this decade under tax cuts we saw low economic and job growth and eventually a massive recession, while the rich got richer, and even with a minucule decline from their peak are still doing far better than the middle and lower class right now, and they have also not led to increased revenues for the government. Seems to be no reason to keep them in place, lets go back tothe Clinton era level, you know the years of peace and prosperity, where the government had a surplus and people were employed.
|
I like how you quoted an article that proved you wrong, on the hopes that I wouldn't click on it.
I also don't understand your issue with the number of millionaires growing. I mean that's a good thing not a bad one?
If anything, the number of millionaires going down would be a bad sign.
I mean, I'm not sure you quite grasp how the economy works, and I don't mean that in an insulting way, I mean I literally don't think you understand.
The economy is not a fixed system. Wealth is created and it is destroyed, so wealth % growth by a single group means nothing.... ESPIECALLY when that group's numbers are growing.
This is exactly why the gini-coeefficent exists... to judge such things.
