Americans are getting poorer

[Burroughs]

an economic lesson pay attention

in the early 1950s the median house price was $7,500. Middle class was someone who could afford that median house in the new suburbs, and with the banks requiring an income to house price ratio of 1:1.5, that meant an income of $5,000 a year, which was Surprise! the median income.

In 2005, the median house price was $275,000.

Today, it is $170,000.

In 2005, the median income should have been $183,300. It was $53,000.

Today, the median income should be $113,300. It's $50,00

oh and if any cowboy faggots wanna talk smack please don't bring up the decline in computer, ram memory prices etc...you can't eat or sleep in an ipad...stick to food, shelter, fuel, etc

Depriving a man of his own territory and family is the best way to over stress him and make sure he is too busy to cope with such stress instead of being concerned about his freedom.
Since they didnt manage to get your guns yet they had to find some other subtle way to make you no threat.

I remember my martial arts lesson, the first thing the teacher said once we had a grasp of it was something like:

"you never want your opponent to stabilize because once he is stable he can plan an attack on you while if he is concerned about his position from the ground he will use all his energies to find balance before any other thing".

I agree with Burroughs, its not your cellphone or car the benchmark of the control you have over your life or the freedom you have, easy communications are worth sh1t if you cannot even come back
in YOUR territory where you have control and authority on the surrounding and the people inside.

Yes who dares win we are clearly on the same page.

I like your martial arts analogy...that is precisely right...once you de-stabilize the citizenry you can commit all manner of atrocities on them and they will be too forlorn and beleaguered to fight back.

the founding fathers understood this deeply....they knew the evil of the german money lenders (rothschilds) and they created america as a bulwark against slavery through taxation...they were not about to let their labors be enslaved by the crown of england to pay phony war debts..

...thomas jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he could see what america has become

 

[Who Dares Win]

Depriving a man of his own territory and family is the best way to over stress him and make sure he is too busy to cope with such stress instead of being concerned about his freedom.
Since they didnt manage to get your guns yet they had to find some other subtle way to make you no threat.

I remember my martial arts lesson, the first thing the teacher said once we had a grasp of it was something like:

"you never want your opponent to stabilize because once he is stable he can plan an attack on you while if he is concerned about his position from the ground he will use all his energies to find balance before any other thing".

I agree with Burroughs, its not your cellphone or car the benchmark of the control you have over your life or the freedom you have, easy communications are worth sh1t if you cannot even come back
in YOUR territory where you have control and authority on the surrounding and the people inside.

 

[BeDJ]

Contributing factors include inflation, depletion of resources, increased demand for housing and surplus in the labor force due to exponentially rising population, fuel prices up 300% over the past 15 years, etc...

 

[backseatjuan]

It quite simple. Printing money out of thin air demenishes that money's worth - that is what inflation means.

Further economic devastation was caused by shipping manufacturing jobs over seas.

Now if you wanted to fix things, change of policy is not enough. There is no candidate you can choose that will fix things, they all the same. You would have to cup de tat.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

an economic lesson pay attention

in the early 1950s the median house price was $7,500. Middle class was someone who could afford that median house in the new suburbs, and with the banks requiring an income to house price ratio of 1:1.5, that meant an income of $5,000 a year, which was Surprise! the median income.

In 2005, the median house price was $275,000.

Today, it is $170,000.

In 2005, the median income should have been $183,300. It was $53,000.

Today, the median income should be $113,300. It's $50,00

Your argument is invalid. Housing prices are only one aspect of the economy. To calculate inflation, (which is impossible, BTW) you'd need to calculate how much prices rose for EVERYTHING, and then compare that price to the average salary.

Housing prices have been rising faster than other items since the seventies simply because it's been something politicians have been selling in exchange for votes.

Demand has been artificially inflated, both by political promises, and cheap money.

In order to really calculate how poor or not poor Americans are, you'd have to compare their real rates of income versus the average price of EVERYTHING, which is impossible.

All you can do is estimate. One way to do that is to look at purchasing power.

For example, how much of stuff (bread, cars, hookers, cocaine, houses, peanut butter) can the average american buy with one hour of labor?

This is tricky because in an ideal world, with stable money, due to expanding capital structures and technology, people would always be getting richer, in terms of what an hour's labor would purchase.

But in the real world, inflation is stealing that purchasing power. By how much? It's almost impossible to calculate.

But by most measures, what an hour's labor will purchase, in the broad economy, has been increasing, despite the government's and the fed's intervention.

If you only focus on ONE thing, like housing, it doesn't give you a complete picture. For most of America's history, only about 30% of folks ever owned a house. That number only increased because it was a political selling point. (If I'm elected president, Ya'll own your own homes!)

It's got nothing to do with our inherent rights to own a home or any of that nonsense.

If you had some supercomputer with access to EVERYTHING, you'd look at the average hourly wage, and then the purchasing power of that hourly wage in terms of everything one could possibly purchase.

And THEN compare that to the REAL inflation rate (which is nothing close to what the government says), to see just how much MORE we could purchase with an hour's wages if the fed wasn't stealing from us.

Problem is you simply can't calculate any of that stuff. It's all just subjective guesswork.

 

[Burroughs]

tokyo taco = cowboy faggot #1 :crackup: :crackup:

 

[Alle_Gory]

tokyo taco = cowboy faggot #1 :crackup: :crackup:

Um, what?

 

[Burroughs]

Um, what?

pertaining to this in my initial post

oh and if any cowboy faggots wanna talk smack please don't bring up the decline in computer, ram memory prices etc...you can't eat or sleep in an ipad...stick to food, shelter, fuel, etc

media talking heads and wankers do this all the time.....food, gas, housing prices go way up the pundits say 'duhhhhhdduhhhh nikes and ipads got cheaper so your buying power increased blah blah blah."... this is fraudulent faggotry at its worst a favorite of academics seeking tenure, politicians, and other lying sacks of Sh!t

we all know the elevator of the western world is crashing to the ground floor...only question is when and how fast are we going

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AcpznV4RGY&feature=fvwrel

ron paul hits that nail on the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zh1Zu-vsH0&feature=related

 

[backseatjuan]

^^this year

Insiders in DHS said it was going hot now. Unlimited QE is just another banker bailout. Now watch middle east. NATO sending in Al Qaida to bring down assad knowingly destabilizing dollar. Already China and Russia are selling the dollar fast, if war breaks out they will dump it after the straight of harmus is closed.

US economy will default. There will no longer be the federal reserve dollar.

I believe this will closely follow the presidential election, in order to mask mass riots across the states as anti Obamney/Rombama.

 

[Poonani Maker]

Radio Address Criticizing the New Deal

By Father Charles Coughlin
Recorded April 11, 1937

"And therefore, choosing right instead of might, choosing to be on the side of justice instead of on the side of modern capitalism, with its intermingling with socialism and communism. I stand before you tonight to warn you. Careless of what the future holds [?]. That this relief that has failed to relieve, by pounding up its taxation, by doubling its assessment upon the payrolls of the nation, by finding its way into the grocer shops where you purchase your food. This relief, that lives upon us suckers, taking from the people every penny they own, is due to crumble and fall before one year from this April. You think you know what Depression is? You people living on the WPA envelopes, WPA envelopes filled partly from the money confiscated from industry and commerce, and from the envelopes of those who are working, how long can that last? It can't last forever. There's no bottomless pit to that spending. You WPA workers and those of you who are living upon the dole system. How long can it last for this federal reserve bank to invent and issue and coin its own bogus money against the debts of a nation. And then when the bond market drops as it's dropping now, print more fresh five dollar bills to buy in its own bonds. Oh there's a law of compensation, and there's an accounting to be held, an accounting that shall make the depression of 1929 seem as a prosperity when it breaks upon you.

What sins we have committed. When the Bill of Rights was established in England, it insisted that the spending power be held in the hands of the people. It insisted that the spending power of a nation be held in its parliament or its congress. View the New Deal in 1943 and 44. Did it reveal the Bill of Rights for which men had bled and died? Oh no, it took the Bill of Rights as it's taking our Constitution today and tore it into shreds, and handed over the spending power from the purse of the people, from the purse of Congress, to the President of The United States. One step backwards, one step towards dictatorship. That may seem peculiar to you, but in doing that Congress relinquished its own liberty, and relinquished its own freedom of speech. Since that day, since the Chief Executive of the nation has the full spending power of billions of dollars, congress must bend its pregnant knee before him. Congress must become a rubber stamp congress, or else be rubbed out of existence in the line of patronage. All patronage, all partyism, save us from those things. We who once loved patriotism, we who once loved democracy, we who once proudly raised our heads, favoring justice, with a heel upon us, ready to spurn and crush every injustice."

 

[Quiksilver]

What are the stats for Household Income?

Surely since women have entered the workforce, Household Income should have almost doubled in working families, while single-earner income may have declined in purchasing power substantially.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Despite my alleged cowboy phaggotry, I still assert that the OP is cherry picking irrelevant data to present his case. Keep in mind that I don't disagree that we are on the quick path to doom.

It's just that choosing a commodity that is owned by less than half of Americans which has recently gone through a classic bubble inflation and popping is not the best statistic to use as an indicator of such impending anarchy.

Calculating mean incomes and a prices of commoddities, whatever they may be is rife with error. People buy a lot more than food, houses, and fuel.

But since you mentioned that, (food, shelter and fuel)

How much has rent gone up in since the fifties? Far more people rent than own.

Between 1861 and 1970, oil was relatively stable. Only with money printing and inflation has it recently gone up.

Link

Food? Who knows. The price of wheat was relatively stable from 71 till 2007, then it spiked. Again, money printing is the culprit, but also droughts, etc.

link

housing prices are not only due to money printing. It was a perfect storm of crap that was a long time brewing.

Again, while I agree with your premise, choosing the absolute WORST price indicator to support your case is less than statistically ideal.

Also, there's there's something else to consider. Wages today are much different than wages fifty years ago. People get a lot more benefits.

And despite your allegations, people do spend money on many things besides fuel, shelter and food. (unless of course you want to live like a hillbilly, drive your pickup around in circles, and eat mayonnaise sandwiches without having a computer or an Internet to vent your frustrations)

Here's an interesting video

 

[Bible_Belt]

Ain't no cowboy homo gonna call me a hillbilly!!!

Wages today are much different than wages fifty years ago. People get a lot more benefits.

I agree there are several different measures of poorness, but you're saying jobs have more benefits today? Maybe if you count the chance to buy $1,000/month health insurance that used to come free with the job.

Here's the minimum wage over time, in real dollars versus 2008 dollars:
http://www.fivecentnickel.com/images/minwage_2008_1.png

Household income is diving right now as unemployment spikes:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2011/10/hhi.jpg

Median income of workers in 2001 dollars, stagnant since the 70's:
http://americanmoocher.com/scoreboard/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/median-income-2001-300x197.png

Of course the richest people still do well:
http://www.pappasontaxes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cbpp-chart.bmp

The American dream might still be alive, but you're three times more likely to live that dream in Denmark:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/10/relativeincomemobility-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Here's the minimum wage over time, in real dollars versus 2008 dollars:
http://www.fivecentnickel.com/images/minwage_2008_1.png

Minimum wage is a political construct, and isn't based on any free market equilibrium.

Household income is diving right now as unemployment spikes:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2011/10/hhi.jpg

No idea how either of those graphs were calculated. You may very well say that household income is diving because unemployment is spiking.

Median income of workers in 2001 dollars, stagnant since the 70's:
http://americanmoocher.com/scoreboard/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/median-income-2001-300x197.png

this was the point that video addressed. There's a lot more to it that statistics. For example, the workforce is made up of different types every year, with more women and immigrants entering into the workforce since the 70's. This skews the averages down.

Of course the richest people still do well:
http://www.pappasontaxes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cbpp-chart.bmp

As they should.

The American dream might still be alive, but you're three times more likely to live that dream in Denmark:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/10/relativeincomemobility-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

Again, these are statistical categories, not real people. Denmark has much harsher immigration laws, which may distort the statistics. Places like the U.S. and the U.K, (on the bottom of the graph) have a lot more consistent immigration, who necessarily skew the lower end of the wage spectrum.


But all this is just splitting hairs. I don't disagree that the U.S. has already jumped the shark and is on the fast track to implosion.

It's just tough to talk about a sensible solution when statistics are thrown about willy nilly. Not saying that you're links are examples of that, just that these things really can't be measured in any chart or graph. It's much more complicated.

On the one hand you have consistent money printing, which causes inflation.

On the other hand, you have an expanding economy, which increases purchasing power, not in dollars, but in what you can buy with an hour's worth of labor.

Both of these are IMPOSSIBLE to measure.

All you can do is cherry pick data to prove whatever point you want to make.

In an ideal world, with a limited government and a hard currency, people would be consistently getting richer EVEN IF they made the same real wages over the course of their lives.

You could bury your money in your backyard and it would be worth twice as much in a few years.

Sadly, we live in a fukked up world controlled by bankers who control the government.

What to do? Given that the fed has just announced an ENDLESS stream of money printing, may as well try and spot the next asset bubble and take a ride, and hope you can jump off before it crashes.

Plenty of people are saying that Bernanke is trying to inflate the stock markets to trick people into thinking the economy is getting better.

May as well go long on some index ETFs. Maybe throw in some commoddity ETFs, and some gold ETFs.

That way, when the government does collapse, at least you'll be able to afford your guns and canned food.

 

[Mike32ct]

an economic lesson pay attention

in the early 1950s the median house price was $7,500. Middle class was someone who could afford that median house in the new suburbs, and with the banks requiring an income to house price ratio of 1:1.5, that meant an income of $5,000 a year, which was Surprise! the median income.

In 2005, the median house price was $275,000.

Today, it is $170,000.

In 2005, the median income should have been $183,300. It was $53,000.

Today, the median income should be $113,300. It's $50,00

Besides inflation due to money printing and going off of the gold standard, you can thank the "30 Year Mortgage." It's my understanding that, years ago, you couldn't go more than 20 years. I'm sure the real estate lobby and banks pushed for 30 year loans so more expensive homes could be sold and people could pay for the house 3x via interest.

Eventually, we will probably have 35 yo's in the US taking out 50 year mortgages. Pay interest until you die. Then the bank can take the whole house lol.

Even 7 year car loans are NOT normal.

oh and if any cowboy faggots wanna talk smack please don't bring up the decline in computer, ram memory prices etc...you can't eat or sleep in an ipad...stick to food, shelter, fuel, etc

LOL. People will still try. They want to sh*t in an itoilet.

the founding fathers understood this deeply....they knew the evil of the german money lenders (rothschilds) and they created america as a bulwark against slavery through taxation...they were not about to let their labors be enslaved by the crown of england to pay phony war debts..

...thomas jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he could see what america has become

All of the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

 

[Burroughs]

All of the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

All except Alexander Hamilton the spineless twerp who would be quite happy...the same Sh1t was happening back then, except we had a few men of wisdom to fight them...today there are none

Rothschild agent, Alexander Hamilton, was named Secretary of Treasury in George Washington's cabinet, and advocated the establishment of a federal bank to be owned by private interests, and the creation of debt-money with false arguments like: “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing... The wisdom of the Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient as issuing its own money.” Hamilton also made them believe that only the debt-money issued by private banks would be accepted in dealing abroad.

Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to that project, but President Washington was finally won over by Hamilton's arguments. A federal bank was thus created in 1791, the “Bank of the United States”, with a 20 years' charter. Although it was termed “Bank of the United States”, it was actually the “bank of the bankers”, since it was not owned by the nation, but by individuals holding the bank's stocks, the private bankers. This name of “Bank of the United States” was purposely chosen to deceive the American population and to make them believe that they were the owners of the bank, which was not the case. The charter for the Bank of the United States ran out in 1811, and Congress voted against its renewal, thanks to the influence of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, issued an ultimatum: “Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” Jackson and the American patriots did not believe the power of the international moneylenders could extend so far. “You are a den of thieves-vipers,” Jackson told them. “I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!” Nathan Rothschild issued orders: “Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status.”

The British Government launched the War of 1812 against the United States. Rothschild's plan was to impoverish the United States through this war to such an extent that the legislators would have to seek financial aid... which, of course, would be forthcoming only in return for the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States. Thousands were killed, but what does that matter to Rothschild? He had achieved his objective; the U.S. Congress granted the renewal of the Charter in 1816.

notice the trend..wars started to further the interests of banks....see the conflicts happening today and connect the dots.

 

[Bible_Belt]

the richest people still do well

As they should.

Why? Is that some sort of ethic or moral? Do you care to elaborate on why being handed money by mommy and daddy, which is how most rich people got rich, entitles one to the right to become even richer?

And isn't it curious that rich people hate government so much...until we talk about government's duty to defend the wealth of the rich people. Then they're not so libertarian anymore. Then suddenly a strong government is important, as long as it is a police state imposed upon the poor. It's ok to tax and spend if it's on more cops - they'll round up the poor, put them in private prisons, and then maybe the rich will make their money back by owning the prisons. :cheer:

The idea that cutting taxes on billionaires makes life better for everyone is one giant lie:

September 15, 2012

...a new report from the Congressional Research Service — a nonpartisan government group that provides analysis to Congress — on the relationship between tax cuts and economic growth:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Cutting taxes on billionaires makes life better because it is discriminatory and should thus be abolished. Having money does not mean it is ok for others to steal it. Making more money does not suddenly mean it is ok for people to rob you.

WTF is wrong with you and the people like you who think it's ok to take the property of others? That is slavery!

And if parents want to will their property to their children, that is their right. What right does the State or the rest of the parasites like you have to it? Go fuking make your own money.

Christ you people are so fvking greedy that you can't make your own sacrifices or save up your money, you have to declare that other people are evil for having it and try to steal it.

In fact, you are so blinded by envy and greed that you don't realize the impact it will have on your life (or your children's) when you empower a Government to seize property from an individual based on the premise that they have more than anyone else.

What's to objectively say that a wealthy person deserves, earned or that their wealth is objectively theirs in the first place? Rich people control labor and set their compensation. With this control one can under-pay labor. So who stole from who and who's wealth was it really in the first place? To say that only the non-wealthy are greedy, envious and theiving and the wealthiest are not is just an extreme and ridiculous inversion.

Underpaying the people who are productive and creating wealth will make one personally wealthier, but that itself is classist, wealth redistribution, greedy, even stealing. Basically all the things the wealthy claim anything that prevents them from distributing more wealth to themselves is. The hypocrisy and projection is too funny.

 

[Bible_Belt]

you don't realize the impact it will have on your life (or your children's) when you empower a Government to seize property from an individual based on the premise that they have more than anyone else.

Did you read the link? The research shows that raising the top tax rate will help, not hurt, the economy. When the economy thrives, everyone benefits, even rich people. That is the impact it will have upon your life.

 

[Burroughs]

A sobering fact:

the entirety of income tax revenue goes to pay down debt instituted by private banks

Understand that our income tax goes directly to the big six banks...directly...none of it goes to parks, schools, infrastructure...that is all payed by state and sales tax.

Income tax exists solely for the enrichment of private banks.

So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper "money" that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913.

In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved.

This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink.