• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Secretary of State Romney?

Why is misinformation reigning supreme over middle Americans? Ok, the liberal elitist media has talked down to them, why aren't they drawn to hard-fact news outlets to blow the liberal elite media out of the water and get the change they want? Why are they like moths to a flame - for the past 30 years now - to misinformation peddlers from Limbaugh to Hannity to O'Reilly to Bannon?

Can some of you hard critics of "liberal elitism" please explain that? Why is your alternative such shitty information?
 
SCDeac13 said:
That chart would be much more meaningful if it reflected the percentage increase rather than dollars increase.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. If the dollars don't increase, why would the percentage increase? Percentage increase would probably look worse for Reaganomics.
 
PhDeac said:
I don't understand. If the dollars don't increase, why would the percentage increase? Percentage increase would probably look worse for Reaganomics.
Click to expand...

With the way that is shown, the same increase percentage-wise would look much more favorably for the richer classes. So as an example a 10% increase for the poor would look minuscule to say a 3% increase for the top 5% bucket. Also given the scale of that chart, almost any increase in the poorer buckets is hard to see even if it was a significant percentage increase.

Not saying the premise of the rich benefiting more over that timeframe is inaccurate. It's just hard to get an accurate picture using that chart.
 
SCDeac13 said:
With the way that is shown, the same increase percentage-wise would look much more favorably for the richer classes. So as an example a 10% increase for the poor would look minuscule to say a 3% increase for the top 5% bucket. Also given the scale of that chart, almost any increase in the poorer buckets is hard to see even if it was a significant percentage increase.

Not saying the premise of the rich benefiting more over that timeframe is inaccurate. It's just hard to get an accurate picture using that chart.
Click to expand...

But you buy things with $, not %s.
 
OK, I see what you're saying. I think you're right, but it would make much of a difference on this chart. Based on the eye test, there's around 40% gains from 1980-90 for the Top 5% and around 25% gains for the Top 20%. Comparable gains at the lower end would definitely be noticeable.
 
SCDeac13 said:
With the way that is shown, the same increase percentage-wise would look much more favorably for the richer classes. So as an example a 10% increase for the poor would look minuscule to say a 3% increase for the top 5% bucket. Also given the scale of that chart, almost any increase in the poorer buckets is hard to see even if it was a significant percentage increase.

Not saying the premise of the rich benefiting more over that timeframe is inaccurate. It's just hard to get an accurate picture using that chart.
Click to expand...

e2fa184ff5bd4f4ce92f7ea91b8ac806.png
 
Trickle up is working!!!

I look forward to jhmd's defense of that crap sandwich by pointing to single parent households, and BKF will stomp his feet about welfare queens. 2and2 will spit fire over women in the workforce.

plenty of blame to go around to those ingrate middle income leeches!
 
SCDeac13 said:
Not saying the premise of the rich benefiting more over that timeframe is inaccurate. It's just hard to get an accurate picture using that chart.
Click to expand...

What do you mean it's hard to get an accurate picture with that chart? It shows the change in income distribution accurately.
 
My real question about this appointment is, did Trump mane Mitt get down on his knees to et it?
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
A rare non bird or quant question for Birdman: how is Sessions viewed in Alabama? Relative to Roy Moore, Bentley, or Shelby? Sorry for the thread detour. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Most of the people in my bubble hate the man, but generally I think the population here quite like him. Of course they also like Bentley, and Moore quite a bit. Moore is a fucking national embarrassment, but he was reelected 10 years after being ousted from office for the 10 commandments garbage and once reelected was suspended from the bench for deliberately tell Alabama probate judges to ignore the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Bently is under federal investigation for using state funds to conduct and cover-up an extra marital affair, but I'd bet lots of money he'd be reelected tomorrow if the people had the choice. The problem is that the large majority of Alabama voters are very delusional.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
What do you mean it's hard to get an accurate picture with that chart? It shows the change in income distribution accurately.
Click to expand...

Accurate yes, but I would argue not the best way to show it as it can be a little misleading. Because of the scale you can't see the changes for the lower incomes as well as the changes for the higher incomes. Birdman's chart was far better IMO.
 
birdman said:
On the basis that Trump has no fucking clue how to run anything, let alone the entire Federal government.
Click to expand...

Do not mistake being a complete fucking asshole (Trump) for not knowing how to run anything. Trump just ran a campaign that won a Presidential election. And he did it with more or less the entire Republican, Democratic, media and entertainment establishment trying their best to stop him. I'd hazard he wasn't simply lucky. Unethical, full of crap, etc. - yeah, I'll buy that. But I would not underestimate his ability to run things after what he just managed to do. In fact, his ability to run things is precisely what has a lot of folks very concerned.

There is no one alive capable of running the entire Federal government.
 
WakeandBake said:
Why is misinformation reigning supreme over middle Americans? Ok, the liberal elitist media has talked down to them, why aren't they drawn to hard-fact news outlets to blow the liberal elite media out of the water and get the change they want? Why are they like moths to a flame - for the past 30 years now - to misinformation peddlers from Limbaugh to Hannity to O'Reilly to Bannon?

Can some of you hard critics of "liberal elitism" please explain that? Why is your alternative such shitty information?
Click to expand...

Clinton vastly under performed the past Democratic candidates in the last four elections in all sorts of places across the country. So whatever they were consuming, it was certainly different than what they've been consuming the last 20 years.
 
DeacMan said:
Do not mistake being a complete fucking asshole (Trump) for not knowing how to run anything. Trump just ran a campaign that won a Presidential election. And he did it with more or less the entire Republican, Democratic, media and entertainment establishment trying their best to stop him. I'd hazard he wasn't simply lucky. Unethical, full of crap, etc. - yeah, I'll buy that. But I would not underestimate his ability to run things after what he just managed to do. In fact, his ability to run things is precisely what has a lot of folks very concerned.
Click to expand...

No it was dumb luck. Have you heard this guy talk?
 
DeacMan said:
Clinton vastly under performed the past Democratic candidates in the last four elections in all sorts of places across the country. So whatever they were consuming, it was certainly different than what they've been consuming the last 20 years.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't answer my question. Why are these fine people whose voice you and your party are ostensibly championing working off of misinformation?
 
DeacMan said:
Do not mistake being a complete fucking asshole (Trump) for not knowing how to run anything. Trump just ran a campaign that won a Presidential election. And he did it with more or less the entire Republican, Democratic, media and entertainment establishment trying their best to stop him. I'd hazard he wasn't simply lucky. Unethical, full of crap, etc. - yeah, I'll buy that. But I would not underestimate his ability to run things after what he just managed to do. In fact, his ability to run things is precisely what has a lot of folks very concerned.

There is no one alive capable of running the entire Federal government.
Click to expand...

I honestly believe that Donald Trump had no interest in actually becoming President. I think he campaigned accordingly, and won in spite of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top