PDA

View Full Version : 2008 worse than 2004 and falling?


Rapier
08-16-2008, 01:32 PM
2008 worse than 2004 and falling?

Why doesn't the media throw these issues in the face of the candidates? And stand toe to toe with elected officials? Why? Because the owners of the media are the beneficiaries.

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
60 million Americans living on less than $7 a day
US income figures show staggering rise in social inequality
By Jerry White
12 December 2006



A recent analysis of Internal Revenue Service tax data sheds further light on the enormous gap that has grown between America’s wealthy elite and the masses of working people over the last quarter of a century. The examination of IRS figures was conducted by the New York Times and reported in its November 27 article, “’04 Income in U.S. Was Below 2000 Level” by David Cay Johnston.

The article begins by noting that total US income in 2004—the latest year for which tax information is available—was $7.044 trillion, down from more than $7.143 trillion in 2000. The decline was attributed to two factors: the stagnation of median household income—which fell by 3 percent, or about $1,600, between 2000 and 2004—and the fact that the earnings of the richest Americans have not yet caught up with the peak reached before the Internet bubble on Wall Street burst in 2000.

Incomes in 2004 rose by an average 6.8 percent but the vast bulk of the increase went to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans—living in some 130,500 households with an average income of $4.9 million—who saw their incomes rise by 27.5 percent over the course of one year. During the same period the income of the poorest one-fifth of the population—some 60 million people—rose by only 1.8 percent.

The sharp rise in income for the wealthiest Americans—due in large measure to the Bush administration’s cuts in capital gains taxes, corporate profit rates not seen in nearly 40 years and the recovery of the stock market—has led to a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the super-rich. According to a separate study by University of California-Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans took in 9.5 percent of all pretax income, or about $679 billion in 2004, excluding unreported income.

Referring to this elite group, the New York Times article notes, “those very top households, which include about 300,000 Americans, reported significantly more pretax income combined than the poorest 120 million Americans earned in 2004, the data show. This is a sharp change from 1979, the oldest year examined by the I.R.S, when the thin slice at the top received about one-third of the total income of the big group at the bottom.”

This staggering fact reveals a great deal about the economic and political processes that have unfolded over the last quarter century. While the portion of national income controlled by America’s corporate and financial elite declined in the aftermath of the Great Depression and stabilized during the postwar period, over the last 25 years a massive social transformation has occurred and the share of the national income now controlled by America’s social oligarchy is at the highest levels since 1929.

The Times article goes on to note, “Over all, average incomes rose 27 percent in real terms over the quarter-century from 1979 through 2004. But the gains were narrowly concentrated at the top and offset by losses for the bottom 60 percent of Americans, those making less than $38,761 in 2004.” It continues, “The bottom 60 percent of Americans, on average, made less than 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they reported in 1979, the analysis of IRS data showed. The next best-off group, the fifth of Americans on the 60th to 80th rungs of the income ladder, averaged 2 cents more income in 2004 for each dollar they earned in 1979.

“Only those in the top 5 percent had significant gains,” the newspaper notes. The average income of those on the 95th to 99th rungs of the income ladder rose by 53 percent, almost twice the average rate. The largest gains, however, went to those at the very heights of American society. “A third of the entire national increase in reported income went to the top 1 percent—and more than half of that went to the top tenth of 1 percent, whose average incomes soared so much that for each dollar, adjusted for inflation, that they had in 1979 they had $3.48 in 2004,” the Times article says.

The last 25 years has seen an enormous transfer of wealth from working people into the hands of America’s economic elite. With the full backing of both the Democrats and Republicans, corporate America responded to the decline of its competitive position in the 1970s by launching an unrelenting attack on the jobs and living standards of the working class that continues to this day. The enrichment of those at the top has come at the direct expense of the vast majority of the working population in America, whose share of national wealth has plummeted.

At the other pole of society is an increasingly impoverished working class, including some 25 percent of all workers who labor for poverty wages. The Times article notes that the bottom fifth of all taxpayers earned below $11,166 and their average reported income was only $5,743 each. Because the IRS includes a single individual or a married couple in its definition of a “taxpayer” the poorest 26 million taxpayers account for the equivalent nearly 48 million adults and about 12 million dependent children. According to the Times analysis, this means the poorest 60 million Americans have reported incomes of less than $7 a day!

The official poverty line in 2004 was $27 a day for a single adult below retirement age and $42 a day for a household with one child—although the real cost of attaining basic necessities is far higher. The Times article notes that the IRS income data does not include the value of government benefits like food stamps, earned-income tax credits and subsidized medical care. But the social programs for the poor—including federal welfare assistance—have largely been wiped out or curtailed and what programs do remain are not sufficient to lift families out of poverty.

It is often noted that 3 billion of the world’s poorest people live on less than $2 a day. In the US, where the cost of living is far higher, $7 a day is only enough to guarantee a life of destitution. The fact that 60 million people live in such dire poverty—and tens of millions more could face the same fate if they lost their jobs or confronted some other financial catastrophe—is a damning indictment of American capitalism and the free market model it touts around the world.

The levels of social stratification and inequality in the US are incompatible with genuine democracy. Political life in America is completely subordinated to the needs of a financial aristocracy whose pursuit of ever greater levels of personal wealth constantly collides with the social needs and democratic rights of the broad masses of people in the US and internationally. The needs of this elite—for further wars of conquest, tax cuts, the elimination of social programs and a drastic reduction of living standards—cannot be imposed, in the final analysis, without recourse to authoritarian means.

The social transformation that has occurred over the last 25 years has coincided with a shift to the right by both big business parties and in particular the abandonment of any program of social reforms by the Democratic Party, whose leading personal, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and leading presidential contender Senator Hillary Clinton, are themselves multimillionaires. Insulated from the majority of the people and unwilling and unable to respond to their needs and concerns, the leading members of the incoming Democratic majority in Congress have already made it clear that they will not roll back the Bush-era tax cuts that have helped bring unimaginable wealth to their real constituents.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/ineq-d12.shtml

David-M
08-16-2008, 01:44 PM
Were we supposed to read all of that?

Funny how some people end up believing all of it when some fact is blended with plenty of fiction, exaggerations, falsehoods and half-truths. Did Michael Moore co-author that?

This country is doomed when it becomes a predominantly a society of dependents. We are almost there. You can only take so much from the producers to give to the non-producers before the producers rebel and say no more. Remember, the producers have the money and therefore the ability to leave the country. Those that want to sit on their asses and have others work for them ultimately have no power. The producers do not have to tolerate parasites who want to live off their backs...they have options.

Morro
09-02-2008, 10:36 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202730.html

Above is a link reporting on a secret meeting between Obama and Fox executives wherein Obama asks for the Fox network to be fair! Read it for a laugh or two when you think of the other three networks.

mbossman2
09-03-2008, 07:14 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202730.html

Above is a link reporting on a secret meeting between Obama and Fox executives wherein Obama asks for the Fox network to be fair! Read it for a laugh or two when you think of the other three networks.

Fox, as you are well aware, is the whipping boy of the liberal left (as is most of talk radio). This meeting, along with some content analysis, will be used as a justification to reinstate content and balance rules in the broadcast media.

The argument will go along the lines of this:

We asked really nicely that Fox provide balanced coverage but they chose to continue their ways. So seeing they won't do it voluntarily, we will make them

I know that I sound like a doomsayer and a tin hatter but folks you really need to watch out for this reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Once the left has control of the legislative and executive branch, this will be on the short list of things to do. Just look at the intense hatred that they focus on Fox news (actually according to the more extreme elements: ALL of the MSM) and the bulk of talk radio (something that they just can't seem to meet with strong and staying competition). The Left will move to silence what has been and will continue to be their most vocal critics.

David-M
09-03-2008, 11:39 AM
Reminds me of what all left wing governments do...silence the critics. "Fairness" is just a guise for not criticizing my party. Guess who the fairness judges will be?...people on the left. Do you think the people who implemented fairness will allow right wing judges?

Can you say, China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela? Is that really how you lefties want to live?

mbossman2
09-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Reminds me of what all left wing governments do...silence the critics. "Fairness" is just a guise for not criticizing my party. Guess who the fairness judges will be?...people on the left. Do you think the people who implemented fairness will allow right wing judges?

Can you say, China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela? Is that really how you lefties want to live?


actually I believe it was heyhey a while back suggesting that we need a larger and more involved government funded media organization. that's great: the government deciding what they will and won't cover...nothing like the fox guarding the hen house.

The only thing that I personally would support would be a roll back the ownership rules to the pre-1996 standards...but that won't happen as the government will figure out some other way to fuck things up.

eagle
09-04-2008, 11:33 PM
John Stewart had a great show tonight it was hilarious.

David-M
09-05-2008, 11:03 AM
Stewart is a real liberal ass sometimes who promotes the lies coming from the left. Dennis Miller, I think is funnier.

drisley
09-09-2008, 08:28 PM
actually I believe it was heyhey a while back suggesting that we need a larger and more involved government funded media organization. that's great: the government deciding what they will and won't cover...nothing like the fox guarding the hen house.
Did heyhey really support that concept? If so, wholly crap.

David-M
09-09-2008, 10:50 PM
We already have left wing PBS.....why would the government need a second left wing media outlet? Just make PBS larger! :)

mbossman2
09-10-2008, 07:32 AM
Just make PBS larger! :)

that's exactly what heyhey positioned when the feds worked on trimming back the CPB/PBS allocation of federal funds

heyhey
09-19-2008, 11:57 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202730.html

Above is a link reporting on a secret meeting between Obama and Fox executives wherein Obama asks for the Fox network to be fair! Read it for a laugh or two when you think of the other three networks.

you know the historically conservative WSJ today completly blasted McCain on his ignorance of... economics...called him a complete idiot on the subject, actually and not worthy to be president.. because of it..

the WSJ is a Murdoch publication... maybe Rupert got religion all of a sudden when he saw the market in crash mode.

my guess a lot of people did.

I went out to dinner tonight with a bunch of pretty rich people in a very fancy restuarant.. ... large private party...

there were like 22 of us I believe... I was probably the poorest person in the room..... very well off crowd...

I knew nothing about the politics of any of them... before tonight well we started talking about the stock market this week and the subject got on to politics and all 22 people in that room said they were voting for Obama... some had said to made thier minds up just this past week because of what happened in the stock market and McCains reaction to the whole thing...

David-M
09-20-2008, 03:42 PM
So you got to hang out with some wealthy Democrats...big deal.