Summations Only

Why do you think this should be a result?That the top 5% increases 100% in the period and the median increases 30% clearly shows it does not work. Look at the increase of both groups before any "trickle down" policies. The numbers were not so wildly different then.The differences we are seeing now are showing an increasing flight of capital to the top percentages. This clearly shows that trickle down does not work. If this continues where do you see financial classes in 25, 50 or 100 years?The top percentages are seeing huge increases compared to the median and you still advocate lowering their taxes? Raise the middle's, raise the lower? Cut all social programs but keep all military? Where does the military get bodies if education and social programs is cut to the bone? Outsource it?

Do you have anything to back this statement? Would you like to quantify "many" and "poor". Let us know what you mean statistically by this blatantly wild ass statement.I can counter that with this statement.Many of the rich do not work. Please show how the poor are non-participants in the economy. This statement is extremely ludicrous and outright offensive. Of course the poor participate in the economy.Edited by Theodoric, : clarified

So poor children as you say are The benefits their parents receive from an improving economy cannot benefit them?Your argument is getting even more ludicrous. Lets look at other people you would lump into this.Retirees, stay at home parents, non-working college students.Do you think the children of the wealthy are "non-participants in the economy cannot benefit from an improving economy, regardless of whether rising or falling tax rates were the cause"?
The benefits their parents receive from an improving economy cannot benefit them?ABE
Oh yeah you failed to address the rest of my post.
Many of the rich do not work.
Please show how many of the poor are non-participants in the economy. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I started working at 12 an I contributed part of my paycheck to the household. We were poor. My father worked 60 hours a week and until 1980 never made more than $18,000/year. After that when iw as in college he finished his education and had enough experience that he could get a good paying job. He maxed out about $60k when he retired at 72.Guess I would have made Newt proud. Cause in college I cleaned the dishes and toilets of the other students I went to school with.T o make it clear my parents never took money from me. It was just what was expected and right. I have never thought of it as them taking my money, but my contribution to the family.

In 1980 I was 20 years old. The 18k does not reflect my childhood. At that time my father was moving up the ranks. I used the date and amount to give a perspective of moving forward. Do you think 50k for a family of 6 is upper middle class? I suppose judging other peoples experiences with a tiny bit of info is stupid.

You have no clue how the economic system works do you? The non-rich spending money is much more stimulative than the rich saving money.If you studied the subjects you try to "discuss" a little before you said something maybe , just maybe, someone would take one of your posts seriously.BTW
That is not an insult. It is an observation made after careful analysis of your posts.ABE
Not-rich does not equal poor.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.