Quote:

---

What part of median do you not understand, median is the mid point so 50% of incomes are below the median, how many are American citizens, well that is an unknown

---

If you'll look above, I had to explain it to you, so you can be certain I understand it quite well. As to how many are American citizens, yeah, I'm sure the illegal immigrants are all reporting their income. Right

Quote:

---

I only used the data given. No matter what data you use say 50% that's 160M bellow the median, but that figure does not allow for the number that is in the median so bring better data and we get more accurate figures. I get your inference about non Americans, but for the sake of argument we use for both above and bellow median as <50, and >50 respectively.

---

Oh good grief. The number that is in the median is ONE!! And it's not for the sake of argument. It is by definition. 50% above and 50% below. Learn a little.

I can go with your numbers then so now that's out of the way, what of those 175M people who are below the median. You seem to keep dodging that real question about real people.

I am not dodging the question. There are ALWAYS half the population below the median, but the higher the median is, the better off those people are. So if 50K used to be the median, but now it is 58K, then there are more people making over 50K than before. Before it was 50% making over 50K, but now it would be perhaps 55 or 58% making over 50K. Do you see that? It's not complicated.

Median income is just a standard of measure. The higher it is, the better the economy is and the higher the standard of living is. It's a tool of comparison from one year to another. It doesn't mean that everything is wonderful for everyone. That has never happened and never will happen. If Obama was still pres, you would be out writing a song about the wonderful rise in median income. You are nit-picking it only as a symptom of your TDS.

Lets see how that works then. Median income rises populations grow, and the number of people below the median grows too? So when you going to address those below the median? You blow it off because that doesn't affect you, just more souls for your charity, and MO'money forced from your pocket for the souls your charity can't get to. Jl gets to keep beetching about what he is forced to do.

Now I understand your logic better.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN! 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN! 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! IS IT BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR NOW???????? THERE WILL ALWAYS BE 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN!!! IF THE POPULATION GROWS, THEN YES, THERE WILL BE 50% STILL BELOW THE MEDIAN!! IF YOU WANT FEWER PEOPLE BELOW THE MEDIAN, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO OUT FIND WAYS TO LOWER THE POPULATION! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?????????

IF THE MEDIAN INCOME GOES UP, THEN IT'S GOOD NEWS FOR EVERYONE! THAT MEANS THERE ARE MORE HIGHER INCOME JOBS AVAILABLE! THAT MEANS THAT MANY PEOPLE BELOW THE OLD MEDIAN INCOME STARTED MAKING MORE MONEY AND RAISED THE MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL. IT IS GOOD NEWS! WE SHOULD REJOICE WHEN IT HAPPENS! ONLY A LIBERAL DEM WILL LOOK FOR AN POINT TO ARGUE HERE. STOP HATING TRUMP AND WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!

I ADDRESSED THE BELOW GROUP IN MY LAST POST!!!! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN HOW TO READ AND COMPREHEND????


I hope by using all caps that maybe it will finally begin to sink in with you. Would you be happy if you read in a headline, "Good news! 5 Million Die in Hurricane So There are Fewer People Below the Median Income!"

This all goes back to your hatred of Trump and your refusal to acknowledge anything good that might reflect well on him. It is really breathtaking to watch. I've never met anyone with a case of TDS like you have. Incredible. It colors everything you believe.

Didn't mean to make your head explode, just pushing back against the futility of your arguments and ignoring the obvious and that's simply INCREASE the circulation of capital. Very simple really as turning up the spigot on that trickle down money tank.

No need to kill people or pray for a hurricane.

Quote:

---

No need to kill people or pray for a hurricane.

---

Then stop your bellyaching about the increase of the number of people below the median. Population goes up, then both groups (above and below) increase. Can't be stopped.

Quote:

---

Didn't mean to make your head explode, just pushing back against the futility of your arguments and ignoring the obvious and that's simply INCREASE the circulation of capital. Very simple really as turning up the spigot on that trickle down money tank.

---

Platitudes.

I hope you learned something. When the median income goes up, it's a good thing, even if your hated Mr. Trump is pres, it's still a good thing.

Think carefully about this The only way the median income can go up is for the below 50% group to start making more money, or for the above 50% group to start making less money. So if it goes up, then one of those is happening. Do you understand that?

Do you understand increasing circulation to more folks? It's more than a platitude. It's a key untapped revenue source. You could consider doing your homewok and engaging in reasonable thought rather than the knee jerk emotional reaction and distraction games you like to play. That's not a path to discussion and reaching consensus. Go ahead keep judging success by statistics you know nothing about. Think people before profits to clear your vision.

The Demo end game is based upon Marxist theory: Destruction of the MIDDLE CLASS....this is what Bernie and Company want.....BUT, the truth about ANY POPULATION OF HUMANS: There will ALWAYS be a "lower class" and it will be sizeable....even in the commie utopias of Cuba and Red China, despite their proclamations of it not being so, there exist a huge lower class....INESCAPABLE reality.

Well for sure rich dudes don't go off to war in a number to defend a gnat, so a grunt class is always needed for that.

Quote:

---

You could consider doing your homewok and engaging in reasonable thought rather than the knee jerk emotional reaction and distraction games you like to play. That's not a path to discussion and reaching consensus. Go ahead keep judging success by statistics you know nothing about. Think people before profits to clear your vision.

---

Says the man who quotes no stats, gives no data, and had no idea what the "median" in "median income" meant, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take what you say seriously.

I would like to ask one question. You talk about "increasing circulation". What do you mean by that?

Given the fact that even rich guys catch hell during a down business cycle, recessions, and depressions imagine that the lower down the economic ladder then are so adversely effected also. Certain sectors are prone to those cycles more than others, but the poor are always affected. Anybody can be poor through no fault of their own, and while you may use median income as a sign of growth you cannot ignore the income inequality that even that inplies for us all. Income in the upper groups has grown so much faster than every other group put simply no matter what the economy is doing. Add to that wages and prices you are still left with a stressed middle class and the poor have no hope of seeing a dollar. This is the monetary policy of this country, has been for a long time, and it can be changed with simple adjustments to the tax code to trickle down a greater share of the good economy, or even better set a higher level eligibility for distributing funds and resources to the poor. Consider that while some have the option to invest, some cannot even save, and still others cannot pay a decent rent.

Now if your still with me, seems evident given the above condition and the Monetary policy has to be tweaked to allow for not just safety net programs, both private and public, but access to enough capital to build a modicum of wealth during good times to survive those conditions during the not so good and bad times. In essence increasing circulation is a bottom up policy rather than top down one that closes the wage inequality gap rather than widens it.

I think you may find it's also runs counter to make any tax reduction benefit permanent. A thing I liked about Ronald Reagan that while I disagreed with him on many things working with his congress to be very flexible on tax and monetary policy was impressive very I thought, though overly modest at times.

Good video

Quote:

---

you may use median income as a sign of growth you cannot ignore the income inequality that even that inplies for us all. Income in the upper groups has grown so much faster than every other group put simply no matter what the economy is doing. Add to that wages and prices you are still left with a stressed middle class

---

I am not "using" median income as a sign of growth. It is simply true. You can not like it(because of your TDS), but it is still true. I don't think the MC is "stressed", but I would agree that the growth in income of the top 5 or 10% relative to everyone else is not a good thing.

Quote:

---

This is the monetary policy of this country, has been for a long time, and it can be changed with simple adjustments to the tax code to trickle down a greater share of the good economy,

---

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% pay nearly all of the income tax, and the bottom half pay next to nothing. How you adjust that to make it more fair?

Quote:

---

or even better set a higher level eligibility for distributing funds and resources to the poor.

---

This is the bottom line for you. You want to take money from some Americans and just hand it out to other Americans. I don't see any justification for that. It amounts to legalized theft. It is one thing to ask a person to fund schools, highways, national defense, courts, the police, and other areas of government that benefit everyone. It is entirely different to just take money from one person and give it to another.

The conversation we should be having has nothing to do with the dufus, but the repub supply side policy that ALWAYS redirects wealth to the top through a tax cut vehicle. You seem to keep implying though they deserve it, because your crumbs that trickle down are most welcome, rather than an honest cut of the pie. At least you acknowledge that it might be unfair. Ya think, and that's not even a conversation about poverty yet. Only you nut cases think a deficit funded tax cut would be a great idea for rich guys when its you as a taxpaying consumer that pays for it.

We both know it's a big fat lie that it pays for itself, or that the rich guy deserves such a HUGE tax cut and the rest deserves crumbs. Consider rich guys only pay taxes on half their money in the first place. Go ahead then keep giving them more and try to keep up with the volume of people who need help.

Look at the community you serve and multiply that by any number you choose to represent the people outside of your community that will need help and however way you cut it that's a huge number who get no crumbs. I find it ironic a man of God would balk at efforts to help others and call if FORCING him to help people he doesn't know by taking HIS money, but making a rich guy richer at a faster rate than anybody else is just perfectly fine. That goes beyond profits before people which is just old fashion greed, and smacks of having BS and reality all mixed up.

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

I have "acknowledged" nothing about "fairness". My comment was that it is not a good idea for most of the capital and wealth to be in the hands of a very small minority.

For the five hundred and second time, when the wealthy pay nearly all of the income taxes, then you need to find another horn to toot other than tax fairness. It's a ludicrous argument.

No crumbs? What planet do you live on? We give people food stamps that can be used in restaurants and help pay for their housing, and that's not to mention a free public education. And your continuing lie, which you know full well it is, of misrepresenting what I have said about our PERSONAL responsibility to help poor people gets old. Every person has that personal responsibility. Now I can say that since I accept the Bible as authoritative. You have nothing to appeal to beyond your own personal opinion which seems to be that charity is all about electing people that will force people other than you to help the poor.

Quote:

---

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% pay nearly all of the income tax, and the bottom half pay next to nothing. How you adjust that to make it more fair?

---

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

---

I think you lost that vote but another election is coming so don't give up hope.

Quote:

---

I have "acknowledged" nothing about "fairness". My comment was that it is not a good idea for most of the capital and wealth to be in the hands of a very small minority.

---

I gave you credit for that even if the rest of your rant was utter crap! Read it again.

Quote:

---

For the five hundred and second time, when the wealthy pay nearly all of the income taxes, then you need to find another horn to toot other than tax fairness. It's a ludicrous argument.

---

You have your ludicrous peeves to argue about, I have mine so what?

Quote:

---

No crumbs? What planet do you live on? We give people food stamps that can be used in restaurants and help pay for their housing, and that's not to mention a free public education.

---

WE give them? I thought you were forced to give people those things?

Quote:

---

And your continuing lie, which you know full well it is, of misrepresenting what I have said about our PERSONAL responsibility to help poor people gets old. Every person has that personal responsibility.

---

The way I choose to exercise and carry out MY responsibilities is my business so why are you in it?

Quote:

---

Now I can say that since I accept the Bible as authoritative. You have nothing to appeal to beyond your own personal opinion which seems to be that charity is all about electing people that will force people other than you to help the poor.

---

Good for you, glad for you, but I think I will just skip the book of ancient man and go with a direct relationship with a God that I understand and understands me. Its more than just a single subject of how best to be charitable, but about life itself and how best to live it, though I am still learning as more is revealed. That elected official thing that you are forced to comply with is your own personal problem to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

---

Why have our taxes paid for over 300 golf vacations for our wealthy president?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#7ce5408e28aa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

---

He can't hear you Clete he has his head stuck up the dufus's arse to his shoulders, so let him enjoy the experience. Economics ain't his strong suite so he has no clue he is being rapped, robbed, and pillaged.

Quote:

---

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

---

Learn how to read, Clete. I didn't say it was not fair. Think a little. Tal is the one who is questioning the fairness of the tax system.

Quote:

---

The way I choose to exercise and carry out MY responsibilities is my business so why are you in it?

---

That's fine with me, but why do you allow yourself that privilege but not others? Why do you think it is OK to elect pols who force others to do what your reserve as a right for yourself.

Quote:

---

He can't hear you Clete he has his head stuck up the dufus's arse to his shoulders, so let him enjoy the experience.

---

I had to laugh at that. It was just yesterday that your were loudly posting about how uncivil and insulting Trump was in his public comments. Well my friend, you are the most uncivil and insulting person on this site. You are closer to Trump in that regard than anyone else I know. I guess congratulations are in order.

Quote:

---

Economics ain't his strong suite so he has no clue he is being rapped, robbed, and pillaged.

---

Says the man who had no idea at all what the word "median" in "median income" meant. Another of your comments that made me laugh. And then your melodramatic comments about being raped, robbed, and pillaged were good for a laugh as well.