Ask Me Help Desk - Who will the dem nominee be?

Quote:

he sure is expanding the less than median income rolls.

You just don't understand the term "median" do you? You cannot simply increase the number below the median without increasing the total number measured. It is ALWAYS half of the total number. You might as well say that he has increased the number above the median because the only way for one group to increase is for the other group to increase as well.

I understand that you are trying to find a way out of your dilemma. When median income goes up, then the economy is definitely getting better. If you agree to that, then you would be (horror!) giving credit to Trump, and your TDS will not allow such a thing to happen.

In simple terms people are not statistics and math terms.

Quote:

In simple terms people are not statistics and math terms.

So? Has that ever been in question? It hasn't been by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Charity is when I help the poor with my money. Tyranny is when I help the poor with your money.

What's it called when I (TRump et al.) don't help the poor at all?

Quote:

What's it called when I (TRump et al.) don't help the poor at all?

Only a liberal views raising the standard of living of the poor to be not helping them. Median income goes up, then poor people are doing better. Lowest Latino/black unemployment in history. Millions of people able to get off of welfare roles. And the poor are not helped at all? Come on.

Low unemployment does not always mean wage growth for all, so maybe not a better living for all, given the price of everything has gone up. Maybe we should look at the people and all those stats for a context.

Where are those millions of people getting off welfare if you have that handy?

Median income growth does mean wage growth.

As to this, "Where are those millions of people getting off welfare if you have that handy," I'll let you look that data up. Isn't that what you always want me to do? To look up your supporting data?

Nah. Here you go. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...y-food-stamps/

Median growth just means a few people shifted position it means nothing at the lower end

Quote:

few people shifted position

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. It means the middle income figure is now higher than it was ten or twenty years ago. That means that what was in the 60th or 55th percentile is now at the middle. That cannot happen unless wages are going up in the bottom half. It would be impossible. It is a win. No question about it.

Liberal MSNBCs Chris Mattews compares Bernie's win in Nevada to Nazi Germany overrunning France .

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-ma...ryiuIl6GfKDEjE

He does seem to be pretty unstoppable at this point. That appeal for freebies must be like catnip for the left. And Bernie promises that better than any of the others

Promises, promises white man speak with forked tongue

Quote:

Promises, promises white man speak with forked tongue

Just about right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Median income growth does mean wage growth.

As to this, "Where are those millions of people getting off welfare if you have that handy," I'll let you look that data up. Isn't that what you always want me to do? To look up your supporting data?

Nah. Here you go. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...y-food-stamps/

You forgetting that states had a huge hand in raising wages across the country too? You think Walmart was going to raise wages without the law changing? I don't think so. Deficit funded tax cuts don't pay for themselves either, and NEVER have but feel free to correct me on that. PLEASE!

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...states-in-2019

Even your own link acknowledges they can't say that those millions will not have to rely on food stamps, and lets also remember that changes in the law has and will affect those numbers as much as any economic gains, and we cannot ignore the rising prices factor or regional conditions that exists. While I concede gratefully that they have slowed for now, they still cancel benefit for all Americans especially the poor who have done better, and the middle class who are still pressed to keep up.

Now the dufus can brag about some things being better the FACTS say it was headed that way before he got here, and while he hasn't destroyed that progress, his over all policies may indeed slow the progress considerably in the longer term, certainly after his second term if he gets one, which is pretty consistent with other repub administrations going back to Reagan. Maybe he will be different, but I doubt it.

I've seen this movie before several times. For a true non biased assessment though I give you this link.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/tr...y-2020-update/

Quote:

Deficit funded tax cuts don't pay for themselves either, and NEVER have but feel free to correct me on that. PLEASE!

Reagan was elected on the promise that lowering tax rates would stimulate the economy and result in higher fed tax revenues. His first year, personal income taxes were at 280 bil. By his last year it had risen to 400 bil.

"These minimum wage increases, which range from a $0.05 inflation adjustment to a $2 per hour increase." Wow. A whole nickel raise?? Happy days are here again!! Have you looked at how many jobs have been lost because of higher min wages?

Interesting that the economy is so good that your only criticism is that the future might not be quite so good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Reagan was elected on the promise that lowering tax rates would stimulate the economy and result in higher fed tax revenues. His first year, personal income taxes were at 280 bil. By his last year it had risen to 400 bil.

"These minimum wage increases, which range from a $0.05 inflation adjustment to a $2 per hour increase." Wow. A whole nickel raise?? Happy days are here again!! Have you looked at how many jobs have been lost because of higher min wages?

Interesting that the economy is so good that your only criticism is that the future might not be quite so good.

That's not my only criticism of the economy, since basically its the same smoke and mirror redistribution to the wealthy as all the repubs have practiced since Reagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

For many years union workers took better benefits and also assumed greater costs of health care at the sacrifice of less take home pay or that $.05 hourly wage. Indeed back then wages where calculated with benefits as a factor. So go ahead berate the bottom half getting a buck or two, while those very same corporations send jobs overseas, hide money in havens and bring in robots.

At least you're consistent. Blame it on the bottom half wanting MO"MONEY and not the top half getting MO'MONEY! No comment on states for being the ones to push for MO"MONEY? You would be more believable as while you decry the minimum wage as job busting you advocate the poor working as many jobs as they can get, you don't see the possibility of transparency of the wealthy by eliminating those rich guy loopholes, and deductions that caps the wealth and allowing more wealth to TRICKLE down.

LOL, we can't have that now can we?

jlisenbe: Reagan was elected for a multiple of reasons but the biggest one was that people were sick of Jimmy Carter's inept Presidency and his embarrassment to the U.S. in the failing around the Iranian Hostage fiasco.....just too many issue, amongst the one you allude to also included....people felt strangled and Reagan appeared like a Knight In Shining Armor!

Lets not forget the economics at the time. Never will I forget the lines at the gas station, after the Iranian Revolution that led to the hostage crisis, and our failure to rescue them.

Talaniman: Yes, you are correct: Carter was/is such a nice man....and I admire his part in the development of the Nuclear Navy as a Nuclear Engineer, he was awesome...and, I love his historical books he has authored...but: Every man has his strengths and his weaknesses...every man can't always come to realize what they are...they lucky ones do but many of us don't: Jimmy Carter just didn't DO the Presidency very well....and, the STARS ALIGNED AGAINST HIM...when that happens, nothing you do will work. Reagan was the benefactor of all the ills Carter possessed in that 1980 Election.

I agree, the way he ran his administration, eerily like the dufus in a few ways, opened the door for his failure and King Reagan walked right in. Reagan a supply sider through and through cut the tax rate from 70% to 28%! Wrap your head around that for a minute! What I remember most was the downsizing and lay offs of businesses. I made the cut by the skin of my teeth.

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/...0223104509.jpg

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/...0221044532.jpg

Bernie wins again. South Carolina is next!

http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.c...Nx4ocPyrzXJO-k

Lower wages for the lower echelon workers equates to lower wages for the Middle Class, as well. This is the problem with any country that suffers an influx of undocumented workers, for example....and this is viewed only because it demonstrates the effect more easily because it could just be many low end paying jobs by documented workers, too: If the low end workers pay dips ever lower, the downward pull of these wages will decrease the wages of Middle Class workers....only the high end wage earners on the scale will be insulated from the wage assault.

Vac, I think you are off center on that one. Lower wage workers are not competing for the same jobs as middle income individuals. Besides, as we have discussed here about 93 times, if median income is rising, and it is, then that can only happen if lower to middle income workers are making more money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Vac, I think you are off center on that one. Lower wage workers are not competing for the same jobs as middle income individuals. Besides, as we have discussed here about 93 times, if median income is rising, and it is, then that can only happen if lower to middle income workers are making more money.

No it has to do with how many incomes are in that middle bracket and not about how many people are in the series, so if you have a streaching effect where there are more high income individuals and more low income individuals the growth in middle income affects the series without indicating that lower incomesa are improving

Quote:

No it has to do with how many incomes are in that middle bracket and not about how many people are in the series

The number of people in the series can certainly affect the median. If you add a lot towards the bottom of the range, then the income figure at the median automatically drops. If you add a lot towards the top of the range, then it rises. There is no "middle bracket" for median income. There is one income at the very center of the group. If you have 1,001 people, then the 501st person is the median giving you 500 below and 500 above. If you add one hundred towards the bottom (or anywhere for that matter), then the total figure rises to 1,101 and the 551st person is the median.

"Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. Mode income is the most frequently occurring income in a given income distribution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

you need more than a rudimentary understanding of statistics to understand these figures. Knowing the middle figure means nothing other than it approximates the average sometimes

Quote:

you need more than a rudimentary understanding of statistics to understand these figures. Knowing the middle figure means nothing other than it approximates the average sometimes

Well, it would help to at least have that rudimentary understanding of stats. Based on your previous comments, I don't think you have that. This statement, " it approximates the average sometimes," means basically nothing. How more vague a statement could you have made? "It approximates the average sometimes??" It's the equivalent of saying that every once in a while the median approximates the mean. It's meaningless.

Median income is a very useful stat. When it goes up, it is good news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Median income is a very useful stat. When it goes up, it is good news.

It is a trailing indicator at best which means that if it rises any "good news" was some time ago, it is only good news to politicians like trump who can shout about their success however vague the connection maybe

Quote:

It is a trailing indicator at best which means that if it rises any "good news" was some time ago

A trailing indicator? So is GDP growth. So are unemployment figures. So are inflation figures. It's a silly objection. No one says, "Unemployment is down, but let's all be sad and somber because, after all, it's a trailing indicator."

It is good news to everyone other than those who don't want Trump to get any credit for an economy which is breaking records. I'm not a Trump fan, but truth is truth.

Quote:

truth is truth.

Don't do a Pilate on me, which truth, the truth according to Trump or the truth according to the demonrats. One says everything thing is getting better, the other says things are worse

If you add more to the lower income population, the Median Income goes down and the average income goes down: this is meaningless to any group other than the lower income group. The Middle Class gets zapped when the lowest earners population grows because of the Tax Structure architecture: The Middle Class ends up paying for the tax deficiency of the lower income wage earners, effectively robbing their earnings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

If you add more to the lower income population, the Median Income goes down and the average income goes down: this is meaningless to any group other than the lower income group. The Middle Class gets zapped when the lowest earners population grows because of the Tax Structure architecture: The Middle Class ends up paying for the tax deficiency of the lower income wage earners, effectively robbing their earnings.

You need to learn the reality that taxing low income earners is a zero sum game, we learned that lesson and our economy hasn't suffered, if you lower taxes on the middle classes you fuel the economy and the rich don't need tax breaks so close the loop holes

Paraclete: That is what I said! We're saying the same thing: Crushing the Middle Class with taxes to make up for the deficit of tax revenues on the lower wage earners is a LOSING PROPOSITION! Communism attacks the Middle Class with intent to destroy it: This is what we have been witnessing in this country the last 50 years. When Trump's tax plans took effect, I ended up paying MORE TAXES THAN I HAD EVER PAID IN MY LIFE! They were advertised as being good for the Middle Class but they have proven anything but good!

you are in the wrong class

Quote:

We're saying the same thing: Crushing the Middle Class with taxes to make up for the deficit of tax revenues on the lower wage earners is a LOSING PROPOSITION!

The top 20% of income earners in the United States pay over 85% of the income tax. In what way are we "crushing the middle class"?

Quote:

Don't do a Pilate on me, which truth, the truth according to Trump or the truth according to the demonrats. One says everything thing is getting better, the other says things are worse

Which is why I don't make an appeal to dems or repubs. Stats are not swayed by political beliefs.

Income Level Top 1% Top 5% Top 10%

Percentage of Total Tax Revenue 39.40% 59.90% 70.80%

Income Level Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50%

Percentage of Total Tax Revenue 39.40% 59.90% 70.80% 86.70% 97.20% 2.70%

Average Tax Rate 27.10% 23.60% 21.20% 17.80% 15.50% 3.40%

https://www.lombardiletter.com/top-2...ent-tax/20757/

which proves you forgo nothing by removing taxes on the lower 50%, but the answer to both lower taxes and a balanced budget is reduced expenditure

Quote:

which proves you forgo nothing by removing taxes on the lower 50%, but the answer to both lower taxes and a balanced budget is reduced expenditure

Exactly correct. In fact there is no conceivable level of taxation that will raise an extra tril of revenue without wrecking the economy. We are not on a good course.

If all those taxes are paid by the upper classes why do we run a defict every year except under Clinton who cut military spending and raised taxes. Obviously taxing the rich ain't enough, and cutting their taxes is even worse fiscally, because it added to the deficit, and who else can afford to be taxed more? Like Clete says we have a lot of cutting to do to balance a budget, and I doubt ordinary paycheck to paycheck folks especially with kids are going to vote for that. Sure your median income stat makes you feel better, shows progress right? Slow and steady! It's been explained that those high end taxpayers 12%% tax reduction can mean millions and billions right now and yours and poor people's are measured in thousands and hundreds.

Only in your weird math world do we enrich the already rich at the expense of everybody else who ain't rich. I mean duh! Can't you see how that hollows out the middle class? Of course you don't, so why grab a position you don't seem to know much about or understand very well? I mean in our consumer driven economy buying stuff moves it along, and circulates the money, and no matter how much you give rich folks they don't do either. They don't build roads, schools, or bridges! The hoard the money they get for NOT working and hide it for their kids or foundations and cry my taxes are to high give me a cut!

Who listens when you holler? You of all people should know how hard it is to get in and stay in the middle class, and you seem to have forgotten that struggle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Exactly correct. In fact there is no conceivable level of taxation that will raise an extra tril of revenue without wrecking the economy. We are not on a good course.

So are you admitting the tax cuts made permanent were not a good idea since the middle class tax cuts are set to expire very soon? All on the credit card I might add.

Income Level	Top 1%	Top 5%	Top 10%
Percentage of Total Tax Revenue	39.40%	59.90%	70.80%