Fact - Income grows more under Democratic Presidents

[ThunderBalls]

Source: Larry M. Bartels.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com.

The 20th percentile represents the lowest income and the 95th percentile represents the richest.

Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power? It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60th percentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95th percentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80th percentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.).

[TheDoc]

Spreading the wealth includes everyone, sweet!

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Spreading the wealth includes everyone, sweet!

True dat sire.

[xmas13]

http://tinyurl.com/24wuwfr

[fatfoo]

The government that takes less taxes leaves more income for the individual.
Generally, income is taxed at a lower % rate in USA than in Canada.

[spunkmaster]

It takes a few years for policies to take effect so what the Dems do the effect takes during the GOP era and what the GOP does takes effect during the Dem era etc..

[ThunderBalls]

Originally Posted by spunkmaster

It takes a few years for policies to take effect so what the Dems do the effect takes during the GOP era and what the GOP does takes effect during the Dem era etc..

Yet Obama is to blame for whats going on now?

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by spunkmaster

It takes a few years for policies to take effect so what the Dems do the effect takes during the GOP era and what the GOP does takes effect during the Dem era etc..

Blame Bush? again? What's with you Bush haters?

[2012]

[Gouge]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Blame Bush? again? What's with you Bush haters?

They have a hard time taking responsibility for there own actions.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Because democrat president left us with a recession. Bush prolonged what should have been a big recession by creating the housing bubble and as predicted by many, that lead to an ever bigger recession in 2007.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Because democrat president left us with a recession. Bush prolonged what should have been a big recession by creating the housing bubble and as predicted by many, that lead to an ever bigger recession in 2007.

I blame the Whigs for all this mess.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I blame the Whigs for all this mess.

It is just natural economic cycle. It happens this way. Only really fucks up when people try to stop a recession. Then we get what we have now

[_Richard_]

The blame game: the new american dream

[woj]

It's easy to manipulate statistics like these when you pick arbitrary date ranges... why would the date range be 1948-2005? I wouldn't be surprised at all if you could get opposite results by just picking a different date range...

[Slutboat]

[ThunderBalls]

Originally Posted by woj

It's easy to manipulate statistics like these when you pick arbitrary date ranges... why would the date range be 1948-2005? I wouldn't be surprised at all if you could get opposite results by just picking a different date range...

Well that pretty much covers half of the last century, would you prefer 1901-1918?

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

Yet Obama is to blame for whats going on now?

Partially, while you liberal morons are blaming only Bush.

[woj]

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

Well that pretty much covers half of the last century, would you prefer 1901-1918?

I think the graph wasn't created with all available data at the time...why was it cut off at 2005? and why start at 1948, rather than lets say 1938? If you start messing with the data like that, you can't trust the results you get...

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by woj

I think the graph wasn't created with all available data at the time...why was it cut off at 2005? and why start at 1948, rather than lets say 1938? If you start messing with the data like that, you can't trust the results you get...

His whole point was misdirection because he's too stupid to provide facts.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by woj

I think the graph wasn't created with all available data at the time...why was it cut off at 2005? and why start at 1948, rather than lets say 1938? If you start messing with the data like that, you can't trust the results you get...

We could look it up and see if there was some kind of bias behind the dates?

Larry M. Bartels is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton.

"Data in the graphs are calculated from the Historical Income Inequality Tables compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...ity/index.html

It's possible the data provided only goes back to 1948. I downloaded one sampling and it only went back to 1967.

[Brujah]

I realized after digging it up that it was probably a waste of time. Most people aren't really interested in the truth or the answers to questions they ask. They were just doing it to help justify to themselves why they don't want to believe the data. If you showed them specific proof that denies what they were asking, they don't really care anyway. They already have an opinion on Republican vs Democrat, and will always opt for the belief that supports their own personal bias. On both sides of the equation. It's usually always a waste of time. I can't think of a single person who has ever switched sides, regardless of facts or observations.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I realized after digging it up that it was probably a waste of time. Most people aren't really interested in the truth or the answers to questions they ask. They were just doing it to help justify to themselves why they don't want to believe the data. If you showed them specific proof that denies what they were asking, they don't really care anyway. They already have an opinion on Republican vs Democrat, and will always opt for the belief that supports their own personal bias. On both sides of the equation. It's usually always a waste of time. I can't think of a single person who has ever switched sides, regardless of facts or observations.

Welcome to the stupidity of the porn world.

[ThunderBalls]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Welcome to the stupidity of the porn world.

Says your stepdad every night when you come to the dinner table.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Brujah

We could look it up and see if there was some kind of bias behind the dates?

Larry M. Bartels is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton.

"Data in the graphs are calculated from the Historical Income Inequality Tables compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...ity/index.html

It's possible the data provided only goes back to 1948. I downloaded one sampling and it only went back to 1967.

You are partially right, earliest is 1947 (Table: F-1 All Races) but still that table goes to 2008, so last 3 years were clearly omitted...

And if you look at the data from 2005-2008, you will notice the following income changes between 2005-2008:
lowest = 8.5%
second = 9.6%
third = 9.8%
fourth = 9.8%
top 5% = 8.4%

So actually, the data in that date range contradicts the results of the study, and so that's why it was mysteriously omitted...

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by woj

You are partially right, earliest is 1947 (Table: F-1 All Races) but still that table goes to 2008, so last 3 years were clearly omitted...

And if you look at the data from 2005-2008, you will notice the following income changes between 2005-2008:
lowest = 8.5%
second = 9.6%
third = 9.8%
fourth = 9.8%
top 5% = 8.4%

So actually, the data in that date range contradicts the results of the study, and so that's why it was mysteriously omitted...

I don't think so. The study for Bartels was published a few years ago and data was only available up until 2005 and some of that was projected I bet. Like my previous post mentioned though, you probably aren't really interested unless it supports your pre-existing view. Don't take that as an insult, just an observation. You were quick to dismiss it initially without finding out the truth and continued to do so without actually knowing. We could do this all day if you're just going to "suppose" things you don't know one way or the other, but really, why bother?

[woj]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I don't think so. The study for Bartels was published a few years ago and data was only available up until 2005 and some of that was projected I bet. Like my previous post mentioned though, you probably aren't really interested unless it supports your pre-existing view. Don't take that as an insult, just an observation. You were quick to dismiss it initially without finding out the truth and continued to do so without actually knowing. We could do this all day if you're just going to "suppose" things you don't know one way or the other, but really, why bother?

I was under the impression that the study was more recent, if it was indeed published few years ago, then my bad..

(Thunderballs really dropped the ball here though, posting about 5 year old study on gfy, wtf was he thinking? lol (!!!) )

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by woj

I was under the impression that the study was more recent, if it was indeed published few years ago, then my bad..

(Thunderballs really dropped the ball here though, posting about 5 year old study on gfy, wtf was he thinking? lol (!!!) )

Blame Slate.com lol
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/

It mentions the authors 2008 book. Takes a little time for a book to get published so I don't think there's any bias regarding the dates anyway.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

Says your stepdad every night when you come to the dinner table.

I rest my case

[Dead]

Congrats to the whiners
And by the way, it is not what the government can do for you, it is what YOU can do to distance yourself from their grip! Good luck

[Vendzilla]

consider that the poverty level is at record levels, I doubt this study is accurate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/...rty_in_america

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

consider that the poverty level is at record levels, I doubt this study is accurate

The study is just basic math. You realize that don't you? You can download the historical census data and see the results yourself if you know how to use a spreadsheet.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Brujah

The study is just basic math. You realize that don't you? You can download the historical census data and see the results yourself if you know how to use a spreadsheet.

Actually the graph is a joke, it makes you believe that the president is in complete control of everything, when there are 545 elected officials that are responsible.

Just like Obama telling people that if they vote in the gop, it wil go back to the way it was under them, sorry, he gets an epic fail on that, democrats ran on change in 06 and won, thats 4 years of democratic control, where has that got us?

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Actually the graph is a joke, it makes you believe that the president is in complete control of everything

If I were to go by your posts, I would believe the President is of course always responsible for everything, including things he hasn't done yet. It's a good thing I don't.