The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[fpres]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

?


Wait until his "Democrats are full of shit" mailer.

Note to Carl Paladino...

Don't go into marketing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by fpres

Note to Carl Paladino... Don't go into marketing.

Actually I was thinking that it wouldn't be long before I saw this praised in the advertising trades as "a creative example of what can be done with aroma technology".

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually I was thinking that it wouldn't be long before I saw this praised in the advertising trades as "a creative example of what can be done with aroma technology".

Originally Posted by JPhillips

?


Wait until his "Democrats are full of shit" mailer.

SI

[sterlingice]

Ok, so I missed most of the rest of the discussion and I was enjoying the nature of truth discussion quite a bit- there were definitely some excellent posts in that part (and even a few when it turned into religion vs science, but, well...)

Originally Posted by molson

I've always thought that people who try to compare religion and science don't understand either very well.

This was pithy and pretty much overlooked but so true. I've never understood how these two square off against each other in more than a tangential fashion. I think it's pretty rare that religious folks expect God alone to cure their child at a hospital. And I don't think science is where the majority of people go to look for greater meaning in life or death.

Flere tho had a good post that addressed this a page or two later.

SI

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

There could be an interesting turn of events in the Alaska Senatorial race, as it sounds like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was defeated in the primary by Tea Party/Palin candidate Joe Miller, is going to run as a write-in candidate.

If she decides to run and stays in the race, it could be enough to swing the election in favor of the Democratic nominee. If I am not mistaken, there is no love lost between the Murkowski family and Palin.

Here are the results for the Aug 24th primary (number of votes and % of party):

Demmocrat Scott McAdams 15,347 59%
Jacob Seth Kern 5,978 23%
Frank Vondersaar 4,681 18%

Republican Joe Miller 47,027 51%
Lisa Murkowski 45,359 49%

Looks like Murkowski and Miller can split votes and still win by a huge margin. But you never know for sure.

[JPhillips]

What nobody knows yet is whether Murkoski mostly hurts Miller or McAdams. Only when a couple of polls come out will we know. Miller has to be the favorite, but a three way race like this is a toss up until we have some good polling.

[JPhillips]

dola

Surprise results at the Values Voter straw poll. Mike Pence beat Huckabee and Palin. I wonder if that will be enough to make him consider a real run.

[rowech]

Talk about stupid...

Obama to black leaders: Fire up against GOP surge - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

[JPhillips]

How is that stupid?

IS he not allowed to campaign?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How is that stupid?

IS he not allowed to campaign?

This is campaigning...

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.


We can do that.



But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.




That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time."








This is invoking race, in a militant manner (foot soldiers) as a division in the country and trying to exploit it for your own political gains as well as your party's.


"I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now. The last election was a changing of the guard — now we need to guard the change. Members of "the other side," want to take us backward. We want to move America forward. In fact, they're betting that you'll come down with a case of amnesia. That you'll forget about what their agenda did to this country when they were in charge. Remember, these are the folks who spent almost a decade driving the economy into a ditch. And now they're asking for the keys back. What made the civil rights movement possible were foot soldiers like so many of you, sitting down at lunch counters and standing up for freedom. What made it possible for me to be here today are Americans throughout our history making our union more equal, making our union more just, making our union more perfect, that's what we need again."


This was a BIG mistake on his part. HUGE.

[fpres]

Originally Posted by rowech

Talk about stupid...

Obama to black leaders: Fire up against GOP surge - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

This was not unexpected.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

This is campaigning...

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.


We can do that.



But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.




That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time."








This is invoking race, in a militant manner (foot soldiers) as a division in the country and trying to exploit it for your own political gains as well as your party's.


"I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now. The last election was a changing of the guard — now we need to guard the change. Members of "the other side," want to take us backward. We want to move America forward. In fact, they're betting that you'll come down with a case of amnesia. That you'll forget about what their agenda did to this country when they were in charge. Remember, these are the folks who spent almost a decade driving the economy into a ditch. And now they're asking for the keys back. What made the civil rights movement possible were foot soldiers like so many of you, sitting down at lunch counters and standing up for freedom. What made it possible for me to be here today are Americans throughout our history making our union more equal, making our union more just, making our union more perfect, that's what we need again."


This was a BIG mistake on his part. HUGE.

bullshit. absolute bullshit rowech.

aside from the targeted mention of the civil rights movement (and btw i bet he makes this same speech to all manner of different groups, labor unions, etc. just substituting one example for another...i know i heard this "keys" thing in a speech the other day), there's absolutely nothing racial about it.

unless you're all up in arms because he spoke to a bunch of fellow black people.

you're full of shit and trying to create a story where there isn't one (although i'm sure we'll hear something similar on Fox within the next 24 hours)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Talk about stupid...

Obama to black leaders: Fire up against GOP surge - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

I don't think anyone should be surprised at this at all. Obama's administration has been in panic mode behind the scenes for a few months now. Pulling a militant stance involving race is a desperate measure, but it almost had to happen given how few options the Democrats have left.

[DaddyTorgo]

militant??

wtf are you smoking????

black people can't mention the civil rights movement now without it being militant??

because that's the only part of that speech that's substantially different than the stump speeches he has been giving elsewhere.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

militant??

wtf are you smoking????

black people can't mention the civil rights movement now without it being militant??

because that's the only part of that speech that's substantially different than the stump speeches he has been giving elsewhere.

If the same speech was given by a Caucasian president to a gathering of white people, there would be an uproar over it. But if a minority president does it, it's OK? No, it's not.

Rowech was spot-on. Stick with the issues. When you try to rally a racially unified gathering, it does everything but unite. It actually increases the racial tension and could end up hurting his party even worse in the November election. It's a very risky tactic.

[RainMaker]

Maybe the difference is that one of those races was enslaved by the other for hundreds of years and was only given equal rights in the last 50 years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe the difference is that one of those races was enslaved by the other for hundreds of years and was only given equal rights in the last 50 years.

Exactly. They want to be treated equally. That's exactly what's happening. They're being held to the same standard an all-Caucasian gathering would be in this situation. They don't have to like it, but that's how things work in our country.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Exactly. They want to be treated equally. That's exactly what's happening. They're being held to the same standard an all-Caucasian gathering would be in this situation. They don't have to like it, but that's how things work in our country.

You're fucked in the head.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You're fucked in the head.

You hear that on Fox News too?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

Article I saw that relates to the religion conversation that's been raging in this thread.

Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Are We 'Cramming Religion Down Our Children's Throats?' or Creating Good Citizens

[JPhillips]

It's amazing how quickly the right gets their feelings hurt. I'm so old I remember when the right thought being hypersensitive about speech was a bad thing.

Meet the new PC, same as the old PC.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If the same speech was given by a Caucasian president to a gathering of white people, there would be an uproar over it. But if a minority president does it, it's OK? No, it's not.

Rowech was spot-on. Stick with the issues. When you try to rally a racially unified gathering, it does everything but unite. It actually increases the racial tension and could end up hurting his party even worse in the November election. It's a very risky tactic.

That's because it would be stupid for a white person to address a bunch of white people as leaders of the civil rights movement. But I'm sure Clinton said roughly this same thing to black leaders several times. Was he a militant racist?

Obama was trying to boost turnout on election day. Until you can quote and explain why anything he said was militant racism, this is just another example of thin-skinned bitching over the outrage of the day.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe the difference is that one of those races was enslaved by the other for hundreds of years and was only given equal rights in the last 50 years.

And you know what? I wasn't there for either of those things and most of the people on this board weren't either so stop using it as a defense. Most people that are in our generation don't have a problem with race. They've been taught from a young age that the color of your skin doesn't matter and then what happens? Race is constantly being brought into the picture and it's not right. If you want to be a part of society, having a job, owning a home, etc. then get on board! Stop talking about things from 50-60 years ago or you risk alienating those who want to see you succeed.

[JPhillips]

Are you also in charge of what white people need to hear? Asians? Hispanics?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Exactly. They want to be treated equally. That's exactly what's happening. They're being held to the same standard an all-Caucasian gathering would be in this situation. They don't have to like it, but that's how things work in our country.

It isn't equal. One race was enslaved and/or were given subhuman status for the greater part of our nation's history. That can't be erased. You had one race control almost all the land, money, and power in this country. You don't just flip a switch and say "it's equal now".

It's like putting two teams on a football field, giving one side a 40-0 lead to start, and then justifying it by saying "well they're both playing by the same rules now".

It's just ignorant to not understand why there are gatherings and associations for minorities and genders. Maybe your next stance can be against women's domestic abuse groups.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

And you know what? I wasn't there for either of those things and most of the people on this board weren't either so stop using it as a defense. Most people that are in our generation don't have a problem with race. They've been taught from a young age that the color of your skin doesn't matter and then what happens? Race is constantly being brought into the picture and it's not right. If you want to be a part of society, having a job, owning a home, etc. then get on board! Stop talking about things from 50-60 years ago or you risk alienating those who want to see you succeed.

Well I had nothing to do with Vietnam. Being that I wasn't alive, I didn't have an opportunity to vote in any of those elections. So why the fuck should I have to pay Veteran's benefits?

I mean as you said, we weren't there for it, so maybe we should stop talking about things from 50-60 years ago and not force us to have to deal with another generation's problems.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you also in charge of what white people need to hear? Asians? Hispanics?

Exactly...people don't want to hear those things from a white person. Yet, when a black person says them, as the text above, they get called an Uncle Tom and blasted for it.

Blacks who are successful in business, science, etc. (no sports) need to go into these communities and show folks that it can be done, there is a road to success, etc. Too often the don't or even won't for fear of the backlash of doing so or also having to relive all they went through to get out.

None of us, unless we have lived in that type of poverty can possibly imagine what it's like and I don't pretend to. I taught for a year in Cincinnati and came to understand a lot more through doing it. It's a cycle of many things but it's almost all under the control of the communities themselves. Eventually, ownership needs to be taken and talking about the past injustices, do nothing but perpetuate the cycle and downtrodden images.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

Exactly...people don't want to hear those things from a white person. Yet, when a black person says them, as the text above, they get called an Uncle Tom and blasted for it.

Blacks who are successful in business, science, etc. (no sports) need to go into these communities and show folks that it can be done, there is a road to success, etc. Too often the don't or even won't for fear of the backlash of doing so or also having to relive all they went through to get out.

None of us, unless we have lived in that type of poverty can possibly imagine what it's like and I don't pretend to. I taught for a year in Cincinnati and came to understand a lot more through doing it. It's a cycle of many things but it's almost all under the control of the communities themselves. Eventually, ownership needs to be taken and talking about the past injustices, do nothing but perpetuate the cycle and downtrodden images.

Why would any politician make that speech when the goal is to increase turnout?

btw- Obama did have a big speech on race. You may have missed it, but it was kind of a big deal at the time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

Yeah...that's an equal argument. Stop being an idiot.

A valid comparison would be us paying war reperations to Vietnam and I would certainly be against it as well.

It is a valid comparision to the argument you made. You stated that we should not be burdened with something from our nation's past that we had nothing to do with. Vietnam is a perfect example of that.

You just don't like the argument because it makes what you said sound stupid. As a country, we are always responsible for our nation's past whether we like it or not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

Exactly...people don't want to hear those things from a white person. Yet, when a black person says them, as the text above, they get called an Uncle Tom and blasted for it.

Blacks who are successful in business, science, etc. (no sports) need to go into these communities and show folks that it can be done, there is a road to success, etc. Too often the don't or even won't for fear of the backlash of doing so or also having to relive all they went through to get out.

None of us, unless we have lived in that type of poverty can possibly imagine what it's like and I don't pretend to. I taught for a year in Cincinnati and came to understand a lot more through doing it. It's a cycle of many things but it's almost all under the control of the communities themselves. Eventually, ownership needs to be taken and talking about the past injustices, do nothing but perpetuate the cycle and downtrodden images.

I agree with you on that. I don't necessarily think it's a race issue though. It's a poverty one. Poor white communities deal with the same issues that poor black communities. It highlights race more since blacks have a higher rate of poverty in part to the fact that they were not allowed to control land, money, or power for most of our nation's history. At some point that will even out and we'll realize it's more about poverty, but that will take many generations for a race to catch-up from the disadvantage they started from.

[Marc Vaughan]

I agree with you on that. I don't necessarily think it's a race issue though. It's a poverty one. Poor white communities deal with the same issues that poor black communities.

I don't think its even a 'poverty' one (although I do find the poverty in America hard to 'take' - simply because its far more extreme than you find in England*).

I think the main issue is culture and education to be honest, I've noticed in both England and America there is almost a 'sub-culture' amongst the poorer people where they don't aspire towards normal hopes and dreams and instead have more limited ambitions.

A lot of such people don't realise that by not encouraging their kids to work hard at school they're removing a huge amount of potential options from their lives, they don't realise the importance of exercise and eating right etc.

Improving the knowledge of these things could help a lot with improving the lot in life of such people BUT also the increased hope and better approach to life would also probably improve the areas in which they live.

(before anyone says 'what do I know' - I grew up with a single mother and we were what would be considered 'poor' in England; I had lots of friends who were in similar situations and saw how few of these aspired to any long term goals in comparison to the people I met when I reached university etc. - In England the 'poor' are not as badly off as over here so I presume the culture etc. surrounding them is at least as negative as back home)

*Partly I expect because in England the richer agree (via. taxation) to subsidise the poorer people and try and ensure everyone has a basic standard of living.
Over here the situation encourages extremes (at both ends of the scale) because taxation is lesser and there is less redistrution of weath; up to each individual to decide which approach is better - not trying to pass judgement on it, its just different (and being English I'm always going to prefer whats most familiar to me).

[JPhillips]

There's been plenty of research on learned helplessness. It's a lot more difficult than just telling people they should try harder.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't think its even a 'poverty' one (although I do find the poverty in America hard to 'take' - simply because its far more extreme than you find in England*).

I think the main issue is culture and education to be honest, I've noticed in both England and America there is almost a 'sub-culture' amongst the poorer people where they don't aspire towards normal hopes and dreams and instead have more limited ambitions.

I believe the issue is poverty and culture and education, not sure which come first, all probably related in some differing percentages based on circumstances. "Culture" is the big bucket where alot of things can be put into.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's been plenty of research on learned helplessness. It's a lot more difficult than just telling people they should try harder.

I agree with that and that wasn't what I was intending to encourage - more a dissembling of the culture of negativity by educating the people concerned and showing them positive role models from their background who have done well.

I don't think it'd be an easy task at all and is something which would literally take generations to undertake, but it'd be worthwhile for society as a whole.

[JPhillips]

I wasn't meaning to aim that at you. I just think too many people blame poverty on the poor exclusively. There are a lot of factors and while I'd urge any individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the odds are that most won't or can't. The single greatest determiner of economic class in the US is the class of your parents. Those born poor or rich largely stay that way.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe the issue is poverty and culture and education, not sure which come first, all probably related in some differing percentages based on circumstances. "Culture" is the big bucket where alot of things can be put into.

The reason I wanted to emphasise something other than money is I've also seen similar issues amongst very rich kids when I went to university, they were unable to apply themselves and work because of the culture they grew up in and the ease with which they'd stolled through life until that point.

Obviously having well to do parents their problems weren't as obvious or problematic to themselves - but thats one of the reasons why I think its a 'mentality' thing rather than a money related thing.

PS - Unfortunately I do think with computing becoming so prevalent in education today its going to increasingly get back to the stage where you have less opportunities to self-educate in the future - ie. lack of money WILL hold you back from bettering yourself somewhat.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wasn't meaning to aim that at you. I just think too many people blame poverty on the poor exclusively. There are a lot of factors and while I'd urge any individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the odds are that most won't or can't. The single greatest determiner of economic class in the US is the class of your parents. Those born poor or rich largely stay that way.

This is one of the key reasons why I believe in the social redistribution of wealth from the richer people to the poorer via. taxation.

It helps increase social mobility (both up and down) and ensures that people don't just stay rich because their parents were - only those who provide something worthwhile to society can remain in that bracket over a prolonged period of time.

(I feel obliged to mention at this point however - that obviously being brought up in Europe I'm GOING to have these view points, they as ingrained into me as the opposite views are to many Americans ...)

PS - The buffer given by having a reasonable 'safety net' to catch you when you fall also encourages innovation and people to setup their own companies (the worst that can happen is you fall on your face and have few luxuries, but you know your family won't go hungry or homeless).
This is the reason why England has in the past been known as a country of 'shop keepers' a LOT of people give their own ideas a whirl and see if it works .. often it doesn't but the innovation and willingness to adapt which occurs from this is one of the things about the country which I'm quite proud of.

[Greyroofoo]

Of course paying billions of dollars for shit like this also doesn't help the poverty situation in our country

Report: 5 GIs charged over killing 'for sport' - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com

Report: 5 GIs charged over killing Afghans 'for sport'

WASHINGTON — Five U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have been charged with murdering three Afghan civilians, The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The newspaper cited Army charging documents as saying the infantry personnel, including one staff sergeant, murdered the civilians between January and May of this year.

The Post cited military court documents and interviews with people familiar with the case to allege the killings "were committed essentially for sport by soldiers who had a fondness for hashish and alcohol."

One member of the platoon has been charged with possessing "a skull taken from an Afghan person's corpse," the paper said.

The accused, who also include seven other members of the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade charged with lesser offences, denied wrongdoing through lawyers and family members, the newspaper reported.

The five members of the platoon accused of murder began talking about creating a "kill team" in December 2009 and murdered their first victim on January 25 in the village of La Mohammed Kalay in Kandahar, the Post said.

The soldiers were assigned at the time to provide security for a meeting between U.S. officers and tribal elders.

One of the alleged killing involved an Afghan cleric, the paper reported.

Pentagon officials were not immediately available for comment.

[Edward64]

Woo hoo. Recession ended last year on Obama's first year.

The Recession Officially Ends - Newsweek

The recession isn't just over, it actually ended in June 2009, according to a statement made Monday by the elite, ivory tower cadre of U.S. economists known as the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the NBER held a conference call on Sunday to call an end to the recession and back-date that optimistic event for the economy to June 2009. The NBER committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in June 2009, ending the recession that began in December 2007, and signaling the start of economic expansion.

The NBER call of a recession that ended more than one year ago would still leave the 18-month recession as the longest of any recession since World War II. The previous record was 16 months of recession.

Of course, given the uneven performance of the market in 2010 and the continuing record level of unemployment in the U.S., critics immediately attacked the NBER data-crunching as the typical ivory-towered "out of touch with economic reality" stance.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wasn't meaning to aim that at you. I just think too many people blame poverty on the poor exclusively. There are a lot of factors and while I'd urge any individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the odds are that most won't or can't. The single greatest determiner of economic class in the US is the class of your parents. Those born poor or rich largely stay that way.

This is just not true. It may sound good to make arguments for government income re-distribution by politicians and their like minded supporters. Things that have a greater impact to economic success and upward mobility for the poor are more likely to be, completing high school, getting and keeping a job, getting married and staying married. For gay people this one would be finding and staying with a life partner. Once gay people can get married they will find out the great destroyer of wealth that is divorce. The last thing is having children in a marriage and not being a single parent.

According to the United States Department of the Treasury, there is significant income mobility in the U.S. Attached is a link to the study and below is a summary.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-p...3-08revise.pdf


Summary
This study examines income mobility of individuals over the past decade (1996 through 2005) using information reported on individual income tax returns.
While many studies have documented the long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the U.S. economy, there has been less focus on the dynamism of the U.S. economy and the opportunity for upward mobility. Comparisons of snapshots of the income distribution at points in time miss this important dimension and can sometimes be misleading.
Economic historian Joseph Schumpeter compared the income distribution to a hotel where some rooms are luxurious, but others are small and shabby. Important aspects of fairness are that those in the small rooms have an opportunity to move to a better one, and that the luxurious rooms are not always occupied by the same people. The frequency with which people move between rooms is a crucial aspect of the trends in income inequality in the United States.
The key findings of this study include:
•
There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
•
Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
•
Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
•
The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
•
Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.
The degree of mobility in the overall population and movement out of the bottom quintile in this study are similar to the findings of prior research on income mobility.

[RainMaker]

It's a 10-year study though. Making more at 35 than you did at 25 is normal. As 45 is to 35. You have more experience and have likely worked your way up to a better position. You are earning more from investments or attained assets. I don't see that as showing much except a trend that we typically go up in income as we get older.

I'd be more interested in studies showing the income mobility of a child born and where they end up 30-40 years later. The issue for me isn't whether the high school dropout from a poor family was able to eventually work his way up to a better job, it's whether those poor families raise kids that end up becoming doctors or other high paying professions.

[stevew]

That type of longitudinal study(using my big college words!) is virtually impossible Rainmaker. It's unlikely someone has been tracking those types of things for that long. And if you have people evaluate things 20-40 years after they happened, it's unlikely the type of responses you get would be correct. People might recollect the time they made a nickle an hour, but will gloss over the years that they spent making higher than normal wages, etc. So like, right this minute we could start this research, but we'd be dead before it had any kind of significant scope to be evaluated.

[JPhillips]

So roughly fifty percent of people in the bottom quintile stayed in the bottom quintile. How many moved past the second quintile? How many achieved the median income? Most don't, I'd bet.

On the other end, how many of that top .01% stayed in the top 1%? Or top 5%? Did any of them fall to the median income?

It's not that there's no mobility, but it's been shown time and time again that the greatest factor in future income is the income of your parents. I'd argue that study reinforces rather than contradicts that idea.

[sterlingice]

Also, I would argue that the 90s had more economic mobility than there will be at any other time in any of our lifetimes (unless some of you were around for the 20s... Bucc?)

Last 40s-50s might have been the same, but I'd have to look at the numbers. Still, it's a pretty rare, once every couple of generations occurrence.

SI

[Grammaticus]

So basically, never mind real data? You just want to feel the way you want to feel. Okay.

The study tracks what happened to tax filers 25 years of age and up during this 10-year period. Controlling for inflation, nearly 58 percent of the poorest income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. Twenty-six percent of them achieved middle or upper-middle class income, and over 5 percent made it into the highest income group.

The bottom line is, 58% moved to a tier that is definately not considered poor. If you want to be stubborn in your belief, you can always decide the study did not track how much money the tax filer's parents made. Maybe all the people that moved from the bottom to the top had rich parents. At the end of the day, income mobility is pretty good in the U.S. and it is a positive factor to the poorest Americans.

The U.S. Treasury study confirms previous studies dating back to the 1960s, concluding, "The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade." This supports the fact: Just because you know where a person ended up in life doesn't mean you can be sure about where they started. Most of today's higher income and wealthy did not start out that way.

Over time most people don't stay poor.

[JPhillips]

I couldn't get the PDF to open, so I relied on the summary. Your post says nearly 3/4 of the people that started in the lowest quintile failed to reach middle class. Again, it's not that there is no social mobility but most people stay roughly where they are born and that includes the middle class. You can look at that with a social Darwinist take or you can say that there are some advantages and/or disadvantages to economic status that make it difficult for most people to move much outside of where they are born.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is one of the key reasons why I believe in the social redistribution of wealth from the richer people to the poorer via. taxation.

It helps increase social mobility (both up and down) and ensures that people don't just stay rich because their parents were - only those who provide something worthwhile to society can remain in that bracket over a prolonged period of time.

But what if the "lower bracket" doesn't provide something worthwhile? Just take the money from the "rich parents" and equally distribute? What if the motivation for becoming "rich parents" was to take care of their immediate family? Isn't that usually the case?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But what if the "lower bracket" doesn't provide something worthwhile? Just take the money from the "rich parents" and equally distribute? What if the motivation for becoming "rich parents" was to take care of their immediate family? Isn't that usually the case?

Have you lost your mind? Trying to talk common sense to a damned liberal? You've got too much time on your hands Dutch.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd be hesitant to draw too many conclusions from a study during the time period of 1996 - 2005, seeing as that's got to be one of the periods of the highest growth of wealth this country has ever seen (even including the mini-turndown at the turn of the century). A more illustrative picture would probably come from showing the cohort at 2000, 2005 and 2010.

I'd also be interesting if they "normalized" the data in any way. People like me would certainly skew it. In 1996 I was 23 and had no income (because I was in grad school). In 2005 I was earning almost six figures. There's a whole cohort that graduated college in the mid-90s that were lucky enough to get one hell of a jumpstart on their careers and should have still been pretty good in the mid-00s.

[molson]

I'm not a parent, but isn't one of the "themes" of parenting working hard for your kids? Is that such an evil, neo-conservative proposition that has just emerged in recent years?

Not everyone can be a doctor but that avenue is certainly possible for almost anyone, though obviously easier or harder depending on your background. Colleges love to throw money at super-achievers in poorer public schools who excel.