The Politics of Protest

“We either live together, or we die together,” - Egyptian Muslims

2011-01-10T15:14:00.000-08:00

It brings me great pride in humanity when i read things like this. People putting aside religious, and racial hatred to protect the common good. I never saw this topic discussed on the mainstream media, as it obviously contradicts the general stance on Islam as a whole.

If you dont want to read the whole article, at least read this

"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has even said that Islam needs a civil war similar to the one the United States fought in order to deal with its extremists. But the truth is that moderate and progressive Muslims all over the world are battling extremism. Here in the United States, one-third of al-Qaeda related terror plots have been broken up thanks to intelligence provided by Muslim Americans."

On New Year’s Day, a devastating terrorist bombing at a Coptic church in Egypt killed 21 people and injured 79 others. Although the identity of the culprits was not known, it was assumed that they were Muslim extremists, intent on targeting those they saw as heretics. Religious tensions immediately rose in the country, and angry Copts stormed streets, battled with police, and even vandalized a nearby mosque. The riots and heightened tensions between the Muslim and Coptic communities was likely what the terrorists wanted — to divide the Egyptian community and create sectarian strife between different religious groups.

Yet by Coptic Christmas Eve, which took place Thursday night in Egypt, things had changed completely. As Egyptian Copts attended mass at churches across the country, “thousands” of Muslims, including “the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak,” joined them, acting as “human shields” to protect from terrorist attacks by extremists. The Muslims organized under the slogan “We either live together, or we die together,” inspired by Mohamed El-Sawy, an Egyptian artist:

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside. From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea. Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole. “This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

Al Jazeera English covered the attacks and reported from the site of one of the solidarity events where Muslims and Christians stood side by side, protesting discrimination against Copts and calling for an end to violence. Watch it:

It is a frequent complaint among opinion makers in the United States that the global Muslim community does not condemn and prevent terrorism. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has even said that Islam needs a civil war similar to the one the United States fought in order to deal with its extremists. But the truth is that moderate and progressive Muslims all over the world are battling extremism. Here in the United States, one-third of al-Qaeda related terror plots have been broken up thanks to intelligence provided by Muslim Americans. It is up to the press to report these positive stories and not exaggerate the sway that extremists hold over the global Muslim community.

Gangster For Capitalism

2011-01-07T18:44:00.000-08:00

From:http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/01/if-there%E2%80%99s-been-a-bigger-waste-of-money-i%E2%80%99d-like-to-know-what-it-was/

Smedley Butler is one of America’s most distinguished yet least remembered war heroes. At the time of his death, in 1940, Butler was the most decorated U.S. Marine in history, having won 16 medals in a career spanning 34 years, with five of those medals being awarded for conspicuous heroism. Butler is one of only 19 men to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor….twice.

Yet what Butler should be most remembered for isn’t his combat record, but his willingness to put himself in the political crosshairs by exposing an egregious fraud being perpetrated on the American public. In 1935, having retired as a Major General, Butler wrote a controversial book called War is a Racket in which he accuses the military-industrial complex of being a manipulative and greedy death machine.

General Butler pulled no punches. Here is one of the more famous passages from his book:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service, and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1814. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China, in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

And people think Joe Biden speaks bluntly.

Mind you, this book was no personal vendetta. It was not some disgruntled ex-enlisted man looking to get even with the military brass. Butler was not only a career officer, he was a Major General, not only a brave soldier, but a gloriously decorated one. To win the Medal of Honor, you must demonstrate extraordinary valor. To win it twice, you’re off the chart; they have to invent a whole new definition of courage.

One wonders what Butler would think of today’s military. A defense behemoth that supports 865 military bases throughout the world (if we count the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s over 1,000), and a corporate conglomerate that spends — in war or peace, it makes no difference — more money on so-called “national defense” than the next 20 countries combined.

I approach this military bloat not from a moral or ethical point of view, but from a practical one. Specifically, as a former union goon, I approach it from the view of organized labor. If, as everyone says, those well-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector that once sustained the blue collar middle-class are gone forever, what’s to become of the workers? The jobs may have vanished but the workers haven’t.

It’s important not to deceive ourselves. In spite of all the optimistic rhetoric about the New Economy awaiting us — with its exciting, albeit yet-to-be-invented industries and technologies — those decent blue collar jobs may never come back. And if that’s the case, then we need to seek an alternative remedy. Looking to recapture a job-enriched past would not only be futile, it would be counterproductive.

Consider: What if superior jobs weren’t the answer? What if the criterion was income versus expendituressuperior jobs versus inferior jobs? Even if the economy (not to be confused with the stock market) never recovers, the average worker would remain relatively secure so long as such things as health care, paid maternity leave, free public education (including college) and child care were guaranteed. instead of

If the main expenses for these workers were food, clothing, shelter and transportation, the economy would continue to chug along, and we wouldn’t have to sweat creating those $60,000 a year jobs. People could make it on $35,360 a year, which is what a full-time, 40-hour a week, 52-week a year worker earns at $17/hour. Or what two unskilled workers earning $8.50/hour make. (The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour)

Question: Could we afford these social programs? Answer: Yes. Question: Who would pay? Answer: The same taxpayers who currently underwrite America’s gargantuan defense budget. The same taxpayers who’ve already been ripped off for, literally, trillions of dollars, and who are being asked to support 1,000 military bases around the world for God knows what reason.

Common sense tells us that to learn about surgery, we ask a surgeon, not an insurance agent or hospital administrator. Accordingly, to learn about war, we ask a warrior, not a defense contractor or Pentagon lobbyist. Despite his career as a loyal, dedicated soldier, Butler saw war for what it was — a racket. And if that racket were eliminated, we’d have more live citizens, fewer dead soldiers, and more cash than we thought possible.

Gates cutting Pentagon budget by $78bn over five years

2011-01-06T21:40:00.000-08:00

The cuts over the next five years come in addition to $100bn in internal savings already announced.
Those savings will be redirected to other defense programs, but the new cuts slow growth in the overall budget.

A Small victory for those like me, who wish America had a balanced budget, but the war is still far from over.

A total of $1,134,012,650,000 Spent on the combined wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been spent since 2001, my Home state of Michigan having footed 30 million of that bill.

As a country that is in the midst of economic stagnation, 9.3 percent unemployment, and Record corporate profits, we have to as ourselves Why in the hell are we spending 1.3 trillion dollars of our money on wars that we've started for (in the case of Iraq) reasons that just weren't verifiable. Are our politicians just Stupid? To the general population they may seem so, but Everytime i hear a story about our stupid politicians, i think of rule 3 in The 48 laws of power.

Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

Americans are fed news through private enterprises, with private agendas. Agendas that nobody wants to see, because normally they don't care. This isn't going to change anytime soon for most of the ragged masses that are struggling to pull themselves out of the crater the last financial crisis left them in. I don't see a bailout for the working class underway. Because this economic system wasn't designed to benefit us. It was designed to benefit those with money, and power. These people are determined to keep that money and power. So they enact tax cuts, during a time of RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS, claiming that these cuts will enable the rich to hire more working Americans. The Only problem with that is THEY AREN'T HIRING ANYONE. You know why that is? Businesses operate on Supply and DEMAND. Nobody has money to buy products like they did in july of 2008. This in turn lowers demand, which means layoffs.

In a country where industrialization is leaving our shores at a startling pace for much cheaper labor, i ask myself, why would the rich abandon hard working American people? Because the only ethical thing to do BY LAW IN THE USA, is to seek profits over everything else. But hey, they arent to blame. Its human nature to be greedy selfish bastards, right?

Wake up People. Its only going to get worse.

Mysterious bird deaths in recent news.

2011-01-05T19:17:00.000-08:00

From ABC:

The mystery of the dying birds deepened for baffled experts after another 500 birds were found littering a Louisiana highway days after 5,000 redwinged blackbirds plunged to their death on New Year's eve.

"They are like bleeding out of the mouth and some of them are not dead. I think they have been poisoned," one Arkansas caller said.

Why have all the birds in the south just started dropping dead? Poisoning?

Is there some sort of mass conspiracy against migratory birds? Not likely.

What officials know for sure is that the birds died from trauma. According to preliminary testing, the trauma was primarily in the breast tissue, with blood clots in the body cavity and major internal bleeding. All major organs were normal and the birds appeared to be healthy, the tests found.

John Fitzpatrick, the Director of Cornell University’s Ornithology Lab, said a “washing machine-type thunderstorm” suddenly appeared in Arkansas and sucked the red-winged blackbirds up into its midst and spat them back out onto the ground. Fitzpatrick says this is the most likely explanation for the strange phenomenon of the birds falling from the sky.

But wait, theres more:

Dozens of dead birds have been found lying in a residential street in Sweden, days after thousands of birds fell to their deaths in the US.

This isn't a Coincidence. Something has happened to our atmosphere to cause this. Not only is this happening here, but in other parts of the world.

What could cause these birds to fall out of the sky with ravaged bodies, filled with blood clots, bleeding out of the mouth.? Ultrasonic Sound waves. Below are several links,i suggest you read them.

Suggested Reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

Wikileaks Referrs to HAARP and Weather patterns near the arctic circle.

What?

2011-01-04T23:35:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/04/boehner-sets-austere-tone-incoming-gop-majority/

The austerity of tone being set by the incoming speaker on the eve of his swearing-in ceremony Wednesday is being matched by a frugality in spending. It was Friends of John Boehner, the congressman’s official campaign organization, that chartered the five buses that transported dozens of hometown supporters, including 10 of Boehner’s 11 siblings, from the Wetherington Golf and Country Club, in West Chester, Ohio, to the nation's capital Tuesday.
And among the first bills that will be introduced in the House under Boehner’s speakership will be a measure that cuts congressional spending by 5 percent. Analysts called the move largely symbolic, noting that it would hardly make a dent in the country’s $1 trillion deficit. In his office’s first press release of the new year, Boehner claimed Tuesday the measure, if signed into law by President Obama, will immediately save taxpayers $35 million.
“To reverse Washington’s job-killing spending binge, sacrifices will be required throughout the federal government,” Boehner said in the statement, “and we are starting with ourselves.”

Are you kidding me? Not only has Obama outlined and executed the plan to Save General Motors, (which was successful by the way,) hes Already cut taxes since entering office. What is really going on is The Republicans hellbent resolve on slashing Tax cuts for the rich, adhering to "trickle down economics," Or Supply Side economics. Doesn't that mean that there is some proof that trickle down economics works? Read on.

Although there was a huge increase in real income for average Americans between World War II and the 1970s the income of the average American male has gone essentially unchanged since 1970 as the figure below indicates. Income for females though has continued to rise. What is significant about this graph is that between 1980 and 2003 the incomes of the top 2% of American wage earners has gone up dramatically despite the stagnation of the income of average Americans

Its obvious that trickle-down economics is a joke. The Rich have done nothing in the last 20 years but rape and plunder the economy. To make my point, I ask you to what extent have you or people you know been effected by the 2008 financial crisis.

Compare your observations to This, from the New York Times, dated 11/23/10

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago,[..]

And

That's not much of a trickle, compared to the Rainstorm at the top. Not while i read things like this from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/481800

The number of homeless grew in the 1980s, as housing and social service cuts increased. This was in part a consequence of the transfer of federal dollars to a huge military buildup (including the spectacularly wasteful and unsuccessful "Star Wars" strategic missile defense initiative) and consequent large budget deficits. Fortunately, public compassion soared, and in 1986, 5 million Americans joined hands across the country to raise money for homeless programs (May 25, 1986 Hands Across America). In 1987, the McKinney Act authorized millions of dollars for housing and hunger relief.

Almost 20 years later, homelessness is largely ignored by the mainstream press and the general public, and the numbers affected continue to grow. Over 7% of persons living in the United States have been homeless (defined as sleeping in shelters, the street, abandoned buildings, cars, or bus and train stations) at some point in their lives.^[4] Homelessness rates have increased over each of the past 2 decades. An estimated 2.5 to 3.5 million people now experience homelessness each year.^[5,6] Approximately half are families with children, the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population.^[5,6] In 1 study,^[7] youth had a 1-year rate of homelessness of at least 1 night of 7.6%.

Although 20% of homeless persons maintain full- or part-time jobs,^[8] only 5% are privately insured, often through COBRA.^[9] The majority of homeless adults are not eligible for Medicaid in most States, and are also not eligible for Medicare. Approximately 23% of homeless persons (and from 3.1 % to 4.4 % of homeless women) are veterans of the armed services, yet only 57% have received healthcare services through the VA system, where long waits for care exist.^[10]

Its time we woke up and realized that the people we're putting in charge aren't doing the entire country any good, and only helps those who seek to take away our social freedoms in exchange for economic slavery.

Its a double edged sword, people. Wake Up.

Flaws with Trickledown Economics.

2011-01-04T19:38:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."
"…the Reagan coalition prevailed again in the House and Congress passed the tax-cut legislation with a final frenzy of trading and bargaining. Again, Stockman was not exhilarated by the victory. On the contrary, it seemed to leave a bad taste in his mouth, as though the democratic process had finally succeeded in shocking him by its intensity and its greed. Once again, Stockman participated in the trading -- special tax concessions for oil -- lease holders and real-estate tax shelters, and generous loopholes that virtually eliminated the corporate income tax. Stockman sat in the room and saw it happen."
"'Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront?' Stockman asked with wonder. 'The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control.'"

The Education of David Stockman 1981:

http://www. theatlantic. com/politics/budget/stockman.htm

Reagan's policies did more than simply cut income taxes. A large number of tax loopholes were written into the tax code that catered to special corporate interests. In fact many of the current scandals involving companies such as Enron are rooted in laws that were passed during the Reagan administration that gave these companies more legal legroom to work with and less oversight.

In addition, the small “income-tax cuts” that were given to the middle and lower income tax brackets were countered with new taxes that were directed at middle and low income individuals, as former House Speaker Jim Wright said:

Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes. They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, "user fees" and "revenue-enhancers."

The most important issue though is that even if you take the Reagan “Trickle-Down” policy at face value it’s still horribly flawed as a policy that will provide economic growth that benefits all Americans.

There is no realistic way for "Trickle-Down" economics to work to increase the income of the working classes of America. In fact I am certain that the developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this and that "Trickle-Down" has in fact worked as intended. This means that the intent behind implementing "Trickle-Down" was to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working class Americans. "Trickle-Down" hasn't failed, as many modern economists have suggested, it has succeeded in its goals, which is the increase of economic inequality and the shift of a greater portion of America's wealth into the hands of the wealthiest Americans.

I'll show you exactly why "Trickle-Down" can never really trickle down, and I'll expose the logic that was used to trick Americans into supporting the idea that freeing up money for the wealthy could somehow benefit the poor and middle class.

I'm going to use a very simplistic example to demonstrate the principles of "Trickle-Down" economics. No, this is not a 100% accurate model of our economic system, and it assumes that "all other aspects of the economy are equal," but the major principles are represented. I will give "Trickle-Down" the benefit of the doubt and assume that it actually does create jobs in my example.

We have a room with 5 people in it. The total value of all the money in the room is $10. 00. The money is apportioned as in the table below.

Total Value $10. 00
Jim	$4. 00	40%
Susan	$3. 00	30%
Tom	$2. 00	20%
Amy	$1. 00	10%
Bill	$0. 00	0%

Sam enters the room and says that he has $10. 00 that he wants to give to Jim. This makes everyone else unhappy of course and everyone says that they will beat Jim up if he takes the money. Sam then proposes a solution. He says that if everyone allows him to give Jim $6. 00 he will give $1. 00 to everyone else in the room. This sounds pretty good to everyone so they agree to let Jim receive the money. So, after Jim gets the money and everyone gets a dollar this is what the monetary breakdown of the room looks like:

Total Value $20. 00
Jim	$10. 00	50%
Susan	$4. 00	20%
Tom	$3. 00	15%
Amy	$2. 00	10%
Bill	$1. 00	5%

As you can see, due to inflation most of the other people in the room either lost value or saw no real gain. As you can also see the size of the "economy" did in fact grow as the theory of "Trickle-Down" proposes, but the growth only benefited one person, Jim, and arguably Bill. Even though the economy grew overall most of the people in the room saw a loss of value. This is because the value of money is relative. It's relative to many factors, but one is how much money is in the system. If you have 1 dollar out of 10 then its worth more than 1 dollar out of 1,000. How wealthy you are in terms of dollars is not measured by the number of dollars you have, it is measured by the share of dollars that you have out of the total number of dollars in the system.

Now, your opinion of Sam and Jim can be one of only two options.

1) Jim and Sam were naive and actually thought that they were going to be helping everyone with their actions; the fact that the actions had a negative effect on everyone else was an accident.

2) Jim and Sam knew that taking the $10. 00, keeping $6. 00 of it, and giving $1. 00 to everyone else wasn't going to help anyone but Jim, and they tricked everyone for the purpose of self gain using the $1. 00 "gift" to the under-classes as a "Trojan Horse" to support the action.

As in the example above there are three basic possibilities for economic growth (and many variations in between): Either the growth of the economy can be spread equally among everyone, the growth of the economy can be shifted towards the bottom of the population in which case the poor see a rise in relative value, becoming "less poor," or the growth can be shifted toward the top in which case the rich see a rise in relative value, becoming "more rich. "

The general economic policy of "Trickle-Down" that was put in place by Reagan has gone fundamentally unchanged since it was adopted by the country in the 1980s. The claim of Reagan was that "all boats would rise" by giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy. This did not happen. The majority of boats stayed the same or sank, while only between 5% and 1% of the boats actually rose.

The effects of "Trickle-Down" policy are evident. As would be expected from the policy, the largest beneficiaries of the "Trickle-Down" system have been the wealthy.

Individual earnings inequality as reported by the U. S. Census Bureau was falling or stable from the 1960s through the 1970s, however, beginning in the 1980s, along with the economic reforms of "Trickle-Down" policy, income inequality began to rise and has continued to rise dramatically ever since, as shown in the figure below.

(Data for the graphs below comes from the US Census Bureau)

http://www. census. gov/hhes/income/histinc/histinctb.html

Although there was a huge increase in real income for average Americans between World War II and the 1970s the income of the average American male has gone essentially unchanged since 1970 as the figure below indicates. Income for females though has continued to rise. What is significant about this graph is that between 1980 and present (2003) the incomes of the top 2% of American wage earners has gone up dramatically despite the stagnation of the income of average Americans.

This graph shows both average hourly earnings and the minimum wage together in 2001 dollars. As you can see both the minimum wage and average hourly earnings reached their peak in the 1960s and 1970s. This graph does not go back any farther than 1960, but for all practical purposes the peak shown here in 1973 is the historical peak for hourly earnings in America. See the source data in the link below for details on hourly earnings.

http://w3. access. gpo. gov/usbudget/fy2000/sheets/b047. xls

As we can see below, the percentage of people in poverty who are also working full time has gone up steadily since the 1970s, and it also underscores an important point, as all of these graphs do, which is that the fundamental economic policy of the Reagan administration has gone essentially unchanged, even by President Clinton.

http://www. census. gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov18.html

Today we are still operating under a Supply Side economic model. In fact, even though the average income tax rate paid in America today is roughly the same as it was in 1979, the average income tax rate for the top 1% is less than it was in 1979. The graph below shows the actual percentage of income paid to all (Income, Social Security, Corporate, Capital gains, and Excise) Federal taxes per the various groups. During the Regan era, you can see that total Federal taxes on the lowest income groups actually went up. Clinton continued to maintain the Supply Side model that was established under Reagan. By 2000 the Top 1% still maintained significantly lower taxes compared to the pre-Reagan era, but taxes on "upper middle class" earners had increased and taxes on the middle class have stayed about the same as they were just prior to Reagan's entry into office, which is higher than they ever were prior to the 1970s.

http://www. cbo. gov/showdoc. cfm?index=4514&sequence=3&from=0

As the figures below indicate, the degree of increase in income for the wealthiest Americans has far outpaced the majority of the population, a trend that also started with the Reagan Presidency. A large factor in this increase for the top 2% has been capital gains.

http://www. cbo. gov/showdoc. cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

The two graphs above show similar data, but there are some important differences. Obviously the first graph shows a wider range of data in terms of the years that it covers, but the first graph also shows the data for total household incomes, which have increased among the bottom quintiles in large part because of the increase in two or three worker households, but the bottom graph shows the data adjusted for household size. In addition the bottom graph obviously also shows data for the top 1%, whereas the top graph does not, and, perhaps most significantly, the bottom graph shows after tax income, so it is showing what was taken home after all federal taxes were paid.

This next graph shows an even longer range view. This shows after tax income in 2000 dollars going back to 1913 for the top 1% and the average for the remaining bottom 99%.

http://www. aflcio. org/corporateamerica/paywatch/

After World War II significant efforts were made to ensure prosperity for all Americans. These efforts dramatically reduced poverty rates and helped to build the strong middle-class that America has become famous for. However, as the graph below shows, significant changes began with the Reagan presidency.

Between 1965 and 2001 the number of multi-worker households has increased dramatically. In fact the slight increase in income that is shown for the 1^st through 4^th quintiles in the graph titled Average Household Income by Quintile (a quintile represents 1/5^th of the population) is primarily attributed to an increase in the number of households with two or more workers supporting the household. Individual male income for the 1^st^th quintiles has actually gone down or stayed the same since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation. through 4

In 1965 27% of the full time workforce was female, by 2001 that number had risen to 41%. What has allowed the average American household to continue to maintain a good standard of living is an increase in multi-worker households and a decrease in the number of children that families have, as well as a large increase in the trade deficit, with increasing numbers of American goods being made in third world countries.

The issue is that the economic policies of the Reagan administration were designed to primarily benefit wealthy Americans. At the time a lot of smoke and mirrors were used to convince average Americans that these policies would help them as well. A similar set of lies has been used by those, like Steve Forbes, who promote a flat tax system.

What the "Trickle-Down"/Supply Side policies of the Reagan administration were designed to do was to increase the amount of money available to wealthy Americans for investing and developing businesses. This was intended to create an increase in production of products and services and hence and increase in new jobs. The reason that the policy is called Supply Side, is because the supply of goods increases before there is a demand for goods. So, in that case, the supply of goods is intended to then spark demand, resulting in economic growth.

This use of Supply Side policy led to a huge increase in consumerism and the use of credit. An environment of consumerism was created in American society through the media via advertisements, movies, and television shows, etc. that promoted consumerism. Consumers though, did not have the money to fulfill the desires created by society so debt was used to participate in the economy. Restrictions on credit were loosened under the Reagan administration making it easier for individuals to gain credit lines because the use of credit was essential to growing the economy because real wages were not going up for the average American, yet it was essential that the average American increase spending in order to fuel the economy. This situation fueled female entry into the workforce as more households require two workers to maintain their standard of living.

The result of this is that American household debt has been constantly hitting new highs since the 1980s as can be seen in the graph below provided by Michael Hodges.

http://mwhodges. home. att. net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm

The truth is that "Trickle-Down" was never intended to help middle income and poor Americans; it was intended to help the wealthy and Corporate America.

The economic policies of the Reagan era increased the trade deficit and provided easier ways for companies to "hide" money.

1980 the top 1% of tax filers received 8. 45% of American AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) and in 2000 that figure had risen to 20. 81% of the national AGI. Today the over 50% of the national income goes to the wealthiest 20% of Americans. This is the first time since 1935 that such a large portion of the national income has gone to such a small portion of the population. In 1967 the wealthiest 20% only accounted for 43% of the nation's income. The trend began in 1982. Between 1967 and 1982 middle-income households were gaining a larger share of the economy. What this means is that between 1982 and 2001 the bottom 80% of Americans have lost share in the nation's economy. This was the inevitable result of Reaganomics. It was an intended result. Political control and economic control go hand in hand. If the control of the economy is not in the hands of the majority of Americans then neither is political control.

For more on taxation and income in America see:

In Depth Analysis of American Income and Taxation

The Politics of Protest

2008-11-17T10:45:00.000-08:00

Monday November 17th

1:46

------

Got Called a Liberal By a Hardcore Republican Because i dont Accept Party Politics as Usual >.>