The 1% Gap Continues To Narrow

Ok I'm boarding, see y'all later.

spandy said:

But what are you doing to better yourself in the here and now? 50% of the country is kicking ass and taking names, why aren't you joining the party!

Click to expand...

see4 said:

That is an outrageous claim that certainly needs citation to support.

To be exact, you claim that 50% of the United States population, eg. roughly 160,000,000 individuals are, "kicking ass and taking names".

You most definitely need to substantiate that claim.

Click to expand...

OddBall1st said:

Didn`t more than half this Country re-elect Obama, the greatest president that ever lived ? Is that not kicking ass and taking names ?

Click to expand...

Ok. Clearly you don't know how to cite your claims. When you make a claim, as outlandish as yours, you need to cite supporting evidence to that fact. Your feeble attempt at diversion only shows us you incapable of rational thought. It's no wonder nobody takes you seriously?

Holy shit, ....most people would think five ups and four downs was doing good.

see4 said:

Ok. Clearly you don't know how to cite your claims. When you make a claim, as outlandish as yours, you need to cite supporting evidence to that fact. Your feeble attempt at diversion only shows us you incapable of rational thought. It's no wonder nobody takes you seriously?

Click to expand...

Out of two candidates, doesn`t one win by getting more votes than the other ? Did Obama not win or something ?

WeeblesWobbles said:

Uhh...I voted for him too, but only once. And I think you're forgetting the midterms. From the Federal Reserve Economics Database (FRED). Check it out sometime, it's pretty fascinating.View attachment 3589245

Click to expand...

Please provide a link to these charts. I can't seem to find them as you've shown them.

OddBall1st said:

Out of two candidates, doesn`t one win by getting more votes than the other ? Did Obama not win or something ?

Click to expand...

That's not the question posed to you. You have very poor reading comprehension.

OddBall1st said:

Out of two candidates, doesn`t one win by getting more votes than the other ? Did Obama not win or something ?

Click to expand...

you could win election and not win popular vote by the way the electorial vote is set up

john0000 said:

you could win election and not win popular vote by the way the electorial vote is set up

Click to expand...

Still had more Electoral though.

john0000 said:

you could win election and not win popular vote by the way the electorial vote is set up

Click to expand...

Wasn`t that the Gore claim ?

see4 said:

That's not the question posed to you. You have very poor reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

I made no claim so I thought It didn`t apply to me. I think.

Yes, mine was a question.

i don't know exactly the stats on those two elections but was just saying it is possible personally i wouldn't vote for obama or gore ..i like small govt..not large ..and have just diff outlook on most of the issues then them ..

see4 said:

That's not the question posed to you. You have very poor reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

I still enjoy your posts more than others because they`re either very funny or very damaging and that equals good reading.

It's actually quite easy to figure out what percentage of people are lazy.

Find the total number of Democrats as a % of the total population and divide it by whatever Bernie Sanders is polling at.

Science and math, bitches.

OddBall1st said:

I still enjoy your posts more than others because they`re either very funny or very damaging and that equals good reading.

Click to expand...

I agree.

see4 said:

Please provide a link to these charts. I can't seem to find them as you've shown them.

Click to expand...

While you can register and save queries and plots, I didn't run them ^^^ myself. It's the typical pissing-contest graphic posted on Zero Hedge. I did check out their veracity, though. You can duplicate them yourself if you use the same time range but just recreating them to include the 4Q2015 data is probably more instructive anyway. (Kind of fascinating watching women enter the workforce in the '70s). It's particularly interesting to remove the fudge factors (e.g. "Seasonal adjustment" in the unemployment rate) and look at the raw data before it's Politburo'd into a more palatable presentation.

When you re-run it the data don't improve. Here's the labor participation rate:

A more accurate representation



A drop from ~83.2% to ~81.0% in labor force participation among the working demographic.

The labor force participation rate represented in as a whole, includes ALL census accrued individuals, represented by the far lower statistical charting as show in the comment above. eg. The truthiness of the aforementioned chart is skewed.

They take all of these guys out of the unemployment rate calculation, too. In some counties in the South, 25% are "disabled", mostly with back or psychological diagnoses.

The whole thing is rigged.

When families lose virtually all their savings and investments from the crash caused by the Bush administration, students are forced to take student loans to pay for school. That and deregulation of faculty salaries and non-profit "reinvestments" allow for schools to waaaay overcharge students. We can thank the Republican party for those deregulations.


This is a complete contradiction of the earlier graph, which stated home ownerships was way down. This chart shows the opposite, and conversely is showing us that home inventory is down, thus home ownership must be up.



Under the Bush administration, median hh income went from $56,800 to roughly $55,200, or a 2.6% decline.


Under the Obama administration, median hh income went from roughly $55,200 to roughly $53,900, or a 2.6% decline.

Noting that Bush was taking over a booming economy and Obama was taking over a completely failed economy.

CPI is looking better than I would have guessed.