Just remember, 25% of any growth is shaved off the top by 5% of the people in this country, while the other 95% of us divide the remaining 75% of growth.

I'll take some growth over the republican plan of stopping any improvements while Obama is in office.

Not all improvements are good, Pete. Your wife/girlfriend (no idea if you are married or not, and that's your business) might think it was an improvement to paint the living room bright pink with My Little Pony and Hello Kitty stickers everywhere. You might have a different opinion, and think it was a disaster.

If it helps the majority of people, it is an improvement, no matter how strongly your side tries to dismiss it.

It's funny you mention Japan's lost decade in your post. Have you been reading Krugman? He talks a lot about this.

Well, 2.4% is pretty anemic but its still growth, whereas last year the economy was contracting. Hopefully a Democratic Party stomping in November will convince business its safe to hire, expand, and invest again.

I think you probably have that analogy flipped around.

Cool, so the majority are better off now? More people have jobs, the standard of living and wages are increasing?

All hail Obama then.

I wonder how much of that was temporary government spending that will ultimately cost us money in the long run.

You can fake growth by spending on a deficit for an entire year. The long term results will be economic contraction, but on paper it looks like things are getting better.

Nixon remembers when 5% unemployment and a $400 billion deficit encited calls about the end of the world from the left. Now with 10% stated and 17% real unemployment and a $1.5 trillion deficit, calls from the left on how great a job Obama is doing.

Liberals, denying the truth for 100 years.

flagged for stupdity, no proof, strawman, and threadjack all in one post.

A modern record.

Uh, Petey, William's point is that the growth trend is slowing, not increasing:

…down from 5 percent at the end of 2009 and 3.7 percent at the beginning of this year.

So the astute reader will understand that the change in the rate of growth is downward. That's not to say that the economy is contracting, but the growth rate has declined by 1.3% for the first half of this year. Mr. Obama can try to spin that all he wishes, but it's not good or hopeful news – it means that any recovery is slowing down, sputtering if you will.

Why am I not surprised that you missed that.

By the way, would you care to substantiate your claim that 25% of growth is shaved off the top by 5% of the people? This is one time that an actual supporting quote or link might actually help.

Yet, the majority are against what Obama and the dems are doing. They were against the stimulus. They are against the massive deficits (which u Lefties were against when Bush was pres).

Btw, our gov't system was set up to also protect the minority.

Well obviously the standards have to change when a democrat is in the Whitehouse.

It's like the special olympics versus the real olympics.

When a kid wins a gold in the special olympics you don't say “yeah well you wouldn't have even placed in the real olympics”. You just give him a hug and say good job.

Obama is our little special olympian. He just needs a hug and a trophy every now and then to keep his self-esteem up. It would be unfair to compare him to real presidents and hold him to the same standard.

That deserves a serious ROTFLOL

Just remember that the top 5% of income owners pay 60.63% of all income tax that the government collects, while the bottom 50% pay 2.89%.

So, even though the top 5% pay 60% of the government revenue collected through the income tax, I guess you think they should pay more.

Numbers go both ways……

If we shut down every farm in the world and gave the money from that to poor people that would help a majority of people. Then they'd all starve. If we took all of President Obama's money and gave it to the homeless, that would help more people than him, thus it would be a majority (1 vs thousands). Would that make it good?

On the converse, civil rights legislation and affirmative action helped the small minority of people at the expense of the majority (taxes, lost jobs, etc). Was that, by your definition, bad?

Your calculus is that of a child. You have to consider consequences, wisdom and the long term effects of a decision, not merely “does this help a lot of people.” You need to either grow up or stop posting.

But it is not helping a majority of the people. that's the point we've been making.

Martin, I THINK (don't want to be accused of interpreting someone's word wrong) that Pete is remarking that the top 5% of income tax earners make 25% of the income. That looks right from IRS numbers. That lead to my comment above that they pay 60% of the income taxes.

That is just a guess on my part about what he meant though.

That “shaved off” part still doesn't track though.

Twenty five percent of growth is “shaved off the top” by five percent of earners? WTF does that even mean?

No idea. Just offering a possible explanation. Sorry I got nothing.

There is no right amount for them. The answer is always “more.”

Even if you were to confiscate every bit of property the top 5% have, work them to death in state owned factories, then sell their organs on the black market that still wouldn't be enough.

Clearly he's referring to democrat political elites who have become wealthy at the public expense, yet refuse to pay their fair share of taxes (in this case they pay next to nothing until they get caught).

I think we all end up on shaky ground when we attempt to interpret the meanings behind Petey's drivel. If I'm wrong about his meaning, it wouldn't be the first time. But in the end, I only selected that portion of Petey's comment to quote as a device, an entry point if you will, to raise the point that I wanted to raise with him – that the GDP figure released by El Governmente is very depressing news indeed, because it means we've lost ground on making any meaningful economic recovery.

In the end, though, it's my understanding that Petey's always going to be jealous of anyone with more money than he (even though he thinks he's fantastically successful based on the regular braggadocio he publishes on these pages) because he's extraordinarily focused on material wealth. How else can you explain his repetitive listing of his possessions? He's the only one regularly posting here who engages in such behaviour. He's also the only one here regularly boasting of his sexual prowess as well. Of course all that boasting really adds to the impression that he's a self-aggrandising and self-centred git.

You may well be right to interpret what he said as you posit, and if you are, congratulations are in order for cracking the 'Petey code'.

If it helps the majority of people, it is an improvement, no matter how strongly your side tries to dismiss it.

Petey, it would help the majority of us, and be an improvement in our quality of life, if you'd stop polluting our environment with your claptrap. No matter how much you try to dismiss or deny it.

Perfect comparison.