If you are in the bottom 80 percent of American households, you've gained essentially no economic ground in the past three decades

[one...two...tree 2,762]

— By Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein

If you are in the bottom 80 percent of American households, you've gained essentially no economic ground in the past three decades. Those of you lucky enough to be in the top 20 percent ($100,000+) might be heartened by the trajectory of the red line on the chart shown here—but sorry: The vast majority of those gains have actually gone to the top 1 percent (PDF) (average income: $1.9 million). And though the chart doesn't show this because the line would run off the page, if you're in the tippy-top 0.1 percent, your gains make the merely filthy rich look like chumps. (Click here to see the change in income distribution. Pour yourself a stiff drink first.] Obama isn't proposing to radically redistribute these riches, mind you. Sure, he's advocated letting the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent expire, bringing their tax rate back to where it was under Reagan (PDF). But that's not why Forbes chose to demonize him; most of even its 5.4 million readers would not be affected. No, the reason Obama is being caricatured as some kind of latter-day Patrice Lumumba is simply that he took office at a dangerous moment for the wealthy and their enablers, coddlers, and bipartisan political minions. They faced the kind of backlash that has greeted corporate and political elites in the past when they've driven the economy off a cliff. (Consider that the Depression realigned our political tectonics in a way that lasted well into the 1970s.)

So, the defenders of the überrich pulled off an amazing bit of jujitsu. Just two years after the collapse, a vast percentage of those who got screwed are mad as hell—not at the bankers who did the screwing, but at a government that was left to clean up the mess. Anxious about feeling squeezed, they rail about being taxed (less, it's worth recalling, than they were under Bush). Furious about what they have lost, they fume about those who have lost even more. Voila: Anger is not only being deflected away from the top, but deliberately redirected toward the bottom.

How'd that happen? It's a sleight of hand that was made infinitely easier by the fact that we'd just elected our first black president. When you aim to convince Americans that in order to protect the common man's pocketbook, we must hand over an even greater share of the nation's wealth to the rich, it helps to appeal to our worst instincts. Mad at Wall Street mountebankers and their Capitol shills? We feel your pain... and hey, look, over there! It's a black commie in the White House! (See also: ACORN. Shirley Sherrod. Michelle "Marie Antoinette"—a.k.a. uppity—Obama.)

You really have to hand it to Newt et al. This toxic propaganda neither solves the economic predicament of the people whose anger is being manipulated, nor advances the 200-year-plus debate about the role our government should play. What it does is undermine the founding anti-colonialists' e pluribus unum mandate—by ensuring that the trend lines of economic inequality continue to diverge.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/dinesh-dsouza-income-inequality

[웃 910]

[spookyturtle 9,466]

According to BY, 90% of Americans are in the bottom 80%.

[웃 910]

Edited October 29, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So I am either in the Top 20% or not paying attention.

[Danno 1,228]

why are they using a chart from 3 years ago?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think it's funny Steve wants to blame BOOOOOOSH and Rethuglicans for this.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Why does the op constantly remind us of failure? Hmmmmmmm.

[Danno 1,228]

I think it's funny Steve wants to blame BOOOOOOSH and Rethuglicans for this.

I doubt that, if you look at the timeline.... Clinton is the main culprit behind letting some people make more money than others.

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe they should get off their аss and gain some economic ground, like the top 20% did?

Just a thought.

Funny how people expect to earn more money without doing anything extra.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Maybe they should get off their аss and gain some economic ground, like the top 20% did?

Just a thought.

Funny how people expect to earn more money without doing anything extra.

Its rather PATHETIC actually.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I doubt that, if you look at the timeline.... Clinton is the main culprit behind letting some people make more money than others.

Actually Reagan is if you want to get "technical" in that aspect, but it all starts well before then actually...

[Danno 1,228]

Actually Reagan is if you want to get "technical" in that aspect, but it all starts well before then actually...

I generally call into question these carefully worded assertion such as the Op put forth in this thread.

I never listen to Neil Bortz on the radio because his time slot is all wrong and he is a little irritating for me but I heard him say something once that did make a bit of sense.

"Believe what you know to be true in your own life... first".

There is a lot of truth to that especially in light of these type reports such as we see here.

For instance, 30 years ago I know for a fact. everyone I knew lived in a much smaller house than our fathers did.

We enjoy way-more entertainment, eating out, newer cars with more options. We are more likely to have health insurance, and secondary retirement plan than my fathers generation did.

I have watched Blacks and other minorities move into neighborhoods and drive cars their parents could never have afforded.

While I have seen some stagnation in the last few years, that in no way erases what I have known to be true in my life and those all around me.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It started with George Washington.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I guess I am in the top 20% then. 30 years ago I was making 25K, this year I will top 100K for the first time.