Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 16, 2010, 10:26:36 AM
-
Where are these two?
Did Blackens' getting outed as a plagerist by James send him away?
What about Mons? Did the threats of prosecution from HH6 scare him away.
I will give KC Baller credit of all the left leaning posters on this board, he gives the best arguments and debate on that side of the aisle.
-
I don't know?...It seems they disappeared and new faces suddenly appeared.
-
I don't know?...It seems they disappeared and new faces suddenly appeared.
Seems strange.
blacken must not be thrilled with James destroying those posts.
As for Mons - ha ha ha!!!!
-
Seems strange.
blacken must not be thrilled with James destroying those posts.
As for Mons - ha ha ha!!!!
It's gimmicks amuck. Too many gimmicks on GB. It's pathetic.
-
I thought blacken was Sampson?
-
I thought blacken was Sampson?
No, there is an argument that Sampson may be Jag. I am not sure. If they are the same, I greatly prefer the Sampson charachter to the Jag one.
-
No, there is an argument that Sampson may be Jag. I am not sure. If they are the same, I greatly prefer the Sampson charachter to the Jag one.
Ah so.
-
Ah so.
The jag charachter is a complete sham.
-
The jag charachter is a complete sham.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
The Sampson charachter is what it is. The Jag charachter shifts from MLM shaman, the racist, the canadian supremicist, trhe obama kneepadder, etc.
At least the Sampson charachter is consistent.
-
The Sampson charachter is what it is. The Jag charachter shifts from MLM shaman, the racist, the canadian supremicist, trhe obama kneepadder, etc.
At least the Sampson charachter is consistent.
:-X
-
:-X
I was not convinced until recently with the use of the . . . . at the end of paragraphs as wellas the lengthy posts.
For me, I keep my posts short because I am doing ten things at once.
-
All you have to do read both posters for a bit and it becomes painfully obvious.
-
It's gimmicks amuck. Too many gimmicks on GB. It's pathetic.
I feel the same way with some mods (hint hint)....incredibly pathetic.
-
All you have to do read both posters for a bit and it becomes painfully obvious.
You mean like the same way you and Beach Bum magically appeared at the same time, expressing the same mentality, same childishness, same lack of moderating skills and similar trolling ways...Hmmmmmm?
-
You mean like the same way you and Beach Bum magically appeared at the same time, expressing the same mentality, same childishness, same lack of moderating skills and similar trolling ways...Hmmmmmm?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Stop it JAG, you're killing me again, ROTFLMAO. Its more than obvious now.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Stop it JAG, you're killing me again, ROTFLMAO. Its more than obvious now.
author=Samson You mean like the same way you and Beach Bum magically appeared at the same time, expressing the same mentality, same childishness, same lack of moderating skills and similar trolling ways...Hmmmmmm?
Let me reiterate CHILDISHNESS again....
-
Let me reiterate CHILDISHNESS again....
;D ;D ;D
Whatever, keep on denying it. Like i said, I finally took time to read your blabber, and now its painfully obvious who your are.
No worries. I still like ya! ;)
-
Am I the only one without a gimmick account?
I got to fix that.
-
LOL!!! ;D ;D
-
Blacken, don't know don't care
Mons on the other hand I think is dealing with some legal trouble -
A California man has been sentenced to a year of probation and fined $250 for impersonating a combat-decorated U.S. Marine.
Steven Douglas Burton, 39, of Palm Springs could have spent up to a year in prison for wearing a Marine uniform and military medals he did not receive. He has never served in the military.
In October 2008, Burton showed up for his 20-year class reunion in Martinez, Calif., as a Marine lieutenant colonel with 14 medals, including a Navy Cross, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Legion of Merit badge and Combat Action ribbon. A classmate who was a genuine Navy commander was suspicious, took a photo and made an inquiry. The FBI charged Burton with violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which forbids wearing, making, selling or falsely claiming to have earned military decorations.
Burton said he bought most of his decorations on eBay and at military surplus stores, including one outside the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms. He was fired from his job as bank computer technician.
The Southwest Riverside News Network and the San Francisco Chronicle have more coverage.
(Posted by Michael Winter)
(http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/11/12/ba-medals_Burton_0500834062.jpg)
-
SamsonEnterprises must be angry because their gas caps business is tanking (pun intended LOLOLOL).
I wonder if Jaguar123 had to testify against the convicted felon that is her boss?
-
SamsonEnterprises must be angry because their gas caps business is tanking (pun intended LOLOLOL).
I wonder if Jaguar123 had to testify against the convicted felon that is her boss?
MLM is a scam. I had a friend who tried to get me into that nonsense. The opening line by the speaker was that MLM is not a pyramid scheme and then when they laid out the business plan, guess what? A Pyramid!
I think it was Market America or some nonsense like that.
-
Mons on the other hand I think is dealing with some legal trouble -
:D
-
Has anyone considered that guys like Blacken are leaving because this place has become a right-winger circle jerk...?
I'm all for debate, but you guys are simply immune to facts.
Just read the "Drop out of your federal healthcare" thread.
Every single fact and figure I posted in that thread was simply dismissed... my basic mathematical extrapolations were never questioned; my quoted figures were never contested; in fact no ERROR in my argument was ever cited... just circular rationalising, with dismissal itself cited as evidence for dismissal.
Too many threads here follow this formula:
Left Wiger: Don't you guys know Fact A?
Right Winger #1: Only liberals believe Fact A.
Left Winger: How is Fact A actually wrong?
Right Winger #2: Shut up Left Winger. Hasn't Right Winger #1 pwned you enough regarding Fact A.
Left Winger: But Fact A is actually true, isn't it?
Right Winger #3: I love it. Right Winger #1 and Right Winger #2 schooling Left Winger.
Left Winger: But Fact A is actually true... no one is offering a counter argument.
Right Winger #4: Left Winger is such a moronic liberal.
Right Winger #3: Left Winger has been exposed as a liar. Quoting made-up facts, oh brother.
Left Winger: Here's my source http://www.FactA.com ...this is a scientifically accepted, provable fact. Is anyone contesting it?
Right Winger #1: Yeah, but Fact A doesn't understand economics.
Right Winger #2: Yeah, shut up Left Winger. Haven't Right Winger #2 and Right Winger #3 exposed you as a liar enough already?
Right Winger #3: Yeah, I totally exposed his lies. My tax dollars aren't going towards Fact A.
Right Winger #4: Yeah, total exposure of liberal lies in this thread.
Right Winger #1: I hate it when liberals lie like this about Fact A.
Right Winger #2: But you exposed his lies brilliantly.
Right Winger #3: Yeah, I exposed Left Winger too.
Right Winger #4: Yeah, we all exposed him... we didn't even have to address Fact A, it's enough to call him a liar repeatedly.
Right Winger #1: Anyone else notice that left Winger doesn't post here any more? Why is that?
Simply put guys, no one wants to debate with people who don't understand the facts AND are unwilling to accept facts.
I spent a dozen pages trying to explain that the $3k per person that the French pay for healthcare is LESS than the $7k per person Americans pay... to no avail. That doesn't persuade me to engage in another healthcare debate with you guys... if you simply didn't understand I wouldn't mind explaining these things... but you guys simply don't want to understand.
I come to this board for entertainment and debate... I'm not interested in hammering facts into petulant children who refuse to accept facts. That's no fun.
Seems Blacken and the other quality contributors feel the same way... so congrats Palin-voting-Glenn-Beck-watchers, you've killed this board.
The Luke
-
Has anyone considered that guys like Blacken are leaving because this place has become a right-winger circle jerk...?
I'm all for debate, but you guys are simply immune to facts.
Just read the "Drop out of your federal healthcare" thread.
They did!!!! And, once they clean off their monitors and peeled themselves off the floor (after reading your interesting takes), they pressed on smartly.
Every single fact and figure I posted in that thread was simply dismissed... my basic mathematical extrapolations were never questioned; my quoted figures were never contested; in fact no ERROR in my argument was ever cited... just circular rationalising, with dismissal itself cited as evidence for dismissal.
In what BIZARRO universe are you living?
Skip ripped your figures apart, piece by piece. And all you did was re-hash the same rubbish.
Simply put guys, no one wants to debate with people who don't understand the facts AND are unwilling to accept facts.
We understand the facts, which is why dismembering your claims and those of the aforementioned MIA personnel takes so little effort.
I spent a dozen pages trying to explain that the $3k per person that the French pay for healthcare is LESS than the $7k per person Americans pay... to no avail. That doesn't persuade me to engage in another healthcare debate with you guys... if you simply didn't understand I wouldn't mind explaining these things... but you guys simply don't want to understand.
I come to this board for entertainment and debate... I'm not interested in hammering facts into petulant children who refuse to accept facts. That's no fun.
Seems Blacken and the other quality contributors feel the same way... so congrats Palin-voting-Glenn-Beck-watchers, you've killed this board.
The Luke
PLEASE!!! You make some bone-brained claim. One of the other posters takes you to the woodshed. You disapper for a spell, then return with some more foolishness, followed by a subsequent trip to the woodshed, and brief hiatus.
Repeat ad nauseum.
-
Blacken & Mons never debated anything whatsoever and other than KC & Straw, the leftises simply cant debate a topic.
One morons posts stupid DU videos and hides.
The other is a fake soldier who talked about giving facials to Palins' baby.
You attempt to debate, but often grossly distort facts and figures. Skip has destroyed you royally in almost every debate you had with him and I can understand your reluctance to engage him in a debate anymore.
BTW, did it ever dawn on you that the typical BB demographic is probably a south park conservative to begin with?
-
Exhibit A:
They did!!!! And, once they clean off their monitors and peeled themselves off the floor (after reading your interesting takes), they pressed on smartly.
In what BIZARRO universe are you living?
Skip ripped your figures apart, piece by piece. And all you did was re-hash the same rubbish.
We understand the facts, which is why dismembering your claims and those of the aforementioned MIA personnel takes so little effort.
PLEASE!!! You make some bone-brained claim. One of the other posters takes you to the woodshed. You disapper for a spell, then return with some more foolishness, followed by a subsequent trip to the woodshed, and brief hiatus.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Exhibit B:
Blacken & Mons never debated anything whatsoever and other than KC & Straw, the leftises simply cant debate a topic.
One morons posts stupid DU videos and hides.
The other is a fake soldier who talked about giving facials to Palins' baby.
You attempt to debate, but often grossly distort facts and figures. Skip has destroyed you royally in almost every debate you had with him and I can understand your reluctance to engage him in a debate anymore.
BTW, did it ever dawn on you that the typical BB demographic is probably a south park conservative to begin with?
Blanket assertions; blanket dismissals; blanket character attack; and ad hominem attacks.
Not one single attempt to address the issue I raised.
Why would anyone want to debate with these people...? They don't even know they don't know... and they like it that way.
The Luke
-
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Blanket assertions; blanket dismissals; blanket character attack; and ad hominem attacks.
Not one single attempt to address the issue I raised.
Why would anyone want to debate with these people...? They don't even know they don't know... and they like it that way.
The Luke
Luke - I utterly embarassed you once or twice before and will gladly do it again.
Skip owns you so badly its not even funny. We just figured you accepted your humliating defeats and took off with some dignity. I guess we were wrong.
As for Blacken andMons:
One is a serial plagerizer and the other wants to give facials to babies. Enough said.
-
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Blanket assertions; blanket dismissals; blanket character attack; and ad hominem attacks.
Not one single attempt to address the issue I raised.
Why would anyone want to debate with these people...? They don't even know they don't know... and they like it that way.
The Luke
I addressed your claims (as did Skip) on that other thread. And, as stated earlier, you make your usual rounds in the woodshed. This isn't about healthcare. If you want to get beat up some more about that, bump the old thread.
-
Luke - I utterly embarassed you once or twice before and will gladly do it again.
Skip owns you so badly its not even funny. We just figured you accepted your humliating defeats and took off with some dignity. I guess we were wrong.
As for Blacken andMons:
One is a serial plagerizer and the other wants to give facials to babies. Enough said.
Assertions of "ownings" followed by denigration of character and accusations of paedophilia.... (sigh)
Wow, I wonder why no one wants to debate on this board...?
Funny, I remember you guys chiming in to threads I was posting in and simply ASSERTING you were right without any evidence or counter-argument... does that count as me being "owned"? Does your current reference to such unsupported ASSERTIONS now qualify as evidence of the validity of such assertions?
Funny, I've also noticed the only claims of plagiarism and paedophilia being ASSERTED by you and Skip.
Is this another case of you guys simply ASSERTING something as true in one thread, then quoting that assertion as proof of itself in another thread...?
Can I do that too?
Can I simply ASSERT that you guys are morons and cite this ASSERTION as proof of such...?
Do you even understand my argument here? Or will you simply provide another EXAMPLE of what I'm complaining about as rebuttal?
The Luke
-
Assertions of "ownings" followed by denigration of character and accusations of paedophilia.... (sigh)
Wow, I wonder why no one wants to debate on this board...?
Funny, I remember you guys chiming in to threads I was posting in and simply ASSERTING you were right without any evidence or counter-argument... does that count as me being "owned"? Does your current reference to such unsupported ASSERTIONS now qualify as evidence of the validity of such assertions?
Funny, I've also noticed the only claims of plagiarism and paedophilia being ASSERTED by you and Skip.
Is this another case of you guys simply ASSERTING something as true in one thread, then quoting that assertion as proof of itself in another thread...?
Can I do that too?
Can I simply ASSERT that you guys are morons and cite this ASSERTION as proof of such...?
Do you even understand my argument here? Or will you simply provide another EXAMPLE of what I'm complaining about as rebuttal?
The Luke
James outed Blacken as a serial plagerizer on at three occasions. Mons said he wants to give Palins' baby a facial.
Look it up.
And cry me a river BTW - its St. Patty's day, shouldnt you be drunk already?
-
And cry me a river BTW - its St. Patty's day, shouldnt you be drunk already?
...thought about it and figured I might have a point? Eh?
(Goes to get drunk)
The Luke
-
Has anyone considered that guys like Blacken are leaving because this place has become a right-winger circle jerk...?
Seems Blacken and the other quality contributors feel the same way... so congrats Palin-voting-Glenn-Beck-watchers, you've killed this board.
The Luke
Amen. This place is nothing more than a huge circle jerk for Racists and NeoCons.
-
Amen. This place is nothing more than a huge circle jerk for Racists and NeoCons.
And people who want to give facials to babies.
-
And people who want to give facials to babies.
Did he really say that?
-
Did he really say that?
...Skip and 333386 distort so many of their so-called quotes that I find it hard to believe.
The Luke
-
Did he really say that?
Ask Hugo. Hugo banned him for 30 days for saying that he wanted to give a facial to Palin's baby.
I'm not making that up.
-
Ask Hugo. Hugo banned him for 30 days for saying that he wanted to give a facial to Palin's baby.
I'm not making that up.
...quote please.
The Luke
-
Ask Hugo. Hugo banned him for 30 days for saying that he wanted to give a facial to Palin's baby.
I'm not making that up.
I know you are not making stuff up. You are not one to do that. I was hoping you had the quotes. I kind of remember it.
-
I know you are not making stuff up. You are not one to do that. I was hoping you had the quotes. I kind of remember it.
Ask Hugo - he may heve delted those vile posts.
I am what I am and make no apologies for it, but I dont lie.
-
I am what I am and make no apologies for it, but I dont lie.
What's worse is 3333's was CAUGHT deleting his RACIST post and denied it!
Lying racist neocon scummbag.
If you want to talk about the policies she supports which disgust you, fine. Look, you know I am disgusted with Obama, but is it about the fact that he is black or some other type of stupid reason? Maybe sometimes.
WTF 3333, you did post it and delete it :o Straw quoted you so you're busted and busted trying to cover it up!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=306155.msg4388791#msg4388791
3333, please address this: You're not going to get banned for it. Hell, BF and his cohorts took over the board one day demanding their rights to degrade and belittle blacks whenever they want.
you made it about Obama's race, not Rev. Wright. You can't change that fact now, nice try.
"Look, you know I am disgusted with Obama, but is it about the fact that he is black or some other type of stupid reason? Maybe sometimes. "--3333
YES OR NO? Did you or did you not admit that some of your issues with Obama are racial?
Cry me a river. Fine, Im a racist.
Lying Racist NeoCon POS.
-
Oh please - post the whole thread fool. We already went over this.
BTW - do you deny saying you wanted to facialize Palins' baby?
-
I am what I am and make no apologies for it, but I dont lie.
WTF 3333, you did post it and delete it :o Straw quoted you so you're busted and busted trying to cover it up!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=306155.msg4388791#msg4388791
NeoCon, Racist liar gets caught.
-
NeoCon, Racist liar gets caught.
I never deleted anything. Again - did you say you wanted to faciailize palins' baby?
-
Assertions of "ownings" followed by denigration of character and accusations of paedophilia.... (sigh)
Wow, I wonder why no one wants to debate on this board...?
Funny, I remember you guys chiming in to threads I was posting in and simply ASSERTING you were right without any evidence or counter-argument... does that count as me being "owned"? Does your current reference to such unsupported ASSERTIONS now qualify as evidence of the validity of such assertions?
Funny, I've also noticed the only claims of plagiarism and paedophilia being ASSERTED by you and Skip.
Is this another case of you guys simply ASSERTING something as true in one thread, then quoting that assertion as proof of itself in another thread...?
Can I do that too?
Can I simply ASSERT that you guys are morons and cite this ASSERTION as proof of such...?
Do you even understand my argument here? Or will you simply provide another EXAMPLE of what I'm complaining about as rebuttal?
The Luke
First, Mons did say that. I filed a complaint on the complaints board, but Hugo deleted it and banned Mons so I erased the complaint and requested Ron delete the thread. Hugo did mention this on the complaints board but has since erased that post. I did, however respond back in February: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=308493.25
Secondly, you don't post facts Luke. You post unfounded claims. I specifically requested where you were getting your numbers from and you balked. In fact, it was only after I mentioned the OECD report by name that you "suddenly" claimed to have read the report.
Third, drop the cry-baby shit about ad-hom attacks given your the biggest perpetrator around. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you resort to calling them stupid or morons. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
You don't reference studies. You don't reference sites. You don't reference policies. You don't reference shit (unless I give it to you). Your claims are not facts.
As for Blacken, he was not a quality poster or debater. He'd drop a YouTube video in and anybody who disagreed with him would get some other stupid YouTube vid (usually a crying baby or the stand up and be counted one).
-
NeoCon, Racist liar gets caught.
Coming from a fake vet who's also a pedophile...that doesn't really mean much.
-
First, Mons did say that. I filed a complaint on the complaints board, but Hugo deleted it and banned Mons so I erased the complaint and requested Ron delete the thread. Hugo did mention this on the complaints board but has since erased that post. I did, however respond back in February: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=308493.25
Secondly, you don't post facts Luke. You post unfounded claims. I specifically requested where you were getting your numbers from and you balked. In fact, it was only after I mentioned the OECD report by name that you "suddenly" claimed to have read the report.
Third, drop the cry-baby shit about ad-hom attacks given your the biggest perpetrator around. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you resort to calling them stupid or morons. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
You don't reference studies. You don't reference sites. You don't reference policies. You don't reference shit (unless I give it to you). Your claims are not facts.
As for Blacken, he was not a quality poster or debater. He'd drop a YouTube video in and anybody who disagreed with him would get some other stupid YouTube vid (usually a crying baby or the stand up and be counted one).
Nice. Well said.
-
Skip knows how to throw a beatdown when he wants to.
-
Yeah, some good points being made here...
Maybe in future I should post a link for every bit of common knowledge I reference.
Because that's the big problem on this board, right? That people like me and Blacken reference reality but don't give links to specific sources... so why should the conservatives on here have to DISPROVE a claim with reference to their own research... that's just crazy.
After all, if I were to make a crazy claim, for example, claiming that the median income in the US is $28,500 per year... a claim at odds with 333386's unquestioned straight-out-of-ass guesstimate of $40,000 cited in the "How much should doctors make" thread and not cited or proven.
No one who disagrees with me should be expected to check that fact when attempting to counter that assertion... it's perfectly appropriate for them to dismiss that FACT solely because no reference was cited.
After all, if we forced the conservatives to check the facts every time they disagreed with a some tidbit of common knowledge... why, they'd be totally unable to maintain the paradigm of self-delusion that drives their thinking.
So, liberals should cite detailed references for everything they quote no matter how obvious... conservatives can then dismiss these citations, but any and all of their delusion-derived blanket assertions are deemed acceptable. At most a conservative should be asked to cite a bought-and-paid-for bullshit study provided by a neo-liberal conservative think tank... but only in the rarest of circumstances.
...and you guys wonder why this board is dying?
The Luke
-
You have a track record of making stuff up and being wrong, Skip and I don't.
Remember the last debate we had with your "points"? I embarassed the shit out of you on the facts and substance. So if you cant deal with it and now want to cry about, thats your problem and maybe you should stop bringing knives to a fight with guns.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _______________________
Household income in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For information on the income of individuals, see Personal income in the United States.
Median household income in the United States, by county, in 2008Household income is a measure commonly used by the United States government and private institutions. That measure counts all the income of all residents over the age of 18 in each household, including not only all wages and salaries, but such items as unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.[1] The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[2] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.[3]
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007). For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively). The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[5] In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.[6] 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold[7] and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.[8] The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.[3][9] Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase in the 1970s until reaching a peak in 2006. It declined a little in 2007.[10] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two or more income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of approximately one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and $57,657. Households in the lowest quintile had incomes less than $19,178 and the majority had no income earner.[11]
The 2006 economic survey also found that households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual household income exceeding $60,000, had a median of two income earners while those in the lower quintiles (2nd and middle quintile) had median of only one income earner per household. Due to high unemployment among those in the lowest quintile the median number of income earners for this particular group was zero.[6] Overall, the United States followed the trend of other developed nations with a relatively large population of relatively affluent households outnumbering the poor. Among those in between the extremes of the income strata are a large number of households with moderately high middle class incomes[9] and an even larger number of households with moderately low incomes.[6] While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. While personal income has remained relatively stagnant over the past few decades, household income has risen due to the rising percentage of households with two or more income earners. Between 1999 and 2004 household income stagnated showing a slight increase since 2004.[12][13] According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, per capita income has increased every year for the past 10 years, with an annual average of 5.2% gains for the past 4 years. The recently released US Income Mobility Study showed 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. Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years. 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.[14]
-
You have a track record of making stuff up and being wrong, Skip and I don't.
Remember the last debate we had with your "points"? I embarassed the shit out of you on the facts and substance. So if you cant deal with it and now want to cry about, thats your problem and maybe you should stop bringing knives to a fight with guns.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _______________________
Household income in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For information on the income of individuals, see Personal income in the United States.
Median household income in the United States, by county, in 2008Household income is a measure commonly used by the United States government and private institutions. That measure counts all the income of all residents over the age of 18 in each household, including not only all wages and salaries, but such items as unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.[1] The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[2] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.[3]
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007). For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively). The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[5] In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.[6] 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold[7] and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.[8] The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.[3][9] Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase in the 1970s until reaching a peak in 2006. It declined a little in 2007.[10] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two or more income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of approximately one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and $57,657. Households in the lowest quintile had incomes less than $19,178 and the majority had no income earner.[11]
The 2006 economic survey also found that households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual household income exceeding $60,000, had a median of two income earners while those in the lower quintiles (2nd and middle quintile) had median of only one income earner per household. Due to high unemployment among those in the lowest quintile the median number of income earners for this particular group was zero.[6] Overall, the United States followed the trend of other developed nations with a relatively large population of relatively affluent households outnumbering the poor. Among those in between the extremes of the income strata are a large number of households with moderately high middle class incomes[9] and an even larger number of households with moderately low incomes.[6] While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. While personal income has remained relatively stagnant over the past few decades, household income has risen due to the rising percentage of households with two or more income earners. Between 1999 and 2004 household income stagnated showing a slight increase since 2004.[12][13] According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, per capita income has increased every year for the past 10 years, with an annual average of 5.2% gains for the past 4 years. The recently released US Income Mobility Study showed 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. Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years. 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.[14]
A perfect example of my point.
I referenced median income... you confused that with median household income and median income of workers who worked year-round (which is hardly appropriate with regard to a 20% unemployment rate).
But this is the really sad thing:
Here's what you highlighted...
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007). For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively)
...and here's the next line:
The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[5]
I claim Fact A... you refute my claim by posting a study which actually shows Fact B... you fail to notice YOUR citation also contains Fact A... you don't understand the difference between Fact A and Fact B... you think Fact B disproves Fact A.
So who's wrong? It's not me, you just took the time to prove that for everyone to see... then you boasted about how you had embarrassed me.
Seriously dude, that's just flat out dishonest selective quotation... either that or you just can't read properly, and don't understand.
Which is it? Are you dishonest or stupid?
Only one of those is necessarily shameful... I would have been happy to explain my claims to you in any of these Politics Board threads, but when I do I am met with aggression; derision and dismissal.
If I cite a source... it is dismissed as only sources supporting your myopic opinions (no matter how suspect) are deemed credible.
If I leave a thread... I recheck it only to find the time zone difference has been used as an opportunity for multiple circle-jerk ad hominem attacks.
If I fail to counter EACH AND EVERY spurious erroneous attempt at rebuttal... then obviously that is evidence I cannot, and such silliness is deemed valid.
This board needs to clamp down on this constant incessant "Pics or it didn't happen" Hectoring. It's stifling debate.
If the neo-cons on here just want to have their delusions re-affirmed with faulty reasoning and manipulated data, then go post on some super-christy Evangelical discussion forum.
Personally I'm disappointed the most vocal posters here are also the most misinformed and the least capable of debate or comprehension.
The Luke
-
Hey moron, the numer you included people not even working! Are you still drunk from yesterday?
-
Hey moron, the numer you included people not even working! Are you still drunk from yesterday?
...Yes, median income includes those people.
Why are you calling ME a moron? You've just demonstrated TWICE in two posts that you can't read properly.
If you don't believe me, simply read the article YOU posted: the figure of $26k is listed as MEDIAN INCOME... just as I pointed out.
There's a Wikipedia entry for "median" if you'd like confirmation. While you're at it you might as well check out median income by country... it's some interesting reading, but it might be somewhat at odds with what you like to think.
My apologies... I had assumed you were either being deliberately dishonest or simply didn't understand. It seems you didn't and don't understand.
I shouldn't have accused you of dishonesty if English is not your first language, sorry.
The Luke
-
And people who want to give facials to babies.
Hey kid, lets see proof.
-
Hey kid, lets see proof.
Yeah Luke - this board is truly benefitted by TA & Mons.
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
^^^^ Put up or STFU
-
...Skip and 333386 distort so many of their so-called quotes that I find it hard to believe.
The Luke
Why are you lying? You know it's true that he made that comment. Oh, why would I expect anything different from the likes of you? Lying has become such an integral part of your life that you have begun to believe the nonsense you spew.
-
Hey kid, lets see proof.
Do you even know how to read? Proof? You were banned, jerkoff.
-
TA is mons.
-
Do you even know how to read? Proof? You were banned, jerkoff.
Please post my facial quote...I'd love to see it!
-
Yeah Luke - this board is truly benefitted by TA & Mons.
::) ::) ::) ::)
Well, you changed topic with a non-sequitur... good work, guess no one will notice your ridiculous posting of facts you didn't comprehend.
Suppose that's a great way to boastfully cite a source hoping to embarrass someone else only to find the very source you cited actually confirms what you were attacking... but not have anyone notice.
Maybe you're hoping the other posters here have as poor a reading comprehension as you've demonstrated...?
The Luke
-
Well, you changed topic with a non-sequitur... good work, guess no one will notice your ridiculous posting of facts you didn't comprehend.
Suppose that's a great way to boastfully cite a source hoping to embarrass someone else only to find the very source you cited actually confirms what you were attacking... but not have anyone notice.
Maybe you're hoping the other posters here have as poor a reading comprehension as you've demonstrated...?
The Luke
I just closed a big deal on a case I was working for about a year. I dont have time to write a lengthy rebuttal of your nonsense right now.
-
I just closed a big deal on a case I was working for about a year. I dont have time to write a lengthy rebuttal of your nonsense right now.
...doesn't take long to admit you didn't/don't know the difference between median household income and median income. It's a statistical term.
I've already admitted I was wrong to criticise your reading comprehension seeing as English isn't your first language... and apologised for it.
But I suppose you could simply ignore your mistake and hope no one notices. Probably your best bet.
The Luke
-
...doesn't take long to admit you didn't/don't know the difference between median household income and median income. It's a statistical term.
I've already admitted I was wrong to criticise your reading comprehension seeing as English isn't your first language... and apologised for it.
But I suppose you could simply ignore your mistake and hope no one notices. Probably your best bet.
The Luke
I didnt know we were arguing the difference. I didnot realize you were including people who DONT WORK in your figure. I also said the average salary is 40k no? and that would be correct no?
-
Yeah, some good points being made here...
Maybe in future I should post a link for every bit of common knowledge I reference.
Because that's the big problem on this board, right? That people like me and Blacken reference reality but don't give links to specific sources... so why should the conservatives on here have to DISPROVE a claim with reference to their own research... that's just crazy.
After all, if I were to make a crazy claim, for example, claiming that the median income in the US is $28,500 per year... a claim at odds with 333386's unquestioned straight-out-of-ass guesstimate of $40,000 cited in the "How much should doctors make" thread and not cited or proven.
No one who disagrees with me should be expected to check that fact when attempting to counter that assertion... it's perfectly appropriate for them to dismiss that FACT solely because no reference was cited.
After all, if we forced the conservatives to check the facts every time they disagreed with a some tidbit of common knowledge... why, they'd be totally unable to maintain the paradigm of self-delusion that drives their thinking.
So, liberals should cite detailed references for everything they quote no matter how obvious... conservatives can then dismiss these citations, but any and all of their delusion-derived blanket assertions are deemed acceptable. At most a conservative should be asked to cite a bought-and-paid-for bullshit study provided by a neo-liberal conservative think tank... but only in the rarest of circumstances.
...and you guys wonder why this board is dying?
The Luke
Who said this board is dying? Another baseless claim on your end.
-
Luke is a crybaby and needs to man up.
-
I just closed a big deal on a case I was working for about a year. I dont have time to write a lengthy rebuttal of your nonsense right now.
Every time you get cornered with your own bullshit, you bring up work related shit in an attempt to deflect and escape. You claim you don't have time to post a coherent argument against his claims, but yet you have time to post non-stop nonsense in other threads?
::)
Perhaps you could have closed that deal in 6 weeks instead of a year if you wasn't posting a hundred cry baby threads on here each day.
-
Every time you get cornered with your own bullshit, you bring up work related shit in an attempt to deflect and escape. You claim you don't have time to post a coherent argument against his claims, but yet you have time to post non-stop nonsense in other threads?
::)
Perhaps you could have closed that deal in 6 weeks instead of a year if you wasn't posting a hundred cry baby threads on here each day.
Fool. I said the average salary was 40k correct? did I back that up yes or no?
-
Fool. I said the average salary was 40k correct? did I back that up yes or no?
Did I say ANYTHING about average salary?
No, I did not.
What did my post relate to again?
-
Did I say ANYTHING about average salary?
No, I did not.
What did my post relate to again?
You claimed I got backed into a corner which I did not. So STFU and go back to arguing w McWay
-
You claimed I got backed into a corner which I did not. So STFU and go back to arguing w McWay
You get backed in a corner daily. And your only tactic then is to :
1 - Post something completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
2 - Quote another person and agree with THEIR point of view, which you seemingly couldn't express for yourself. And then say "did you see my thread/this vid/that pie chart"
3 - Attempt (failing) fear mongering tactics laced with dramatic hyperbole and bitterness.
Seriously, you need help. No one can be this bitter day in and day out as you. It's unhealthy.
-
You get backed in a corner daily. And your only tactic then is to :
1 - Post something completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
2 - Quote another person and agree with THEIR point of view, which you seemingly couldn't express for yourself. And then say "did you see my thread/this vid/that pie chart"
3 - Attempt (failing) fear mongering tactics laced with dramatic hyperbole and bitterness.
Seriously, you need help. No one can be this bitter day in and day out as you. It's unhealthy.
Watching LurkerNoMore and The Luke destroy 333's everyday is worth the price of admission! :D :D :D
-
I just closed a big deal on a case I was working for about a year. I dont have time to write a lengthy rebuttal of your nonsense right now.
hahaha
oh, brother ::)
-
hahaha
oh, brother ::)
How is that stim bill working out for you Butthead?
-
Fool. I said the average salary was 40k correct? did I back that up yes or no?
...you claimed median income was $40k, then highlighted a sentence from a copy'n'paste article as proof.
Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT you highlighted a sentence in the article you posted showing median household income and the median income of men and women who worked full-time year round... big difference. The very next sentence after the one you highlighted clearly gives the median income as $26k.
Add to this the aggressive boastful comments about embarrassing and owning people and it's clear you just didn't understand the difference and aren't qualified to engage in discussions that require good reading comprehension.
This is understandable if English is not your first language (as I believe), but it seems you still don't understand the difference as evidenced by this recent post:
I said the average salary was 40k correct? did I back that up yes or no?
Firstly you made no mention of average salary, (as the comment was a rebuttal to my claim regarding median income) just this abusive comment:
Remember the last debate we had with your "points"? I embarassed the shit out of you on the facts and substance. So if you cant deal with it and now want to cry about, thats your problem and maybe you should stop bringing knives to a fight with guns.
Secondly, you didn't even show the average salary to be $40k. You showed median household income to be $50k and the median income of men who worked full-time year-round to be $45k.
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113.
...only averaging between the median incomes of fully-employed men working full-time year-round and the median incomes of fully-employed women working full-time year-round gives the $40k you inferred... a year figure and that's not even applicable because men outnumber women so much in these categories that a simple equally weighted average is obviously wrong. Not to mention this doesn't include part-time or seasonal salaried workers.
So you didn't understand that either.
So... No.
No, you never said it.
No, you never backed it up.
No, no it's not $40k.
But add to all this the simple fact that had you read just one sentence further into the article YOU posted, just one sentence beyond the sentence YOU highlighted to "embarrass" me... you would have clearly seen the median income stated as $26k. Plain, black-and-white, obvious.
So you posted a detailed and referenced citation of a fact I asserted, while claiming I fabricated it, and STILL don't understand your mistake.
Now do you understand why no one bothers to engage you on your delusional rantings?
Other posters don't back down or disappear because you are always right... it's just no one has the time to re-educate someone who doesn't understand why he's wrong; and doesn't even want to understand.
The Luke
-
...you claimed median income was $40k, then highlighted a sentence from a copy'n'paste article as proof.
Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT you highlighted a sentence in the article you posted showing median household income and the median income of men and women who worked full-time year round... big difference. The very next sentence after the one you highlighted clearly gives the median income as $26k.
Add to this the aggressive boastful comments about embarrassing and owning people and it's clear you just didn't understand the difference and aren't qualified to engage in discussions that require good reading comprehension.
This is understandable if English is not your first language (as I believe), but it seems you still don't understand the difference as evidenced by this recent post:
Firstly you made no mention of average salary, (as the comment was a rebuttal to my claim regarding median income) just this abusive comment:
Secondly, you didn't even show the average salary to be $40k. You showed median household income to be $50k and the median income of men who worked full-time year-round to be $45k....only averaging between the median incomes of fully-employed men working full-time year-round and the median incomes of fully-employed women working full-time year-round gives the $40k you inferred... a year figure and that's not even applicable because men outnumber women so much in these categories that a simple equally weighted average is obviously wrong. Not to mention this doesn't include part-time or seasonal salaried workers.
So you didn't understand that either.
So... No.
No, you never said it.
No, you never backed it up.
No, no it's not $40k.
But add to all this the simple fact that had you read just one sentence further into the article YOU posted, just one sentence beyond the sentence YOU highlighted to "embarrass" me... you would have clearly seen the median income stated as $26k. Plain, black-and-white, obvious.
So you posted a detailed and referenced citation of a fact I asserted, while claiming I fabricated it, and STILL don't understand your mistake.
Now do you understand why no one bothers to engage you on your delusional rantings?
Other posters don't back down or disappear because you are always right... it's just no one has the time to re-educate someone who doesn't understand why he's wrong; and doesn't even want to understand.
The Luke
Show me my quote where i said the "MEDIAN" and i will retract.
-
...you claimed median income was $40k, then highlighted a sentence from a copy'n'paste article as proof.
Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT you highlighted a sentence in the article you posted showing median household income and the median income of men and women who worked full-time year round... big difference. The very next sentence after the one you highlighted clearly gives the median income as $26k.
Add to this the aggressive boastful comments about embarrassing and owning people and it's clear you just didn't understand the difference and aren't qualified to engage in discussions that require good reading comprehension.
This is understandable if English is not your first language (as I believe), but it seems you still don't understand the difference as evidenced by this recent post:
Firstly you made no mention of average salary, (as the comment was a rebuttal to my claim regarding median income) just this abusive comment:
Secondly, you didn't even show the average salary to be $40k. You showed median household income to be $50k and the median income of men who worked full-time year-round to be $45k....only averaging between the median incomes of fully-employed men working full-time year-round and the median incomes of fully-employed women working full-time year-round gives the $40k you inferred... a year figure and that's not even applicable because men outnumber women so much in these categories that a simple equally weighted average is obviously wrong. Not to mention this doesn't include part-time or seasonal salaried workers.
So you didn't understand that either.
So... No.
No, you never said it.
No, you never backed it up.
No, no it's not $40k.
But add to all this the simple fact that had you read just one sentence further into the article YOU posted, just one sentence beyond the sentence YOU highlighted to "embarrass" me... you would have clearly seen the median income stated as $26k. Plain, black-and-white, obvious.
So you posted a detailed and referenced citation of a fact I asserted, while claiming I fabricated it, and STILL don't understand your mistake.
Now do you understand why no one bothers to engage you on your delusional rantings?
Other posters don't back down or disappear because you are always right... it's just no one has the time to re-educate someone who doesn't understand why he's wrong; and doesn't even want to understand.
The Luke
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=31815_popcorn.gif)
-
Luke is trying to engage is nonsense semantics as usual. I said the average salary is around 40k and i backed that up. If he wants to include people non- working and use the other figure, fine, its pure garbage.
Perfect example of two families.
Family 1 -
1 worker - 5 kids makes 100k a year.
1 worker 1 kid makes 100k a year.
What is the average salary?
-
Please post my facial quote...I'd love to see it!
3333 might have saved it but you made it and I deleted it and you were banned for 30 days after already having been warned. Don't deny it. It happened.
-
3333 might have saved it but you made it and I deleted it and you were banned for 30 days after already having been warned. Don't deny it. It happened.
Yeah right, I have never delted shit and you know it. I have defended every single post I ever made. I claimed that the average salary is 40k, which it is.
If luke thinks he someone pwned me bby includuing the fiogure which includes NON working people over 14 y/o fine, let him have his moment.
-
...you claimed median income was $40k, then highlighted a sentence from a copy'n'paste article as proof.
Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT you highlighted a sentence in the article you posted showing median household income and the median income of men and women who worked full-time year round... big difference. The very next sentence after the one you highlighted clearly gives the median income as $26k.
Add to this the aggressive boastful comments about embarrassing and owning people and it's clear you just didn't understand the difference and aren't qualified to engage in discussions that require good reading comprehension.
This is understandable if English is not your first language (as I believe), but it seems you still don't understand the difference as evidenced by this recent post:
Firstly you made no mention of average salary, (as the comment was a rebuttal to my claim regarding median income) just this abusive comment:
Secondly, you didn't even show the average salary to be $40k. You showed median household income to be $50k and the median income of men who worked full-time year-round to be $45k....only averaging between the median incomes of fully-employed men working full-time year-round and the median incomes of fully-employed women working full-time year-round gives the $40k you inferred... a year figure and that's not even applicable because men outnumber women so much in these categories that a simple equally weighted average is obviously wrong. Not to mention this doesn't include part-time or seasonal salaried workers.
So you didn't understand that either.
So... No.
No, you never said it.
No, you never backed it up.
No, no it's not $40k.
But add to all this the simple fact that had you read just one sentence further into the article YOU posted, just one sentence beyond the sentence YOU highlighted to "embarrass" me... you would have clearly seen the median income stated as $26k. Plain, black-and-white, obvious.
So you posted a detailed and referenced citation of a fact I asserted, while claiming I fabricated it, and STILL don't understand your mistake.
Now do you understand why no one bothers to engage you on your delusional rantings?
Other posters don't back down or disappear because you are always right... it's just no one has the time to re-educate someone who doesn't understand why he's wrong; and doesn't even want to understand.
The Luke
The Luke taking 333's out to the woodshed. Gotta love it! :D :D :D
-
United States Average Salaries & Expenditures
Contents
Average Employment Income Average Salary per Job Average Salary per Sector Total Personal Average Income
Consumption Expenditure Workforce Composition Vacation Time References
Average Employment Income :
Annual, per Worker, incl. dependent & self employment
Disposable Gross (1)
2005 31,410 31,410 42,028
42,028 constant 2005 dollars
current dollars
(1) Based on dependent+self employment personal income and ratio of earners to household size.
Source: U.S. Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey [19], 2005 (2.5 persons and 1.3 earners per household).
http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml
________________________ ________________________ ________________________
-
Ok fake soldier. Did you even read whatt he debate is fool?
Of course not, you are too busy jerking off on your dog.
-
Yeah right, I have never delted shit and you know it. I have defended every single post I ever made. I claimed that the average salary is 40k, which it is.
If luke thinks he someone pwned me bby includuing the fiogure which includes NON working people over 14 y/o fine, let him have his moment.
honest to god, you have to slow way the fuck down. You so FAILED in your reading of my post. I replied to mons after he was acting like he never made the facial comment.
-
Yeah, the NYT is really a fringe RW source you drunk red headed fool.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________
Average U.S. Income Showed First Rise Over 2000
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
www.nyt.com
Published: August 25, 2008
Americans enjoyed higher average income in 2006 for the first time since 2000, when the last economic expansion ended, the latest tax data show.
Skip to next paragraph
The New York Times
Related
Times Topics: U.S. Economy Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006 averaged $58,029. In 2006 dollars that was an increase of $739, or 1.2 percent, from the $57,289 average in 2000, analysis of Internal Revenue Service data showed. [/color]
Total income increased by $619.2 billion or 8.3 percent, all of which went to those making more than $75,000, and 42 percent of which went to the roughly one in 400 taxpayers who made more than $1 million in 2006.
Average income fell sharply in 2001 and in 2002, when it dropped to $51,870, off nearly 10 percent from 2000, tax data show. The average grew slightly in 2003.
Average income grew significantly in 2004, rising $2,291, and again in 2005, when the average increased by $2,210. Income growth continued in 2006, but at a much slower pace, increasing by $1,369 over the 2005 average once inflation is taken into account.
Salaries and wages, by far the largest source of income, nearly returned to the 2000 average in 2006. However, among the highest-paid workers, both total and average wages fell, an indication of how the Internet bubble had concentrated gains among a relatively few workers.
The average wage in 2006 was $46,996, down $101, or a fraction of 1 percent, from $47,097 in 2000. Average wages in this decade hit a low of $45,956 in 2003, the I.R.S. data show.
Among workers with salaries of less than $1 million, the average wage in 2006 was up $170 from 2000.
However, salaries fell noticeably among the tiny slice of taxpayers whose total income was $1 million or more, a threshold that the I.R.S. does not adjust for inflation. The number of wage earners in this high-income group soared over six years, up 42.9 percent, to 285,759 of the 116.4 million taxpayers reporting wages in 2006.
Despite this rise in the number of high-wage earners, their total wages declined by $2.4 billion, or almost 1 percent, to $313.3 billion.
The decline in total wages at the top was solely among the narrow segment of wage earners with total income of $5 million or more, the same group that was the big winner from dot-com era stock options, reported as wages on tax returns. The average wage of these 33,309 workers fell almost 37 percent, to $3.5 million in 2006 from $5.5 million in 2000, analysis of the tax data showed.
-
This was my quote that Luke was referring to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: kcballer on March 17, 2010, 01:25:10 PM
100-150K is reasonable. That would put them above 84% of all Americans and 1 to 1.5 times the average income. More than fair compensation if you ask me.
Ok. Lets look at something KC - they have to spend 250k for their education and make that up over say 35 years if they retire at 65. So they are spending lets say roughly $7,150.00 a year for their education. So now they are making $142,000 a year correct?
Ok, lets remember that they gave up 8 years of working to get their degree. If the average person makes 40k a year in this country that equals about the sum of $320,000 in defraid earning correct? Over 35 years that amounts to an additional $9,143.00 a year. So now the doctor is making $132,857 a year. That is $2,554 a week.
So lets says the doctor works 60-70 hours a week. At 60 hours a week the doctor is making $42.66 an hour.
Does that sound like a lot to you KC considering what union trades people make who take coffeee breaks every five minutes?
If the Doctors lives in NYC where i live that is not squat!
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____
Do you care to retract your nonsense Luke? Or do you want to cry like a bitch again and run off with your tail between your legs?
The average salary as I proved is about 40k a year. I did not say MEDIAN income, including non-working people over 14, so stop your bs.
-
Show me my quote where i said the "MEDIAN" and i will retract.
You never mentioned anything about median income... you don't even understand the term.
I mentioned the US median income of $28,500 as an example of a commonly known fact that couldn't be mentioned on this board because morons would insist upon citations and references, then promptly dismiss such references if they were presented:
After all, if I were to make a crazy claim, for example, claiming that the median income in the US is $28,500 per year... a claim at odds with 333386's unquestioned straight-out-of-ass guesstimate of $40,000 cited in the "How much should doctors make" thread and not cited or proven.
No one who disagrees with me should be expected to check that fact when attempting to counter that assertion... it's perfectly appropriate for them to dismiss that FACT solely because no reference was cited.
After all, if we forced the conservatives to check the facts every time they disagreed with a some tidbit of common knowledge... why, they'd be totally unable to maintain the paradigm of self-delusion that drives their thinking.
You, 333386, are just such a moron... and so you immediately attacked me:
You have a track record of making stuff up and being wrong, Skip and I don't.
Remember the last debate we had with your "points"? I embarassed the shit out of you on the facts and substance. So if you cant deal with it and now want to cry about, thats your problem and maybe you should stop bringing knives to a fight with guns.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _______________________
Household income in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For information on the income of individuals, see Personal income in the United States.
Median household income in the United States, by county, in 2008Household income is a measure commonly used by the United States government and private institutions. That measure counts all the income of all residents over the age of 18 in each household, including not only all wages and salaries, but such items as unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.[1] The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[2] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.[3]
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007). For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively). The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[5] In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.[6] 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold[7] and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.[8] The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.[3][9] Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase in the 1970s until reaching a peak in 2006. It declined a little in 2007.[10] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two or more income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of approximately one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and $57,657. Households in the lowest quintile had incomes less than $19,178 and the majority had no income earner.[11]
I then pointed out that your post was a perfect example of the political illiteracy I was complaining about:
-you confused median household income with median income
-you confused median income of men working full-time year-round with median income
-you confused median income of women working full-time year-round with median income
...and you failed to notice that the very next sentence after the one YOU highlighted to refute (and "embarrass") me, in the article YOU cited, actually gave the median income for the US as $26,500.
But you still didn't understand, so you backtracked and claimed:
Fool. I said the average salary was 40k correct? did I back that up yes or no?
...but, as I've shown pretty clearly.
-you never said it.
-you never showed it
-and no it isn't
Why not simply admit you don't understand the difference between median and average...? (in fact you have a poor grasp of math and statistics)
Now you claim that I'm playing semantics... why? Because I made an unsupported claim, and YOU cited a reference that backed me up; but didn't understand the reference and didn't realise YOU actually made MY point.
So... Cliff Notes:
-Luke claims Fact A as something Palin-voters like 333386 wouldn't accept
-333386 doesn't accept Fact A and refutes Luke's claim with a citation showing unrelated Fact B (but also actually showing Fact A to be true)
-Luke explains the citation proves Fact A
-333386 claims Fact B is Fact A
-Luke explains fact B is not Fact A
-333386 pretends he never claimed Fact B, showing he doesn't even understand the difference between fact A and Fact B
-Luke explains that this is a perfect example of 333386 not understanding or accepting basic facts
-333386 doesn't understand the or accept the basic facts Fact A or Fact B
-333386 doesn't understand or accept that he has inadvertently made Luke's point
-everyone on GetBig suffers
The Luke
-
1. You said I pulled the 40 k number out of my ass to start this debate - yes or no? YES OR NO?
2. I posted 3 references for my claim - YES OR NO?
So cry me a river with your semantic nonsense that you know full well you cant back up.
-
So... Cliff Notes:
-Luke claims Fact A as something Palin-voters like 333386 wouldn't accept
-333386 doesn't accept Fact A and refutes Luke's claim with a citation showing unrelated Fact B (but also actually showing Fact A to be true)
-Luke explains the citation proves Fact A
-333386 claims Fact B is Fact A
-Luke explains fact B is not Fact A
-333386 pretends he never claimed Fact B, showing he doesn't even understand the difference between fact A and Fact B
-Luke explains that this is a perfect example of 333386 not understanding or accepting basic facts
-333386 doesn't understand the or accept the basic facts Fact A or Fact B
-333386 doesn't understand or accept that he has inadvertently made Luke's point
-everyone on GetBig suffers
The Luke
lol ;D
Poor, delusional Pea Brain. :-\
-
getting more popcorn, wait for me!!!
-
Oh, yeah, we have all been benefited by your post and runs kneepadding every idiotic thing this moronic admn has done Benny. ::) ::)
-
You never mentioned anything about median income... you don't even understand the term.
I mentioned the US median income of $28,500 as an example of a commonly known fact that couldn't be mentioned on this board because morons would insist upon citations and references, then promptly dismiss such references if they were presented:
You, 333386, are just such a moron... and so you immediately attacked me:
I then pointed out that your post was a perfect example of the political illiteracy I was complaining about:
-you confused median household income with median income
-you confused median income of men working full-time year-round with median income
-you confused median income of women working full-time year-round with median income
...and you failed to notice that the very next sentence after the one YOU highlighted to refute (and "embarrass") me, in the article YOU cited, actually gave the median income for the US as $26,500.
But you still didn't understand, so you backtracked and claimed:
...but, as I've shown pretty clearly.
-you never said it.
-you never showed it
-and no it isn't
Why not simply admit you don't understand the difference between median and average...? (in fact you have a poor grasp of math and statistics)
Now you claim that I'm playing semantics... why? Because I made an unsupported claim, and YOU cited a reference that backed me up; but didn't understand the reference and didn't realise YOU actually made MY point.
So... Cliff Notes:
-Luke claims Fact A as something Palin-voters like 333386 wouldn't accept
-333386 doesn't accept Fact A and refutes Luke's claim with a citation showing unrelated Fact B (but also actually showing Fact A to be true)
-Luke explains the citation proves Fact A
-333386 claims Fact B is Fact A
-Luke explains fact B is not Fact A
-333386 pretends he never claimed Fact B, showing he doesn't even understand the difference between fact A and Fact B
-Luke explains that this is a perfect example of 333386 not understanding or accepting basic facts
-333386 doesn't understand the or accept the basic facts Fact A or Fact B
-333386 doesn't understand or accept that he has inadvertently made Luke's point
-everyone on GetBig suffers
The Luke
This is more entertaining than an old Clint Eastwood flick! :D :D :D
-
1. You said I pulled the 40 k number out of my ass to start this debate - yes or no? YES OR NO?
2. I posted 3 references for my claim - YES OR NO?
So cry me a river with your semantic nonsense that you know full well you cant back up.
So far you have confused: median household income with median income; median income of fully insured men and women working full-time year-round with median income; gross income reported via tax returns with median income; average salary with median income; average per capita earning with average earnings/income; average income with median income; average salary with average income; average salary with median income and average with median.
Why should I explain anything to you...? You don't even understand why you are wrong.
The Luke
-
So far you have confused: median household income with median income; median income of fully insured men and women working full-time year-round with median income; gross income reported via tax returns with median income; average salary with median income; average per capita earning with average earnings/income; average income with median income; average salary with average income; average salary with median income and average with median.
Why should I explain anything to you...? You don't even understand why you are wrong.
The Luke
I havn't confused shit. You threw out your moronic claim that a I put out a number from thin air and I gave three references for the claim. i never said it was median, mean, etc. I said the average salary was 40k, which it is.
You then chose to try to ascribe to me that I was claiming that my claim was that it was a median income figure involving NON-WORKING PEOPLE which I never did.
So, all I had to do was show that the number was not out of thin air which I did. So you lose again fool.
-
This is more entertaining than an old Clint Eastwood flick! :D :D :D
It is entertaning watching 3333 handle this but no way it beats Clint Eastwood. If Pale Rider, Unforgiven, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly or High Planes Drifter comes on tv, I'm out of here.
-
It is entertaning watching 3333 handle this but no way it beats Clint Eastwood. If Pale Rider, Unforgiven, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly or High Planes Drifter comes on tv, I'm out of here.
Hugo - I find it entertaining as well. After I am done with Luke - his stupid ass will run off for a month like last time. When Skip chimes in tonight, it will be over for Luke once again.
-
Hugo - I find it entertaining as well. After I am done with Luke - his stupid ass will run off for a month like last time. When Skip chimes in tonight, it will be over for Luke once again.
Isn't it hilarious that those who have JOBS, social lives and friends are considered by Pea Brain as "running away" from the boards? ;D
-
Isn't it hilarious that those who have JOBS, social lives and friends are considered by Pea Brain as "running away" from the boards? ;D
I made more today than you do in 6 months so bite me.
-
Isn't it hilarious that those who have JOBS, social lives and friends are considered by Pea Brain as "running away" from the boards? ;D
Hey Benny, 333's inflatable girlfriend wants you to take back that statement! :D :D :D
-
I made more today than you do in 6 months so bite me.
Only in your dreams, Pea. ;)
-
I'm confused...
If I claimed median income in the US was $28,500... how have you refuted this by posting an article that cites median income as $26,500... while claiming it was $40k...?
YOU made MY point for me.
You've also demonstrated your poor reading comprehension and inability to differentiate between average; median and per capita.
So what are you trying to prove at this point...?
Everyone reading this thread has watched me make my case for why the more intelligent posters are abandoning this board (back on topic!): the intellectual illiteracy of the more aggressive posters... followed by you demonstrating everything I cited as your failings: aggressive ad-hominem attacks, continuous misquoting of sources, and a total obliviousness to your own miscomprehensions.
I'm saying the Earth is round and you keep shouting that it's flat, while holding up a globe as proof!
The Luke
PS- Gotta log off. My GetBig is slow as hell and it's taking me 5 minutes to post.
-
I'm confused...
If I claimed median income in the US was $28,500... how have you refuted this by posting an article that cites median income as $26,500... while claiming it was $40k...?
YOU made MY point for me.
You've also demonstrated your poor reading comprehension and inability to differentiate between average; median and per capita.
So what are you trying to prove at this point...?
Everyone reading this thread has watched me make my case for why the more intelligent posters are abandoning this board (back on topic!): the intellectual illiteracy of the more aggressive posters... followed by you demonstrating everything I cited as your failings: aggressive ad-hominem attacks, continuous misquoting of sources, and a total obliviousness to your own miscomprehensions.
I'm saying the Earth is round and you keep shouting that it's flat, while holding up a globe as proof!
The Luke
PS- Gotta log off. My GetBig is slow as hell and it's taking me 5 minutes to post.
You claimed a pulled the 40k number out of my ass, which I did not. I gave you three references for it.
-
Yeah, some good points being made here...
Thank you. Unfortunately you haven't made any, but try and keep up.
Maybe in future I should post a link for every bit of common knowledge I reference.
Because that's the big problem on this board, right? That people like me and Blacken reference reality but don't give links to specific sources... so why should the conservatives on here have to DISPROVE a claim with reference to their own research... that's just crazy.
After all, if I were to make a crazy claim, for example, claiming that the median income in the US is $28,500 per year... a claim at odds with 333386's unquestioned straight-out-of-ass guesstimate of $40,000 cited in the "How much should doctors make" thread and not cited or proven.
No one who disagrees with me should be expected to check that fact when attempting to counter that assertion... it's perfectly appropriate for them to dismiss that FACT solely because no reference was cited.
After all, if we forced the conservatives to check the facts every time they disagreed with a some tidbit of common knowledge... why, they'd be totally unable to maintain the paradigm of self-delusion that drives their thinking.
So, liberals should cite detailed references for everything they quote no matter how obvious... conservatives can then dismiss these citations, but any and all of their delusion-derived blanket assertions are deemed acceptable. At most a conservative should be asked to cite a bought-and-paid-for bullshit study provided by a neo-liberal conservative think tank... but only in the rarest of circumstances.
The Luke
Do you actually have an argument? All I see here is a bunch of crybaby shit from somebody who can't back up his claims. You can't back up your bullshit so now you want to cry that you shouldn't have to? ::)
Give it a rest already. Your claims are not facts.
I see you're still crying like a bitch about ad-hom attacks while at the same time using the tactic. That's called hypocrisy. When your reading comprehension level rises, we'll discuss the concept in greater detail.
The degree of stupidity in your arguments is illustrated below.
...I cited as your failings: aggressive ad-hominem attacks...
The Luke
You, 333386, are just such a moron...
The Luke
I'm guessing you're either too dumb to understand what you're preaching (45% likelihood), or
You're a typical elitist double standard lib (55% likelihood)
...and you guys wonder why this board is dying?
The above quote, as McWay noted, illustrates you making up baseless claims that you can't substantiate. Where did anybody say this board was dying? The only thing dying is my tolerance for your epic stupidity.
-
The Skip Smakedown continues. Luke will be back in a month or two for another beatdown.
-
Now, with the above reality in mind, why don't we correct your earlier hypothetical and use a more accurate description of what really transpires:
Luke: (some idiotic, baseless claim - my favorite)...America's never really won a war
Any poster above the 6th grade Level: Luke, could you please substantiate your claim?
Luke: ...I don't...more stupidity from the neocon idiots in America...uh...try googling some things...
Any poster above the 6th grade Level: Well Luke, here's some studies, some facts, some figures that disagree with your point of view.
Luke: ...more lies, you're an uneducated idiotic moron...do you even have a cogent argument?
-
Let me begin by saying I’m 6’1”, 180lbs, and for no apparent reason, my ex-girlfriend that I dated for over 2 years was convinced that I was going to become fat. Last year towards the end of second semester, my roommates and I were having a bonfire with some casual beers, hot dogs and s’mores. My then girlfriend decided that she was invited and showed up. I ate a hot dog, drank a beer, and began preparing another hot dog, when she looked me dead in the eye and asked in all honesty, “Really?..….another hot dog?” We broke up the next day. What a great 2 years of my life.
-
The Skip Smakedown continues. Luke will be back in a month or two for another beatdown.
Not really much left to work with given you guys have destroyed this tool time and again.
-
I broke up with my girlfriend because I was not ready for a child and she was demanding one. I then knocked-up a girl I had a one night stand with three weeks later.
-
One night recently I went down on my girlfriend until she came. When I came up and was ready to have sex, she got mad at me for letting her orgasm so quickly and then angrily rolled over and went to sleep.
-
EPIC!
-
LOL @ KCballer dropping the science in here.
-
LOL @ KCballer dropping the science in here.
And babies and child support for 21 years if he is not careful. .
-
I broke up with my girlfriend because I was not ready for a child and she was demanding one. I then knocked-up a girl I had a one night stand with three weeks later.
ok, so are you gonna be a dad or no