It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Under Obama the gap between the rich and poor has grown

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
STARK INEQUALITY: OXFAM SAYS 8 MEN AS RICH AS HALF THE WORLD


DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) -- The gap between the super-rich and the poorest half of the global population is starker than previously thought, with just eight men, from Bill Gates to Michael Bloomberg, owning as much wealth as 3.6 billion people, according to an analysis by Oxfam released Monday.

Presenting its findings on the dawn of the annual gathering of the global political and business elites in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, anti-poverty organization Oxfam says the gap between the very rich and poor is far greater than just a year ago. It's urging leaders to do more than pay lip-service to the problem.


hosted.ap.org...

If Obama was named Barry Owens a white guy from Minnessota, he would be seen as a very mediocre President. The media and democrats treat Obama like he walks on water so there's a disconnect between Obama and the Democrats who have lost 13 Governor seats, over 1,000 statehouse seats, the White House, House and Senate under Obama.

Here's more on Poverty.

During Obama’s Presidency Wealth Inequality has Increased and Poverty Levels are Higher


While wealth inequality has increased, the number of people living in poverty has also generally increased. Below are figures from 1981 to 2014 for the number of people deemed to be poor and their percentage of the population.3 This percentage has been 15% or higher for three years of Obama’s presidency, from 2010-2012. It had reached that level only three other times since 1981.

As of 2014, some six years after the beginning of the recession and during a period of “recovery,” the rate of poverty remains high at 14.8%. In fact, according to these government statistics, the rate of poverty for every year Obama has been president is higher than it was for every year during George W. Bush’s presidency.

The percent of people below 125% of the official poverty rate has also been higher every year under Obama than during Bush’s presidency, and has been over 19% every year from 2010 through 2014. The highest level it reached under Bush was during the start of the recession in 2008 when it was at 17.9%.

What is most disturbing is the percent of the population living in extreme poverty, or having an income at 50% or lower than the poverty level.5 Every year that Obama has been president, the percent of the population at that level of income has been over 6% and, as of 2014, consisted of over 20 million people. When George W. Bush was president, the percent was always under 6%. The last time it was over 6% was during the first year of the Clinton presidency.


www.counterpunch.org...

If Obama was white, Al Sharpton and the NAACP would be calling him a racist.

Again, people look at Obama like he's above it all so people don't look at his record with any objectivity. All you hear is, it's Bush's fault whenever you talk about Obama's record.

The press might as well hold hands and sing "I Will Always Love You" to Obama.
edit on 15-1-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
but he gave us obamacare and free Obama phones so it`s all good.

you`re right of course, people should look at the numbers and not the man, the numbers clearly show that Obama was a horrible president for both the country and the democrat party.
edit on 15-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Who are you telling this to. You know that this site is predominately anti-Obama. You know this. And for the most part those who do not support the conservative agenda around here are also not Obama fans. Yet you post another Anti -O post to join all the other repeditrive anti-O threads.Why. Who are you singing to here. Everybody already knows just how low you all think of him. It is almost boring boring boring.

If O were wihte. What a bunch of malarkey. If if if if . And to your point, the rich have been getting richer over the rest of us long long long befofre O, yet you make it out as if it is all his fault.

Eight men half as rich as the entire world. Don't blame Obama. Blame capitalism. Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and and Reagan were only it's tools.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
George Bush's fault, move along, you didn't build that, stop acting stupidly!



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Obama and the fat cats got richer. Keep this quiet or the truth may get out. The politicians are in it for the wealthy and don't car about you.

We were told that the "conservative" flavored Repups were for the rich-BS the liberal "flavored" Dems are too. All the political "products" funnel $$$$ up.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Under Obama the gap between the rich and poor has grown

IF true it's only because of inflation and the m2 money supply.

FIAT currency people.

More dollars buying less things.

Takes more of it.

Adjust for inflation.

Adjust for benefits.

Adjust for wage increases.

And there's always been a difference between skill and unskilled labor, and WEALTH that only exists in cyber space that's value is determined by market supply and demand.

I really don't like that word 'inequality'.

Aristotle said it best.

The worst form of INEQUALITY is trying to make unequal things equal.

I am no fan of Obama.

I am no fan of class warfare.

WE are all in this together.

Screwed.

Doesn't mater how any zeros in a bank account.
edit on 15-1-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Tell yourself anything you want, I'll take the facts.


Reminder: Income Inequality Got WORSE Under Obama


Income inequality may be even worse under Obama than George W. Bush. Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, memorably found that the average income of the top 1 percent grew by 11.2 percent in real terms since 2009. The bottom 99 percent saw their incomes decrease by 0.4 percent.
dailycaller.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Obama has taken billions from the middle class and given to the elites, anyone who doesn't understand this is a damned fool. Obama is a globalist, he cares only about concentrating power into the hand of a small number of global elites, while robbing the wealth and freedom from everyone else. The fact that liberals don't understand this just proves how dumb they truly are.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal




Tell yourself anything you want, I'll take the facts.


Not like I need someones permission.

The fact is the STATE created MONEY.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Who are you telling this to. You know that this site is predominately anti-Obama. You know this. And for the most part those who do not support the conservative agenda around here are also not Obama fans. Yet you post another Anti -O post to join all the other repeditrive anti-O threads.Why. Who are you singing to here. Everybody already knows just how low you all think of him. It is almost boring boring boring.

If O were wihte. What a bunch of malarkey. If if if if . And to your point, the rich have been getting richer over the rest of us long long long befofre O, yet you make it out as if it is all his fault.

Eight men half as rich as the entire world. Don't blame Obama. Blame capitalism. Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and and Reagan were only it's tools.


I'd like to have Capitalism back so you could, over the course of the next 8 years or so, eat your own words. We haven't had REAL capitalism in America since 1913.

And for that I blame Progressivism. Which would involve Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush. And Wilson and FDR and Johnson. Who have all set policies that will enrich the few and impoverish the rest.

Which is why Reagan is hated by Progressives ALMOST as much as Trump is. Two people putting a bump in the Progressive's road to UTOPIA FOR ALL! Well, almost all....

I find it puzzling that the progressive hangers-on (you know, people that vote for them even though the party calls them "useless eaters") haven't figured out yet that in a perfect Hegelian Utopia, there would be no room for the imperfect. By imperfect they mean most of their voting base. It's like Stockholm Syndrome. But I digress.

Michelle Obama prattled on about losing hope the last week or so. This is the first time I've felt it since Reagan. And I don't even LIKE Trump. But he's not another progressive tool, so it's at least a crap shoot as opposed to losing before he even starts.

So sorry if you're "bored BORED bored" by the topic but HAD to click on it, read it and respond.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
But under Obama the equality of wages between whites and black got more even. He accomplished balancing the inequity by lowering what the majority of white people make. Only the top ten percent gained wealth.

Now we are all in the same boat, one with a leak in it, most people are under water now, owing more than they are worth if the stock market crashes.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Newsflash:

Under Bush Jr. the gap widened.

Under Bill Clinton the gap widened.

Under Bush Sr. the gap widened.

Under Regan the gap widened.

Under Carter the gap widened.

It has always been moving that direction. It doesn't matter who's in the White House.

"But it was WORSE under Obama!"

Maybe.

Or maybe things were put into motion long, long before Obama, Bush or even Bill Clinton were POTUS?



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
but he gave us obamacare and free Obama phones so it`s all good.

you`re right of course, people should look at the numbers and not the man, the numbers clearly show that Obama was a horrible president for both the country and the democrat party.


Show me one person with an "Obama phone".

That line is a tired, worn out trope that has been proven time and time again to be a LIE.

The program for free cell phones was actually a Ronald Regan-era program that's continued through several Republican administrations to this day.

So, if anyone's to blame its a Republican. Period.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Is it fair to say that,his salary was just lunch money,from some banking schoolyard bullies,that allowed him to have his lunch money,in exchange for getting more lunch money from other people,while still getting his cut???



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
This trend has been going since the 70's.

www.pewresearch.org...

Blaming Obama is totally dishonest, but that doesn't surprise me from ATS. Without Obama we'd still be in the Bush recession.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: Tardacus
but he gave us obamacare and free Obama phones so it`s all good.

you`re right of course, people should look at the numbers and not the man, the numbers clearly show that Obama was a horrible president for both the country and the democrat party.


Show me one person with an "Obama phone".

That line is a tired, worn out trope that has been proven time and time again to be a LIE.

The program for free cell phones was actually a Ronald Regan-era program that's continued through several Republican administrations to this day.

So, if anyone's to blame its a Republican. Period.


So once again it wasn't Obama's fault because he never actually ran this country and... Bush. Oh! And Reagan, because Clinton never ran the country either. And... Bush.

My X-wife has an Obama phone, btw. They had tents on the side of the road in Texas before the 2012 elections with free phones and voter registration forms. You just had to be on welfare, which she was after we split up. They showed you exactly how to fill it out... they would even fill it out for you and you just needed to sign! Not that they SAID they were Obama phones. Oh wait, they called them Obama phones. (Pleasanton, Texas)

So you are entitled to an opinion, but if you think that program was not used as a political tool for the Democrats you would be very, VERY wrong.
edit on 20Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:29:06 -0600America/Chicago17th2017-01-15T20:29:06-06:00pmSundayAmerica/Chicago by GreyScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Under Obama the gap between the rich and poor has grown

IF true it's only because of inflation and the m2 money supply.

FIAT currency people.

More dollars buying less things.

Takes more of it.

Adjust for inflation.

Adjust for benefits.

Adjust for wage increases.

And there's always been a difference between skill and unskilled labor, and WEALTH that only exists in cyber space that's value is determined by market supply and demand.

I really don't like that word 'inequality'.

Aristotle said it best.

The worst form of INEQUALITY is trying to make unequal things equal.

I am no fan of Obama.

I am no fan of class warfare.

WE are all in this together.

Screwed.

Doesn't mater how any zeros in a bank account.


Now you are talking Neo, All I wish is that the rest of ATS wake up, and start analysing properly...and do it right



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The state doesn't create anything, it's cooked up at the Fed.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Rex Tillerson's salary as CEO of Exxon is 24 million in 2016. That's crazy man.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
This trend has been going since the 70's.

www.pewresearch.org...

Blaming Obama is totally dishonest, but that doesn't surprise me from ATS. Without Obama we'd still be in the Bush recession.

edit on 15-1-2017 by VinylTyrant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join