Osama bin Laden set out to bankrupt America. Since 9-11, the United States has funded two declared wars and built a new department dedicated to homeland security. We've also lowered taxes for the wealthy. You can see some of the results of that in the charts below, from the opening segment of last night's show.
"Now, as a measure of America's strength, the modern impossibility of the middle class is not something to feel romantic or wishful or, again, even ideological about, not at a time like this," Rachel said. "But it is worth thinking about whether or not America has a strong resilient economy. Rich people being really rich, that alone does not give you a strong economy or a strong nation. That can just be feudalism with cable."
Three more, after the jump:
Leave a Comment:
Scary stats, aren't they? Send 'em on to Boehner.....I love to see him shed those fake tears!! Keep in mind that these are stats for households that actually have incomes; I like to see a comparison of those who had incomes then vs those who don't now!
His response:
"Look the red bar on the U.S. National Debt is WAY bigger in 2010. That's Obama's fault! The Democrats did it!"
Recession, ongoing effects of the tax cuts, two inherited wars -- something about established trends you don't grasp?
That said, both parties need to get real about resolving the deficit and the cost of government, including a bloated Cold War military.
That was a particularly ignorant comment ferrferr. I know you will never accept facts but it took the Republicans 8 years to trash the economy. It cannot be fixed in 2 years. That would be like trying to stop a freight train with a moped. Use you head man. Turn off faux news and buy yourself some facts.
Yes, the debt went up even farther in 2010 after extending tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and paying for three wars. It seems to me that the best way to pay off debt is to acquire more income, which seems to be a conundrum for many republicans in congress!
Interesting Stats and Charts, Yes. But the context in which Rachel Maddow presented them is I think more interesting.
We have doubled our National Debt, we have reduced infrastructure spending, we have masivly built up our intelligence gathering assets in our government. Things which do not contribute to the Economic Health of America, but instead tend to drain off capitol from growth to Security. And that is just the kind of injury the Osama bin Laden was targeting and crowing about 1 month after 9/11. Is it possible that we have protected and defended our selves into doing more self imposed damage than 9/11.
You Decide for your selves, but that is the context for this collection of statistics.
These need to be shown *everywhere* *all the time*.
Good point Kelly. I think what we have to ask is why. Why are the rich getting richer and the middle class undermined? Why do the Republicans think that giving the rich an even deeper tax cut and desimating the social safety net that keeps many of us out of abject poverty, is a good thing? Why do all of our politicians seem to think that Wall Street should run free with no regulations. If they had not proven their lack of responsibility before the meltdown, why are they not being severely regulated now? I think our buy-out should have least given us the peace of mind of seeing that happen. I believe the reason is that the private multinational corporations have bought the game. We are playing on their court, with their ball. They like it that way so it is not going change. The only thing we have where we have the control. Democracy, one citizen one vote. We need to take it seriously, question it and register and vote. Vote in our best interest! Not swayed by the money.
It sure isn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind, despite what the Repubs keep trying to feed us:
"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a portion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it" - Geo. Washington
@ Worried Mom: Republicans think that the Rich are benevolent and that if we give them more breaks then they will give their little "slaves" all that they need. Duh! Not what they want mind you, but what they deem necessary for our subsistence. WE ARE NOT PLAYING ON THEIR COURT! WE ARE THE BALL! THE CARE ONLY ABOUT MAXIMIZING THEIR WEALTH NOT CONTRIBUTING TO ANYONE ELSE. IT IS THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT! We have allowed the Aristocracy to find its way back into America. We need to roll out the Guillotine and shove the cake in their lifeless mouths. Metaphorically of course! I foresee another revolt much like the one in France aimed at Corporations and their CEO's if they keep it up. Vive la Revolution! lol
I agree, one citizen one vote. If only it were that simple. The repugs know "the people" are not all that pleased with what they are doing right now so in order to stay in power they are going after unions to hurt the dems fund raising prospects AND there are movements all over the country to limit the vote, focusing on those groups who usually vote democrat. In the state of Texas they are pushing a very strict voter ID law that would exempt two groups of people, seniors and licensed gun owners! Humm, coincidence that those two groups are stauch republicans? I think not.
@kat: What?! Are you kidding? They have exemptions? WTF?
Repub "progress" at work.
Feudalism with cable. I absolutely LOOOOOOVE that one!
I really appreciate these statistics in the form of visuals...it really drives the point(s) home. I also love to repost these graphics wherever I can because I think that it is incredibly important for people in this country to educate themselves about the way our country is headed. I really enjoyed last night's show.
What's to discuss. We know who was the president 2000-2008, right? Who brought this country to this levels with his "no-one left behind", wars he started out of revenge for daddy, and general lack of intelligence. Facts are facts.
The only "facts" the righties pay attention to are their very own "facts" which they make up as they go along.
I think the even bigger eye-opener would be to compare the stats from 1979 onward. I understand that year is when the tax rates started shrinking for the top earners and the middle class began losing ground. Ms. Maddow, let's see it all.
"I understand that year is when the tax rates started shrinking for the top earners..."
That's a neat trick since tax rates were rising in 1979 due to "bracket creep" caused by inflation. Tax rates started shrinking in 1981, I bet you can't figure out why.
The real eye-opener would be if BadgerBob checked his assertions before making a fool of himself on a public forum.
These numbers are misleading at best.
First note that the income has been adjusted for inflation but none of the cost charts have been (or are not noted). So automatically you need to raise the 2000 year costs by about 26%. Of course, this still does not account for the gaps but it makes the stats more realistic/reliable.
Second, I looked up the Kaiser healtcare cost. What is reported as 2011above, their site lists as 2010. No big deal there. But, it also shows these are employer/employee paid premiums and employers pay 70% of that 13,770 premium cost.
Third, how would these numbers compare to 2008 before the housing market collapse. Most of the differences between 2000 and 2010/11 numbers happened in 2008/09. This is in no way attributed to the cost of the war or Bin Laden.
Last, notice the trend in the national debt. It started long before 2000 and has to do with growing government spending (in all areas including the ones mention by Ms. Maddow).
She has a point, but it is no where near as loop sided as the above charts make it out to be. IMHO.
These are just observations from another perspective, not an attack. Critical comments welcome.
The "national debt started long before 2000 and has to do with growing government spending" in what areas besides the ones mentioned by Ms. Maddow?
What expansion in benefits is RobDon referring to besides the ones he made up? The national debt started ONLY because of Republican fiscal irresponsibility expressed by tax cuts for the wealthy, military spending, unfunded Medicare Part D, and banking deregulation.
employers pay 0% of premium cost. RobDon is confused over the concept of "pre-tax deduction". Employers pay the premium so it won't be taxed as income. Employers do not pay the premium out of their pockets.
I am not confused. Please read and point out what you think to be confusion.
I am referring to the 3rd chart above titled "Health Care Cost." It seems to say the average family will pay $13,770 in annual premiums per family in 2011. Quoting from the Kaiser Foundation report from which this information was pulled:
These particular numbers were referring to employer sponsored health care programs where in 2010 (not 2011) employer's paid $9,773 and the employee paid $3,997 (for a total of $13,770). (Figure 16 in the report shows this clearly - here's the link just add the www: kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-06.pdf )
I'm not confused. Health care insurance and affordable care is a big problem. My assertion is many of the numbers in the above posting are taken and used out of context.
Now, I'll be glad to listen if you point out where I am incorrect.
What part of "employers pay 0% of premium cost" does RobDon not understand?
"the Kaiser healtcare cost... employers pay 70% of that 13,770 premium cost." Employers are bearing 0% of the increase in premiums, not 70%.
Now let's see if RobDon can tell us what massive expansion in public benefits caused current federal deficit.
Covah, either you purposely choose not to address differences with a real attempt to make your case or you are totally incapable of doing so.
You quote yourself as proof of your argument.
And, I never said or hinted that "massive expansion of public benefits caused current federal" debt.
So, I'll assume the latter of my assessments and leave my comments to speak for themselves.
Happy Cinco De Mayo!
If employers are paying 70% of that health care cost, that especially hurts small businesses and the self-employed, yes?
Heather, your observation makes sense but I didn't study the Kaiser report beyond what I looked at and have commented on. My point was, and continues to be, people look at statistics and try to make them fit their view point instead of the other way around.
"employers pay 70% of that 13,770 premium cost." No, they don't.
"the trend in the national debt... started long before 2000 and has to do with growing government spending in all areas including the ones mention by Ms. Maddow."
What areas are those? Still waiting.
Covah, you've baited me one last time.
I'm not saying that, the source that TRMS used is saying that. One favor I ask. Go to this link, this is the source listed at the bottom of TRMS chart above (add the www):
kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-06.pdf
Then look at the chart (figure 16) on page 16 and the explanation. Then explain to me your understanding of what it says.
Now, I'm waiting.
Yep there it is. http://kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-06.pdf Same as the topic above. Same pre-tax "employer contribution". It's employer contribution because it is not taxable income. Employers are not going to pay your health insurance out of their pockets that's for sure. If you are making a low wage employers can not deduct health insurance or your salary would be below the legal minimum wage.
Now tell me about the sudden "growing government spending in all areas" that converted a surplus in 2000 into a huge deficit a few years later under Republican leadership.
Not sure exactly what that means. Employers have to pay you out of their pockets. Granted, they may raise prices to get more money but they have no other pockets. I was simply pointing out that some information was missing from the graph posted on this blog.
To address your concern for my statement "growing government spending in all areas," I meant exactly that. Spending has continued to increase in all areas of government be it defense, education, foreign aid, entitlements, or what have you. The chart above shows the tread of national debt and it has continued to increase every year.
Please show me where it the national debt decreased, I'd love to know. We have a spending and a taxing problem that leads to a borrowing problem.
Oh, and thanks for the conversation.
Behold the winger brain in action: "Employers have to pay you out of their pockets." That's right, rich people pay us out of their vast supply of wealth. Did you ever work for a poor person? If we raise taxes on the rich then they will have less money to pay us with and we will be poor. What a chump.
"Spending has continued to increase in all areas of government" ALL? Not likely. Try spending on tax cuts for the rich, military adventurism, and unfunded Medicare Part D. What else?
"Please show me where it [the national debt] decreased, I'd love to know." Looks like someone needs to read up on economic history. Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes which created surplus and the rich got back more in investment return than they paid in tax. Bush and Republicans cut taxes, creating deficits and wiping out more than the taxes saved.
Try the decades after WWII when 90% top tax bracket paid off debt which was more than now.
This is basic economics. What is lacking is political will, just like the stagflation of the 70s created by Nixon and passed to Carter by Ford. Reagan to his credit allowed Volcker to raise interest rates to suck up extra money in circulation and revitalize the economy after a painful downturn. What we need now is MUCH more debt that creates jobs and MUCH higher taxes to suck that pump-priming cash back up. What we do not have is the political will to do so.
Covah, you are about the most senseless commenter on this blog and I don't say that lightly. Instead of answering questions directly or explaining your comments, you attack snippets from others' posts without any documentation or facts.
Instead of explaining why a tax cut is not spending (although it can reduce amounts available for spending) or any of the other gibberish you posted above, I'll point you to one last factual website to make the argument on one point.
w/o the www treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
National debt and the budget deficient are NOT the same thing. Above is a link showing the national debt year by year and again, I challenge you to show me where it has decreased in the past 50 plus years.
Bottom line: You can't.
Of course the debt won't ever go down in those graphs, because to do so would require a budget surplus in a fiscal year that would not only cover all the regular budget expenditures for the year, but also exceed the amount of interest due on the debt for that year. That number alone is now one of the biggest single outlays in the budget. I still remember, when Reagan was breaking all extant records for budget deficits, members of his staff and his party trotting out in front of the White House, telling us that not only did deficits not matter, they were actually a GOOD thing. Then, when Clinton was running surpluses, these same clowns were trotted out to tell us how bad it would be if we actually got rid of the national debt, and how what Clinton was doing was so very dangerous to the economic survival of the country.
Correct, Uffdaguy. You understand that. I understand that. The chart above understands that but Covah is somewhere way short of that.
I think I've just completed an exercise in futility on that point and every other point I attempted to make. Oh, well, live and learn...at least for some of us.
And that is precisely where Tea Partiers and their pet repubs fall down, (among other places). Every proposal I have heard from this group contains the same points: cut taxes for the rich and the corporations, cut social security, medicare, medicaid, increase defense spending. Not a single point makes a single bit of logical sense, if their goal is to cut the deficit, as the spending decreases they are talking about are more than offset by the decreases in revenue and the increases in defense spending. It proves to me that they are most certainly not interested in cutting the deficit, but, like Walker in Wisconsin, only using the deficit as a justification to destroy programs that they disagree with on an ideological basis.
Hey Boehner! Where's the jobs? You know the ones that the RICH create.....that was your mantra several months back when you wanted so desperately to become Speaker. Just so you could another tear in your beer!
Ha ha couldn't have said it better myself.I have been thinking the same thing.Its a fact though ,trickle down economics is a myth that wealthy people came up with to get even richer.Its never worked in the history of our country and it never will.
Except that rich people get poorer with trickle-down economics. Who do you think is saddled with the trillions in debt? Not you and me. The economic downturn after 2007 wiped out trillions in investment wealth for the rich. For every dollar in tax cut savings the rich are handed a bill for $20. What a bum deal.
The rich have been getting richer since 1980 NOT due to tax cuts but to robbing the working class of their increased productivity.
That's what Wall Street melt down means. Too true
The rich are being duped by Republican traitors just like everyone else. Republicans tailor lies for specific groups.
It also raises the question that no one seems to want to raise which is how exactly do people intend to get rich if nobody can purchase their product or service? Hence why the middle class produces millionaires. Republicans kind've want you to forget that part of the equation.
Please, clarify that the joke is Boehner saying that. The TRUTH: The trillions spent on an unjust invasion and war in Iraq were spent by Bush, but declared and added to the debt only by the honesty of the Obama administration.
AMEN
Extremely troubling stats to see.As a Resident of Michigan i know that for our State things will only get worse not better.Our Governor has made deep cuts in education and raised taxes on the poor/middle class and successfully passed legislation to tax the pensions of retirees and take away union rights.
He has only been in office since January and the damage has already been done and may not be reversible at this point.Just a sad place to live all the way around!
We are not about to take this lying down! Only God is invincible! Anything can be changed if you fight for it. Nothing changes if you do nothing about it!
Snyder's popularity is so low, his family put in for a name change!
Amen to that. The way the Gov. Snydley is decimating education keeps me awake at night, along with all the other knife-jobs he's done to fund tax cuts for business. Over 2/3 of businesses in Michigan won't be paying any taxes after September. And the actual deficit for the State has yet to be addressed.
NCLB...sure didn't work.
OBL knew America well and played America like a dog. He was in fact eminently successful, let's face it. America does hysteria and over-reaction coupled with political spin better than any country in the world. He played a poker hand and won. Ten years later, we get him in a comfortable fortress. He did well. Unfortunately. the egg is on our face. He may be dead but the effect goes on and on...the decline continues.
My god. Could bin Laden really have been brilliant enough to realize that if he attacked us, America would then put blind trust in her tough, cowboy-esque conservative leaders, so much so that she'd let them put into law irrational and ridiculous crap like a huge unpaid for entitlement, a trillion(s) dollar war totally unrelated to terrorist threats, and economically unthinkable tax breaks for the rich? All because when the going get's tough, Americans instinctively gravitate towards the blustery "we're gonna smoke "em out" type to keep us safe? He may've been waiting for us to install a guy like W before he made his ultimate move. Who knows. (I'm not being entirely serious, but it's an interesting thought.)
It would not surprise me...I believe that bin Laden was intelligent, being a terrorist does not equate to stupidity. And he and his family certainly knew the Bush family....maybe he knew what he could get away with since Bush was president. He knew about his "cowboy" mentality. He probably knew about the Repugs way with using "fear" to control the American populace. But then....that might infer complicity from Bush, wouldn't it? Mister "I don't know where he is, and I don't really spend time thinking about him. [Finding him is] just not a priority." .......A mere 8 months after 9/11.
Can I wax philosophic for a moment? This report about bin Laden getting us to run our economy amok reminds me of a story in the bible in Judges chapter 7. It is the story of Gideon and how God asked him fight the Midianites. Gideon was skeptical (which goes on to the story about the fleece but I'll spare you that part), and how the number of Midianites far outweighed the number of Gideon's men. So God had Gideon go to the midianite camp at night and surround the camp in a circular area rather than confronting them head on directly. At Gideon's call, his men were to blow trumpets and break lamps to make it look like their number was larger than it was and awaken the midianites from their deep sleep. the Midianites awoke and because they were confused, and couldn't distinguish who was the enemy and who was in their camp, started turning on each other and did themselves in. All Gideon had to do was sit back and watch.
This is a very effective war tactic. It is also mentioned in the Art of War by Loa Tzu.
I read a lot of Emmet Fox. He has a discourse of the bible verse about a house being divided cannot stand. Basically he says that no person, no organization and no country is destroyed from without. It is destroyed form within, it is a house divided. an alcoholic or drug addict can blame their parents all they want, but it is that person who is destroying himself with his neglect and stupid mistakes. Same with an organization: if it is dishonest in its dealings and sells a faulty product or service, it destroys itself. Our government is a house divided right now. I wonder how long we can go with this nasty partisanship and have it stand. We are united now because we are all glad that bin laden is dead but will we remain united?
No country is destroyed from without. Its citizens and its own government does it to themselves. Likewise, no country can be built from the outside, but has to build itself up from the inside. I assimilate this to parents giving their children the best education, the money, the connections, but if the kid cannot stand on his own two feet, he ain’t gonna make it. to keep bailing the kid out is enabling dysfunctional behavior and actually weaken the kid. It’s gotta come from within. Same with a country.
Philosophic wax over.
Well said
Ditto.
The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu. Lao Tzu wrote the Tao te Ching. Otherwise you are right. Just saying.
thanks. :)
I can't look at these for too long. It's just too depression...oh, sorry, I mean depressing. Depression was just the first word that came to mind. Can't imagine why. To quote a certain Alaskan village idiot: "How's that trickle down economics workin' out for ya?"
Answer: "We're slitting our own throats, just like Bin Laden wanted. Thanks for asking."
Too right....
"We're slitting our own throats, just like Bin Laden wanted. Thanks for asking."
What do you mean, "we"?
"Republicans are slitting our own throats, just like Bin Laden wanted. Thanks for asking."
Fixed it for you.
This is not purely Osama'effects he is not so smart to predicts that his actions will do that to us. It is our government who with its miss ccaculations in every step since 9/11 and reacted emotionally even the commission to investigate 9/11 was uunder and working under Bush supervisions. Any how he was one of a crimina with few deranged followers but they fooled us to commit our own suicide. Can Bush in his 8 years react like Obama and send our brave men to catch him from the beginning and spare us all this misery we went through since that time.
Thank you for posting these charts. I hate violence but I am so glad we have a president that is willing to do what it takes to defend this country. Thank you President Obama. Bin Laden tried to bankrupt this country but fortunately we have a tough president that is slowly but surely eliminating that threat.
This is not purely Osama'effects he is not so smart to predicts that his actions will do that to us. It is our government who with its miss ccaculations in every step since 9/11 and reacted emotionally even the commission to investigate 9/11 was uunder and working under Bush supervisions. Any how he was one of a crimina with few deranged followers but they fooled us to commit our own suicide. Can Bush in his 8 years react like Obama and send our brave men to catch him from the beginning and spare us all this misery we went through since that time.
Thank you George W. Bush for all you did to help this wonderful country of ours. You are indeed a great and wise man. We are just fortunate you couldn't win a 3rd term because no one could have survived 4 more years.
Nothing like a strong graphic to tell the story . . . depressing.
http://costofwar.com/en/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/comparing-the-tax-plans/
loos of taxes due to unemployment... priceless(at lease I was not able to find a number for it) I think the "job makers better get on their job otherwise we will have to take all their money