August 3, 2016

The Great American Income Gap

At this point in history, the title, United States of America, is an oxymoron.
This is because America is anything but united.  It's polarized and disparate.
For example, in 2007, income inequality ended up reaching an all-time high
in the United States, up to that time.  Then came the economic crisis of 2008.
Meanwhile, the Republican propaganda machine kept referring to the rich as
hard working & heroic patriotic Americans.  Well, in the Year 2008, "only
19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families mak-
ing over $10 million came from wages and salaries.Wealth, Power,
and  Income, by G. William Domhoff.

In as much, living off of interest-bearing financial securities, rental fees, and
absentee business profits, without lifting a finger, doesn't constitute hard work.
Neither does sucking the blood of foreign sweatshop workers to whom you
owe back-pay.

Advance to 2009, and then to 2012:  Between 2009 and 2012, the incomes of
the top 1% rose 31.4%.  The incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 0.4%.  This
is not four percent.  Rather, it's Point Four Percent.  Thus, the top 1% had 31%
more wealth gathered than did the rest of America, as a statistical average.
For the purposes of current statistical analysis, the top 1% of households is
defined as those which made over $394,000 in 2012.

See also:,0,5392493.story

Now, as a percentage of 100%, the income of the top 1% of America in the
Year 2012 was 19.3%, the highest it has been in over 100 years.  The closest
income portion gained by the wealthiest 1% was in 1927, two years before
the historic stock market crash; 18.7%.

Concerning the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2008
and 2009, there is one huge difference.  During the Great Depression, the price
of the stocks of the richest corporations dropped.  During the George Bush Re-
cession, those stock prices rose.  

The average wage earner of 2010 made $39,959.30.  Of these income earners,
66.2% made less than the average wage.  In 2011, the average wage earned had
an income of $41,211.36.  Of these income earners, 66.6% made less than the
average wage.  The statistics for 2012 were not schedules to be disclosed until
mid-October 2013.

The average wage earner of 2011 made $41,211.36.  Of these income earners,
66.6% made less than the average wage.  In fact, over 50% percent of the Amer-
ican wage earner of 2011 made less than the median age which was estimated to
be $26,965.43.  The 2012 statistics were not schedules to be available until the
middle of October, 2013.

In 2007, 20% of the people in America owed 85.1% of all privately-held wealth.
The top 1% held 60.6% of all financial securities, while the bottom 1% of America
held 1.5% of them.

The bottom 90% held (or still holds) 18.8% of all stocks and mutual fund ownership,
while the top 1% held (or still holds) 38.3% of it.  The bottom 90% in the not very
United States possessed 20.6% of the trusts, while the top 1% owned 38.9% of
them.  This means that the various middle classes have an approximate 20% sway
in the stock market and trust funds, while the top 10% has 80% of the sway.

Households whose income was less than $75,000 paid more federal income tax than
household making over $1 million.

The 15% tax bracket generated more federal revenue than all capital gains taxes and
the two top tax brackets combined.

The richest 10% own approximately 70% of the nation's wealth, 25% of which is
owned by 1/2 of 1% of the wealthiest in America.  In contrast, the poorest 40%
of America have debts which equal their assets, meaning that they own virtually
nothing.  Approximately 20% of Americans receive half of all income in Ameri-
ca.  This amounts to ten times more than what the poorest 20% receive.  In ad-
dition, the richest 1% receive as much income as do the poorest 40%.

The richest 10% in the US allegedly acquired 30.5% of the US income distribution.
The poorest 10% in the same US allegedly acquired 1.8% of the same distribution. 

Corporate America's Tax Share

Corporate taxes paid for a quarter of the federal budget in the 1950's.  They paid for
20% of the federal programs in the 1960s and only 11% of it during the late 1990's.
Today, corporate taxes pay for a mere 6% of federal government's expenses.  This
shows that the Republican Party lied to America, in its claiming that corporations are
weighted-down with heavy tax burdens.

In the Year 2008, 22 corporations paid zero income tax and received a collective
total of $3.3 billion in tax rebates.  In 2009, 49 corporations paid zero income tax,
despite the fact that they collectively made $78.6 billion in pre-tax profits.  They
then received a collective $10.8 billion in tax rebates.  In 2010, 37 corporations
paid zero income tax.  They ended up receiving a collective $7.8 billion in tax re-
bates.  The following explains things in relative detail.

The following is an invaluable must-read, concerning corporate tax statistics.
It's required reading for those who still possess a conscience and a heart not
made of colder versions of stone: 

The Trade Balance Deficit

The United States has not had an international trade balance surplus (in trade with
all nations ) since 1975.  See:

At the end of 1975, the U.S. was #2 in international trade.  The year before Reagan
entered office, the U.S. was #127.  When Ronald Reagan left office, the U.S. was
#139.  When Clinton left office, the U.S. was #152.  When Bush Jr left office, the
U.S. was #156.  After Obama's first year in office, the U.S. was #143.

Sweatshop Importation Has Been Mathematically
Sabotaging the American Economy, All Along

Foreign slave labor profiteering achieves the following results:

1} Increases an offending nation's international trade deficit.
2} Reduces the same nation's gross domestic product.
3} Deceases the offending nation's per capita income.

At this point, view the United States trade balance deficit through
the years, in its trade of goods (not services) with China, alone:

                 U.S. IMPORTS                        U.S. EXPORTS
              from sweatshop China                to protectionist China
        (This is money paid to China)   (This is money paid to the U.S.A.)

2012            $425 billion                              $110 billion
2011            $399 billion                              $104 billion
2010            $365 billion                                $92 billion
2009            $296 billion                                $69 billion
2008            $337 billion                                $69 billion
2007            $321 billion                                $62 billion
2006            $287 billion                                $53 billion
2005            $243 billion                                $41 billion
2004            $196 billion                                $34 billion
2003            $152 billion                                $28 billion

10yr total: $3.02 Trillion                              $600 Billion       
 paid to Slave Labor China                  paid to an acquiescent U.S.A.

The 10 year Chino/American Trade NET approximately equals: 
MINUS  $2,4,000,000,000. That's only trade with China.  This is 
goods only.  When including services, it's actually a little less.

The Total 10 yr Trade Balance Deficit comprising trade with all 
nations with whom the United States has traded, as is charted be-
low, is MINUS  $5,959,000,000,000.  This comprises trade with 
all nations.   This comprises goods and services.

The hypocrisy is that trillions of American dollars stayed in the
 permanent possession of the Chinese Communist Dictatorship, 
in the name of Democracy and Capitalism, as well as Republican 
Party Values.

Keep in mind that the ten-year Trade Balance Deficit is $5,959,000,000,000.
Money is being injected into dictatorships, leaving America.  The workers of 
China cannot afford American.  Plus, America is no longer a manufacturing
nation.  Thus, American dollars empower dictatorships and even turn them
into effective garrisons.  Refer  to the following link:

Now, view the total 10 yr US trade balance acct, year by year, concerning 
trade with all nations, in approximate numbers:

          Concerning GOODS only        GOODS and SERVICES

2012       minus $735 billion                     minus $540 billion
2011       minus $737 billion                     minus $588 billion
2010       minus $645 billion                     minus $500 billion
2009       minus $505 billion                     minus $381 billion           
2008       minus $830 billion                     minus $698 billion
2007       minus $818 billion                     minus $696 billion
2006       minus $835 billion                     minus $753 billion
2005       minus $780 billion                     minus $708 billion
2004       minus $663 billion                     minus $605 billion
2003       minus $540 billion                     minus $490 billion

Total:   minus $7.102 trillion                 minus $5.959 trillion 
Refer to the following link:

In the month of August 2011, the Trade Balance Deficit with China, alone, increased
by 7.42%, to $29 billion.  This is the statistic for one month of trading,  in terms of
goods and services combined.  This happens to be a new record.  China came out
on top for the 304th consecutive month, in its trading with the U.S.  Therefore, the
United States has not had a trade balance surplus, when trading with the Chinese
Communist Dictatorship, since April of 1986.  This amounts to 24 years and 16
months of money leaking into a dictatorship, by the billions per month, nonstop. 

More than 40 percent of all consumer goods purchased in the U.S. last year were
manufactured in China, according to the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commis-
sion.  In addition, to cut the present trade balance deficit in half, according to a
former chief economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission, would cre-
ate 5 million jobs.  He also states what I have been stating for years:  "The man-
ufacturing bust from offshoring by multinationals is at the core of why the econ-
omy remains sluggish.  It explains why government operations are harder to fund 
and people can’t find jobs."  See: 

The average compensation package for a CEO in 2010

In the Year 2010, the average compensation package for a typical Standard & Poor
500 CEO was $11,358,445, according to the AFL-CIO.  That constituted a 23%
increase in merely one year's time, according to the same AFL-CIO.  In addition,
the compensation summary for 299 of the S&P 500 CEO's totaled $3,396,175,055.
That's $3.4 billion.

Now, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly salary of
workers, for the First Quarter of 2011, was $753.  In addition, 753 x 52 = $39,156.
For African American males, the median salary was $693 per week, while the med-
ian income for Caucasian American males was $850 per week.  This means that the
average yearly compensation of the average S&P 500 CEO is equal to the salary of
290 median-income employees  ... 257 Caucasian median-income workers  ... 316
African-American median income workers.  Incidentally, when seasonally adjusted,
the median income for the 2nd Q of 2011 was $756.

Let us review:  The compensation package of 299 S&P 500 CEO's is equivalent
to the salaries of 86,734 median employees.  Now, the average base salary of the
typical S&P 500 CEO is $1,093,989  ...   before one adds "awards," "incentive
plan compensation," "other compensation," and bonus pay.  The initial compensa-
tion of an S&P 500 CEO constitutes a salary equivalent to 27 median workers.
However, the full CEO compensation package equals the income of 290 median

The U.S. National Debt

In November of 2011, the Total Public Debt reached the $15 trillion mark.
Concerning the Debt-to-GDP Ratio, the U.S. National Debt is 99.25% of
United States' Gross Domestic Product.  As of July 2013, it reached the
$16.8 billion mark.

The Post WWII & Vietnam War Presidencies

At the start of 1945, the national debt was 117% of GDP.   The war was still rag-
ing.   Then, in 1949, the national debt was reduced to 93% of GDP.   In 1953, it
was reduced to 71.4%.   Under Ike, it went from 71.4% to 55.2%.  Then, under
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter it went from 55.2% to 35.8%.

This illustrates that Reagan and the two George Bushes were responsible for sig-
nificantly elevating the national debt in relation to the GDP.  Under them, the US
national debt rose 61.4 percentage points.  This shows that the Republican Party
is not the party of fiscal responsibility.  It's campaign platform has been a lie.

Under Jimmy Carter, the debt went to $1 trillion.
Under Ronald Reagan, it was tripled to $3 trillion.
Under George Bush Sr, it crawled to $4.18 trillion.
Under Bill NAFTA Clinton, it went to $5.72 trillion.
Under George Bush Jr, it skyrocketed to $10.62 trillion.
At the end of Barack Obama's first term, it was $16.3 trillion. 

Military Spending: 

Even though U.S. military spending declined (in real terms) by 5.6% in 2012, it was
still 69% higher than in 2001.

In 2012, $19.2 billion was expended on Atomic Energy Defense Provisions.  In the
Year 2001, it was $12.9. 

$729 Billion in 2010 for
the Depts of Defense & Homeland Security

In the Year 2010, the United States spent more on its military than did twenty-two
nations combined.  These were Nations #2 to #23 in military spending.  The United
States spent more on its military than did the sum total of China, France, England,
Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Brazil, South Korea, Canada,
Australia, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Israel, the Netherlands, Greece,
Columbia, Taiwan, and Poland combined.  United States military spending for the
nine years prior to 2001 was over $3.4 trillion.   Military spending for the nine years
after the Year 2001 was over $5.1 trillion.

If China were to spend on its military what it did last year, year after year, it would
take it 44 years to spend $5 trillion.   If the third highest military spender, France,
would do similar, it would take France 82 years to spend $5 trillion on its military.
It would take the Russian Federation 96 years.

Going one step further, it would take China six years to spend what America spent
in one year, if China were to spend the same for its military, pursuant to constant
2009 dollars.   It would take France 11 years to spend what America spent last
year, and it would take Russia 13 years to do it, if Russia and France were to
spend the same amount for each successive year.

If France were the population of the United States, and if it spent in proportion to
the American  population, then France would only have spent $305 billion on it's
military in 2010.   That is $382 billion less than America, when measuring per ca-
pita costs.

Now, if China were the population of America and spent in per capita proportion-
ality to the United States, then China would have only spent $26.3 billion dollars
on its military last year.   If Russia were to have done the same, it would have on-
ly spent $113.2 billion.   This is much less than America's expenditures.

If America had the population of China, and if it were to spend in exact per capita
proportion to the population of China, then America would have spent $2.974 tril-
lion in 2010.   China only spent $114 to $119 billion last year, and China is one of
the nuclear powers.

If America were the size of France and spent according to the 62.6 million popula-
tion of France, then the United States would have spent $140 billion in 2010.  The
Republic of France only spent $61 billion, and France is a nuclear power.

Finally, if the United States had the population of Russia and if it spent according to
the Russian population of 141 million, America would have spent $309 billion.  Yet,
Russia only spent $52 billion and Russia remains a nuclear power.

Military Cost Per Citizen

In the Year 2010, $2,237 per American citizen was spent on the U.S. military.  This
amounts to $4,907 to $5,284 per American taxpayer.   There are approximate 130
to 140 million American income taxpayers.   However, any American who buys an
appliance, a book, a DVD, kitchenware, art, or jewelry automatically constitutes a
taxpayer at the cash register.

Continuing further, the equivalent of $368 dollars per Russian citizen was spent on
the Russian military.   The equivalent of $974 dollars per French citizen was spent
on the French military, and the equivalent of only $85 per Chinese citizen was spent
on the Chinese military in the Year 2010.  Concerning our closest allies, the United
Kingdom spent the equivalent of $922 per subjects of the queen.   All of these na-
tions are nuclear powers with nuclear costs.

The equivalent of $1,699 per Saudi citizen was spent on the Saudi military.  How-
ever, Saudi Arabia has a tremendous economic resource under its ground.  Plus,
Israel, an imperiled nation, spent the equivalent of $1,747 per citizen on its military
in 2010.   Yet, that is $490 less than an America which is protected by two oceans
and one gulf.   None the less, the per capita military expenditures of many other na-
tions is much lower than Israel and Saudi Arabia.  For example:

The equivalent of $851 per Danish citizen was spent on Denmark's military, while
the equivalent of $703 per Dutch citizen was spent on the Netherland's military, in
the Year 2010.  Former Ottoman power, Turkey, spent the equivalent of $213 per
citizen, while former WWII power, Germany, spent the equivalent of $562 per citi-
zen.  Japan spent the equivalent of $400 on its military.

The other former axis power, namely Italy, spent $631 per citizen on its 2010 mili-
tary, while America's close ally, Australia, spent the equivalent of $903 per citizen.
"Evil evil" Venezuela spent the equivalent of $109 per citizen, while Argentina spent
the equivalent of $77.   North Korea spent the equivalent of an estimated $1,000
per citizen, while South Korea spent the equivalent of $507 per citizen.