I've always considered Bill Clinton to be the greatest Republican president of the 20th century, except that most Republicans (the poor ones) are too stupid to realize it.

And I've always considered Obama's goal to become Clinton 2.0.

Why hasn't a single person that torpedoed our economy been prosecuted?

These numbers sound good in the abstract, but are sort of puzzling when you consider it.

I mean, who specifically, had an income rise of 31% or more in the last 4 years? And I mean salary income? And how many of them are there?

(I looked at the source document and it's very top level, chartjunk infographic stuff.)

@1 - Well, because the "torpedoing" of the economy is actually a set of wealth-harvesting moves. So the rich people properly prepared to take advantage of the "down economy" will come out just fine, and clearly have.

---

The one problem with using "disgust" or "shame" to correct the obscenely wealthy, is that those social tools only work when there is social proximity.

I don't hang out with any 1%ers, and probably none of us on this blog do either. The richie rich folk hang out with other richie rich folk who will clearly never shame them for their obscene wealth. It's about your peer group.

Good Morning Charles,
I read about this last night. For the record, Mr. Obama is a millionaire (he was awarded $1.4 million dollars for the Nobel Peace Prize in 09' and still receives revenue from his books). Just like his predecessor (W) and his opponent (Romney) in 2012', Obama benefitted from this "recovery". He is part of or darn close to that 1%.

I must admit I don't share your complete disdain regarding this. To be sure, I'm not happy that the "recovery" hasn't benefitted the other 99%. And yes, I have some cynicism in uttering "It's the nature of the beast". And, the "beast" is Capitalism. However, it is not that simple. I can't elaborate on SLOG why. It would be too long of a posting.

On the other hand I can say, if the "rich" (1%) have any sort of intelligence (even common sense) and with that foresight, they will benefit financially in this "recovery". Why? Because it's there.

I recall a great conversation I had with a great friend many years ago. I couldn't understand how pro athlete ___ or celebrity/entertainer ___ made such enormous salaries (NYY baseball player Alex Rodriguez comes to mind). He replied because "It's there". At one time, a franchise or studio/network took in much more (took that cut). As the market expanded, more revenue was allowed.

As I said, I am uncomfortable with it. Just not enough to chuck it.

Lark, as @3 points out, the 1% benefitted most directly from the crash.

Do you have any idea how many more millions of private homes around the world, and millions of acres of land, are now owned by billionaires?

They now have gained effective control (or, I should say, more effective control) of the entire housing rental and residential real-estate markets, able to manipulate prices at will to maximize returns.

That is why their income is now up 30+%.

The main problem is the 90/10 capital/labor split that we have as opposed to the 50/50 capital/labor split that grew the US Middle Class.

And the fact the richest pay the least percentage of taxes of all Americans. Both legally and illegally.

But @5 has a good point.

Those of us with wealth didn't care if our homes were underwater (which they weren't, since we had a higher percentage of capital in them and less debt percentage), or stocks underwater. We just held them and bought more at cheap prices.

Note I said wealth, not income or displayed wealth.

We should stop calling them the 1% and start calling them "The Thieving Class".

France had a unique solution to their one percent back in 1789. Not saying it was the best solution but it DID send chills of terror down the rest of the European upper class for over a century afterwards. Well, 1789 and the lesser talked about 1848 Revolutions.

One of the things I keep thinking about - America has shifted towards a more service based economy, if incomes continue to lag behind inflation, and the service sector contracts due to decreased consumer purchasing power, the US economy is unable to experience real growth or even avoid continued contraction. The limited growth we have seen is clearly not improving the standard of living or purchasing power of average Americans, so can it really even be considered growth at all? Given contraction among most emerging economies - mostly a response to tampering FED policies, we end up in a similar situation where the wealthy have limited productive repositories for their capital. Where will they stash their cash? Third world water supplies, staple commodities as a hedge on global climate change? At some point, growth should cease to be the end goal of markets anyway, but in the meantime, let's find a way to limit the proportion that goes to the people who need it least.

Hey Will, are you playing the role of a 1%er or a 99%er in this thread?