As you said, as a percentage poverty was stationary.

All the extra cash the upper 40% started generating, added to the overall economy and GDP. Income as a cash number got slightly more unequal, but I would have to say that standard of living kept rising for the poorer folk.

A lot of that is due to the economies of scale formed by booming business infrastructures, and production and distribution efficiencies. Generally speaking, the top 20% of society are the people who produce and/or get things done. The people who have vision, who organize activity, the people who take RISK. The bottom , unskilled part of society is entirely dependent on the top to be given something meaningful to.

Look at the current employment situation. There so much cost, liability and red tape, thanks largely to Dems, but also due to GOP under Bush - that the barriers to creating new business, new wealth and new value are much much higher than in the past.

Until we as a nation- and currently the FISCAL Tea Partiers are the only ones who have the right of it - realize that most of the current taxes and regulations and red tape are harmful instead of helpful , we are going to have permanent unemployment of 10%+

And that just counts the folk who havent given up trying.

In a sane world, where Dems and Bush didnt exist, people would eye such a soft labor pool and be thinking up ways to exploit it and create wealth. But when balancing the risk/rewards of new ventures, govt inhibition is so large it really tilts the scales in favor of not trying. And also causes many ventures to fail.

Those who are already wealthy, simply start their new businesses or projects overseas.

Dems think that the "economy" exists because it exists, that it is a sort of constant energy, line the sun. That no matter how much energy you take from it, it will still shine at the same brightness... and thus it makes sense to use guns to try and force everyone to have the same piece of the pie.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)