Barack Obama, the Liar in Chief Strikes Again … Health Industry Officials say ObamaCare Related Premiums Will Double in Parts of the Country,
But I thought Obama said under Obamacare our premiums would go down … Not so says Health Industry Officials.
What would the day be like without out another Barack Obama lie regarding Obamacare? The Hill is reporting that healthcare industry officials are saying that O-care related premiums will double in some parts of the country. This is in direct contrast to what Obama promised and (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius continually spins. As one industry official said, “It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs.” Gee, ya think? Let alone they have missed their mark badly on the number of enrollees, and more importantly, the number of young, healthy, non-subsidy seeking enrollees.
Don’t worry Barack, they won’t find out the truth until it’s too late, Hope & Change, Hope & Change, lower premiums … ah-ha-ha-ha!!!
Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.
The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.
The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past.
“The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year.
“It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,” said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity.
Will some benefit from Obama, certainly. But it does not even come close the the amount of people that will be adversely affected. It just goes to show you that if a lie is told long enough and loud enough, and not questioned in any responsible manner, it can become the truth by an apathetic people. Oh yea, and if you like your healthcare plan and doctor, you will be able to keep them too.
Obama promises the applauding lemmings that their premiums will go down under Obamacare
Remember when Obama said that for those who get their healthcare insurance through their workplace, that through Obamacare your employers would see their premiums decrease by 3000% and would be able to give you a raise? Buying that American? Why do you think Obama has delayed the employer mandate for Obamacare, maybe because that is where an overwhelming majority of Americans receive their healthcare and the premiums would escalate, not go down? Or because your employer would toss you off the plan and onto Obamacare? And maybe, just maybe to get by the 2014 and 2014 elections.
Now Obama is promising saving families an average of $2500 a year per family
Barack Obama to Hispanics: We Won’t Deport your ‘ILLEGAL’ Relatives Because You Enroll in ObamaCare … Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-R) Was Right, #You Lie
THE LIAR IN CHIEF … when will it be considered a crime, not to enforce the law?
Or in other words, IF YOU LIKE YOUR ILLEGAL RELATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR ILLEGAL RELATIVES IN AMERICA, PERIOD!
On Tuesday President Obama pandered to Hispanics in yet another attempt to shill Obamacare and dispel their fears that if they signed up for his signature piece of legislation, that their illegal relatives in the US would be deported. HEY, THERE IS AN IDEA. Obama said, “You know, you will qualify, you know, regardless of what your family’s status is. So, you know, people should not hold back just because they’re in a mixed-family status.” Um, what the hell is “mixed-family status”? YOU MEAN ILLEGALS!!! One again we are witness to a lawless president only supporting and enforcing the laws he likes. So is Obama saying that illegals can be signed up for Obamacare with no ramifications?
YOU LIE!!! Rep. Joe Wilson Calls Obama A Liar During Address … he was correct!
Remember when Obama said at the 2009 STOTU, “the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those that are here illegally.”
President Obama on Tuesday sought to assure legal immigrants that they can sign up for ObamaCare without worrying that “the immigration people” will come for family members who are in the country illegally.
In an interview with Univision Deportes, a Spanish-language sports radio show, Obama said immigration officials won’t have access to the personal information that consumers provide when signing up for healthcare on the new exchanges.
“Well, the main thing for people to know is that any information you get, you know, asked with respect to buying insurance, does not have anything to do with … the rules governing immigration,” Obama said. “And you know, you can qualify if you’re a legal resident, if you are … legally present in the United States.
“You know, if you have a family where some people are citizens or legally here, and others are not documented, the immigration people will never get that information.”
My first question is, WHY NOT? Is our government not supposed to protect the US Constitution and our borders? Would it not be a natural action of law enforcement to take this information and find out who is in the country illegally? But it is only okay for the IRS to harass the Tea Party and not go after illegals. Remember, Obamacare, the IRS and the Treasury Department are incestuously tied.
So lets understand this, Obama tells Hispanics to enroll in the Affordable Care Act, promising that their private information will not be used by “the immigration people” to track down family members who are in the country illegally, but when it comes to law abiding legal Americans, the NSA tracks our every move, word, cell phone conversation, email, social media posting and tweet? Since Obamacare is tied directly to the IRS and the IRS to the Treasury Department, how is it that only Hispanics information is private, but legal Americans is not!!!
Hey what’s next … turning the other way on Muslim terrorists who want to sign up for Obamacare? What about an early release for prisoners so they can sign up for Obamacare? Heck, let’s just let anyone in Mexico to sign up, border, way border!
Fox News Poll: Barack Obama Hits All-Time Low Job Approval at 38%, 54% Disapprove … Only 33% Believe Obama has Improved America’s Image around the World
Barack Obama’s 38% job approval is well deserved, he did it the old-fashioned way … HE EARNED IT!!!
Can you say ‘EPIC FAILURE’ and it would appear the American people may finally be fed up with Obama’s disastrous presidency. According to the most recent Fox News poll, President Barack Obama has hit an all-time low in his job approval, as an anemic 38% approve of the job he is doing while a whopping 54% disapprove. But wait, a look inside the numbers and the news gets even worse for Obama and Democrats. Obama’s numbers on healthcare, the economy and foreign policy are abysmal.
Just how many Democrats are going to want this president near him during the 2014 elections?
For the first time in a Fox News poll, fewer than four voters in ten — 38 percent — approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-four percent disapprove. Before now Obama’s worst job rating was 40-55 percent in November 2013. Last month 42 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved (February 2014).
Approval of Obama among Democrats stands at 71 percent, near its 69 percent record low (September 2013). For independents, 28 percent approve, which is also near the 25 percent all-time low among this group (July 2013). And approval of Obama among Republicans hits a new low of five percent.
Full poll results can be read HERE.
Most all of Obama’s poll numbers are now in the 30′s. Across the board whether it be domestic or foreign policy, Obama has failed. Now we can only hope America can survive another 3 years with this president.
- Healthcare: 36% Approve - 59% Disapprove
- Economy: 36% Approve - 58% Disapprove
- Foreign Policy: 33% Approve – 56% Disapprove
- Do you think the country is better off than it was five years ago, or not? 34% Yes - 60% No – 5% the Same
Wait, let’s try to find some good news for Obama and his lockstep Democrats in their poll. Oh sorry, there is none. On items that Americans were asked as to whether Barack Obama mostly succeeded or Mostly failed, Obama got an “F”. What happened to that president who said that he would make America respected once again in the world?
- Making the country safer: 41% Mostly Succeeded – 48% Mostly Failed (In Oct. 2012 Obama’s poll numbers were 52% – 38%)
- Improving health care: 36% Mostly Succeeded – 57% Mostly Failed
- Creating new jobs: 33% Mostly Succeeded – 59% Mostly Failed
- Improving America’s image around the world: 33% Mostly Succeeded – 59% Mostly Failed
Real Clear Politics Barack Obama average job approval polling.
Bi-Partisan Senate Vote Rejects Obama Nominee, Cop-Killer Atty. Debo Adegbile, to Lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division
A stinging bi-partisan vote defeat for Barack Obama … Sorry, but actions have consequences.
In a 47 to 52 vote in the US Senate, Republicans were joined by seven Democrats voting to continue a filibuster of Debo Adegbile’s nomination for the influential post, to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.Yes, the same Debo Adegbile, who represented cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was found guilty in 1981 of killing police officer Daniel Faulkner and turned the case into a racially-charged political cause-celeb, and, in doing so, went far beyond his duties as a lawyer to zealously represent his client.
As Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) stated, Those Who Advocate For Cop Killers Aren’t Suited For Leadership at DOJ.
But not too much for Barack Obama to nominate …
Just what we did not need in the Civil Rights department enforcing the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, a lawyer as Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey led the charge against Adegbile’s nomination,“Under Mr. Adegbile’s oversight, LDF lawyers promoted the pernicious myth that Abu-Jamal was an innocent man, that he was framed because of his race.” Unproven allegations of racism reversed a cop-killers sentence. So I guess Barack Obama will call the following Democratic Senators racists and playing Washington politics, Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AR), Joe Donnelly (IN), John Walsh (MT), Chris Coons (DE) and Bob Casey Jr. (PA), who voted with Republicans to block the nomination of Adegbile.
The Senate rejected President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Wednesday in a stunning 47-52 vote in which seven Democrats abandoned their leadership.
The vote was all the more remarkable for the five Democrats in tough reelection races this year who voted in vain to move Debo Adegbile’s nomination forward.
Their votes now become ammunition for Senate Republicans, who argued Adegbile was unfit to serve because of his legal work in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia
police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.
The vote was a stinging defeat for the White House that showed President Obama is politically out of step with some centrist Democrats heading into the midterm elections.
“He represents the best of the legal profession,” and if you like your cop-killing lawyer, you can keep him …
The response from the community agitator … Barack Obama defended his disgusting pick to head up the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Sorry Mr. President, this sick pick to further politicize the Justice Dept. and push it further left has failed. Even Democrats could not back your pick. Wow, if this is the best of the legal profession, the profession just sunk even lower.
Obama labeled the vote a “travesty” based on “wildly unfair” character attacks.
“Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable. He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked,” Obama said. “As a lawyer, Mr. Adegbile has played by the rules. And now, Washington politics have used the rules against him.”
Barack Obama, Democrats and their tech folks have managed to “F” up every part of Obamacare from policy to implementation, from coverage to enrollment, but there is one thing you can count on … the IRS coming after you for the Obamacare tax. If there is one thing you can count on with Obama, that is he will find a way to tax you. You laughed at conservatives and the Tea party when the IRS targeted them, just wait until they come after you.
Barack Obama gave an extention to the employer Obamacare mandate, but not to “We the People”. For average, everyday Americans he plans on having the IRS come after you.
Can only imagine how Obama will use the IRS with collecting tax for Obamacare
Agency employs Orwellian term “Shared Responsibility Payment” to describe Obamacare individual mandate tax.
President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service today quietly released a series of Obamacare “Health Care Tax Tips” warning Americans that they must obtain “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by the federal government – or face a “shared responsibility payment” when filing their tax returns in 2015. The term “shared responsibility payment” refers to the Obamacare individual mandate tax, one of at least seven tax hikes in the healthcare law that directly hit families making less than $250,000 per year.
In “Four Tax Facts about the Health Care Law for Individuals” the agency writes:
Your 2014 tax return will ask if you had insurance coverage or qualified for an exemption. If not, you may owe a shared responsibility payment when you file in 2015.
In “The Individual Shared Responsibility Payment- An Overview” the agency warns Americans they must prove they were covered each and every month of the year:
Charles Krauthammer Points Out the Hipocrisy & Lies of Obama/Democrats Increasing Minimum Wage … Obama’s Minimum Wage Plan Would Hurt Poor
Democrats and their hypocrisy with the CBO numbers and the very people that they claim to help.
Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, appeard on the ‘Kelly File’ and shredded Barack Obama’s and Democrats claims that a raise in the minimum wage will help the poor. Krauthammer stated that this Democrat plan to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 to help the poor would hurt the very people that Obama supposedly intended to help. Krauthammer and Kelly both showed Obama’s and Democrat hypocrisy when it comes to dismissing the CBO’s evaluation of the minimum wage plan because it goes against their agenda.
However, Charles Krauthammer’s most important point and damning statement which is causing Dems to cringe was as follows: “Democrats like to redistribute income, and they pretend it’s always from the rich to the poor. What the CBO has shown, absolutely clearly, is that when you raise the minimum wage, you’re redistributing income from one set of low income people to another set of low income people.”
Krauthammer continued by saying that the math contradicts the Obama administration’s claim that it wants to help poorer Americans.
“We know that Dems like to redistribute income, and they pretend it’s always from the rich to the poor,” he said. “What the CBO has shown, absolutely clearly, is that when you raise the minimum wage, you’re redistributing income from one set of low income people to another set of low income people.”
And the damage will fall on those who are most economically vulnerable, Krauthammer said.
“There are going to be about half a million people who go from $7 an hour to zero,” he said. “They’re going to be destitute.”
Krauthammer finished by saying that raising the minimum wage would, in fact, have the reverse effect of its intention.
“The irony is, that the winners get a marginal advantage, but for the losers, it’s devastation,” he said. “This administration is robbing the people it says it really wants to help.”
What a shocker, President Barack Obama’s minimum wage economic policies look to destroy more jobs …
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on the economic effects of Barack Obama’s proposal to increase the minimum wage from its present $7.25 per hour to $10.10. The CBO looked at two options. One, raise the minimum wage in three steps to $10.10 by 2016, and Two, raise it in two steps to $9.00 by 2016. In either option, the US economy either loses some jobs or many jobs, but make no mistake, they will lose jobs. The CBO announced that an increase in the minimum wage will cost between 500,000 and one million jobs. Basically, Obama and Democrats boasting about raising the minimum wage is nothing more than a distraction to their current political nightmare.
Well this does not fit the Obama/Democrat Talking points …
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.
As summed up by the PJ Tatler, the report in that there is one positive impact to raising the minimum wage, although one groups silver lining is another’s silver bullet. Is it really worth raising some out of poverty at the expense of even more people losing their jobs completely?
The CBO does find one positive impact: Raising the minimum wage would move some 900,000 Americans out of poverty.
But that would come at the cost of potentially sending a million workers out of jobs altogether. That’s hardly the goal that Obama and the Democrats are selling.
The Washington Times discusses Three ways that the CBO contradicts Obama on minimum wage. Imagine that, Obama lying?
- Obama: “The opponents of the minimum wage have been using the same arguments for years, and time and again they’ve been proven wrong. Raising the minimum wage is good for business, and it’s good for workers, and it’s good for the economy.”
- Obama: “Rais[ing] the federal minimum wage to $10.10 wouldn’t just raise wages for minimum-wage workers, its effect would lift wages for about 28 million Americans.”
- Obama: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, “would lift millions of Americans out of poverty immediately.”
I have to ask the following parting question: How is it that Obama and his minions can tell us what the positive benefits will be to raising the minimum wage, but they can’t tell us to the person how many are 100% enrolled in Obamacare and have paid their first premiun when the data is on a database in front of them?
Buyers Remorse: Economist/YouGov.com Poll Finds that Only 79% of Obama Voters Given a Do-Over Would Vote for Him Again, 71% Would Vote For Someone Else
American Voters Want a Mulligan on the 2014 Presidential Election … How’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for you America?
According to a recent The Economist/YouGov.com poll, 71% of Obama voters are now inclined to vote for somebody else and “regret” their vote to reelect the president. If the election were rerun today, Obama would lose and Mitt Romney would be president. Oh, if only!!! It is too bad that so many Americans did not see what so many on the Right saw in Obama. However, for some bizarre and uninformed reason they were willing to give this failed president a second term. Now we know that if Americans had known the obvious, Obama would have lost badly in 2014.
Sadly, we do not get a do-over and are stuck with this failed president until 2016.
These fools actually thought my political pre-election rhetoric was the truth, ah, ha, ha, ha
Amazing data from the polling sample:
- 80% of whites said yes, 61% of blacks said no and 100% of Hispanics said yes.
- 84% of women said yes, and just 61% of men agreed.
- 55% of Democrats said yes, as did 71% of independents.
Given a chance to do it all over again, only 79 percent of those who voted for President Obama would vote for him again and 71 percent of Obama voters now inclined to vote for somebody else “regret” their vote to reelect the president, according to a new poll.
The Economist/YouGov.com poll found that Obama would lose enough votes in a rematch with Mitt Romney that the Republican would win. “90 percent of people who voted for Romney would do it again, compared to only 79 percent of Obama voters who would,” said the poll.
“Clearly Romney fares better, although he had fewer voters to begin with. As a proportion of the voters each of them actually received in 2012 (66 million for Obama and 61 million for Romney), the GOP candidate ends up with 55 million votes retained to Obama’s 52 million. Not exactly a wipeout. It’s also unclear for any poll that hypothetically revisits 2012 how much it says about renewed hope for Mitt Romney – who has notably been liberated from the scrutiny of a presidential campaign Â– rather than about dissatisfaction with an incumbent president who has spent the last year defending his administration over leaks, scandals and Obamacare roll-outs,” added the poll.
The GOP might want to take notice of the 100% Hispanic vote that regret their vote from above before they continue to bend over backwards and PO their base with amnesty.
Posted February 19, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
2014 Elections, Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, class warfare, Community Agitator, Corruption, cronyism, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Economy, Epic Fail, Ethics, Government, Healthcare, Hope and Change, Imperial President, Jobs, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Polls, The Lying King, Transparency, Unemployment | one comment
Democrats Courting the Felony Vote … Atty Gen. Eric Holder Urges States to Lift Bans on Felons’ Voting
Obama administration looks to get the “felon” vote …
Hmm, do you think those that would abduct and abuse a child the right to vote? Do you think child rapists should have the right to vote? Do you think that child murderers should have the right to vote? Do you think individuals who would partake in the human and sex trafficking of minors and adults should have the right to vote? Do you think an individual that would physically assault a woman, rape and molest a woman and murder a woman the right to vote? Barack Obama’s AG Eric Holder does. So who really has a war on woman and children?
Why would anyone want a man like convicted child rapist Eric Bradley or anyone like him who had the ability to be paroled, a commuted sentence or serving time the right yo vote ever!!!
Convicted Child rapist Eric Bradly
Imagine this, Attorney General Eric Holder is urging states to lift bans on laws that make it illegal for felons to vote. Of course this has nothing to do with the studies that show that felons who have been denied the right to vote were far more likely to have voted for Democrats than for Republicans. Of course Holder has no authority to change such law as this is a State’s right to pass their own voting laws, but far be it from the Obama administration to over-extend their Constitutional authority. This request by Holder is most likely a non-starter and going nowhere, but that will not stop Holder and the Obama administration to use another issue to be divisive along racial lines. This is just more gutter politics from the Obama administration looking to scrape up any vote they can from the bottom of the barrel.
Really? We do not have voter ID laws in the United States to make sure that there is not voter fraud going on in elections, but instead Eric Holder wants to allow felons to vote after they have served their sentence. Truth be told, he probably would not care if they had the right to vote while they were serving time in prison. Its an Obama world.
Hmm, Holder wants felons to vote but thought the above NBPP thugs did nothing wrong with voter intimidation
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called Tuesday for the repeal of laws that prohibit millions of felons from voting, underscoring the Obama administration’s determination to elevate issues of criminal justice and race in the president’s second term and create a lasting civil rights legacy.
In a speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Holder described today’s prohibitions — which in some cases bar those convicted from voting for life — as a vestige of the racist policies of the South after the Civil War, when states used the criminal justice system to keep blacks from fully participating in society.
“Those swept up in this system too often had their rights rescinded, their dignity diminished, and the full measure of their citizenship revoked for the rest of their lives,” Mr. Holder said. “They could not vote.”
Mr. Holder has no authority to enact the changes he called for, given that states establish the rules under which people can vote. And state Republican leaders made clear that Mr. Holder’s remarks, made to a receptive audience at a civil rights conference, would not move them.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday urged states to repeal laws that prohibit felons from voting, a move that would restore the right to vote to millions of people.
The call was mostly symbolic — Mr. Holder has no authority to enact these changes himself — but it marked the attorney general’s latest effort to eliminate laws that he says disproportionately keep minorities from the polls. “It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values,” Mr. Holder said at civil rights conference at Georgetown University. These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.”
African-Americans represent more than a third of the estimated 5.8 million people who are prohibited from voting, according to the Sentencing Project, a research group that favors more liberal sentencing policies. And in Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, more than one in five African-Americans has lost the right to vote.
Is Barack Obama Really Make Income Inequality a Main Topic at SOTU Address When it Has Increased Under his Presidency? Income Gap Widened Under Obama
Like everything Barack Obama has touched or claims he wants to make better, has become worse under his presidency …
The Divider in Chief Barack Obama is back to his old games of blaming the rich for the evils of society. What else is Obama going to do when he is an abject failure who has only made matters worse since he has been in office? Obama rails about income inequality and that it is the worse problem of out time, yet he is responsible for making the gap wider. From the president who makes class warfare part of his daily agenda and who claims he is for the common man, while demonizing the rich, Barack Obama has widened the income gap during his presidency turning the gap into a canyon.
Click on pic to watch VIDEO of the income gap under Obama
Income inequality — the gap between the rich and poor — is an issue U.S. presidents of both parties have spoken of for years.
President Clinton touted, toward the end of his term, that wages were rising “at all income levels” for the first time in decades. President George W. Bush, toward the end of his, pondered the best way to respond to income inequality, noting some policies “lift people up” and some “tear others down.”
But perhaps no president has hammered the issue as emphatically as President Obama.
In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said: “The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
But a look back shows that income inequality has grown, not shrunk, under the current president.
“All told, income inequality has tended to get worse under President Obama,” American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks said.
According to a recent FOX News poll, Barack Obama polls miserably on doing his job on the issue of income inequality. 52% disapprove with how Obama has handled income inequality and only 39% approve. So with Obama failing at an issue he claims to care about, how does he even have the audacity to bring the issue up at the State of the Union Address? Obama’s economic policies have made things worse for those lower income earners, while he has made the Wall Street fat cats richer. Hmm, but I thought Obama hated the rich? Obama has falsely propped up the stock markets thanks to the fed’s quantitative easing which only made the top 5% and 1% more and more money. It is those folks who can afford to take risks in the markets. However, for the average people who Obama claims to care about and tries to talk a good game, according to the recent Fox poll, 74% still feel like the country is in a recession. But don’t worry America, Obama has the answer to fixing income inequality … raising the minimum wage. Good grief, really! With so many people unemployed or underemployed, with so many Americans on food stamps and with so many people having just given up and not even in the labor force, why wouldn’t the gap be larger? When a Democrat party sets out to create a government dependent class of people, why is it that much of a surprise that the gap widens? Recessions affect the middle and lower classes the most.
Using tax-return data from the IRS, Saez has built extensive income-distribution datasets going back 100 years. He defines “income” as pre-tax cash market income — wages and salaries; dividends, interest, rent and other returns on invested capital; business profits; and realized capital gains. He excludes Social Security payments, unemployment benefits and other government transfer payments, which are more substantial today than before the Great Depression.
In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.
But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).