The rest of your prattle about the decrease in quality of life is just the results of progressive policies. It seems silly to promote the progressive agenda and then complain about the results of what you have advocated.

Is it progressive agenda that permits wages for nearly all workers to drop by $4.5-billion, while the incomes of the top 1% rose by $120-billion in the same period?

Looks to me like the transfer of wealth is going from the lower income folks *to* the upper income, not the other way around?

But maybe you're saying that the "progressive agenda" has prevented the earnings of the bottom 99% from dropping by $20-billion instead of $4.5-billion. Maybe the "progressive agenda" limited the increase for the top 1% to a mere $120-billion, instead of $400-billion? If that's indeed what you meant, then maybe it's true- we're seeing "the progressive agenda" at work.

Interestingly, one of the big lies progressives try to push is one you're using...that wealth is a zero sum game. In the progressive world there is a fixed amount of wealth, and if one groups gains wealth others suffer. this ignores reality, but people buy the big lie, however.

Let me ask you this, if the "poor" gained say 10% in income while at the same time the "rich" gained 15% you would decry the gain the poor had even though their lot improved, now wouldn't you? In fact, if both the poor and the rich gained 10% you'd still complain because 10% for the rich is more than 10% for the poor...so again, even though the poor gained you would denounce the gains.

Face the facts, the only way you're going to be happy is not if the lot of the poor is improved, you will only be happy if the lot of the rich is made worse. You are only interested in creating more unhappiness, not increasing happiness. That is part of the progressive agenda.

It's been pointed out, you don't make people rich by making more people poor...but sharing misery is a core of progressivism. You won't be satisfied until you've eliminated all the rich and made everyone poor. The poor can be played upon to stoke up their grievances, and the more poor the better for the progressives.

Get out of that theoretical cloud and consider the evidence please.

Obviously wealth is *not* a zero sum game. The aggregate income for the 99% only dropped by $4.5-billion, while it increased $120-billion for the top 1%. If wealth were truly a zero-sum game, then the income of the 99% would have had to drop by the same $120-billion that it went *up* for the 1%, not a measly $4.5-billion.

The ridiculous crapola spewed from some quarters "The rich are taking such a beating under Obama that they just refuse to create any jobs! Why would they? Just to see all the profits taxed away by this socialist?" just doesn't stand up.

The rich are doing much better than everybody else. That's no surprise, it's the normal way of the world. However, it hardly establishes that the "progressive agenda" is responsible for a decrease in wages and a walloping increase in corporate profits and dividends.

Your second paragraph is just a straw man argument...they sure grow tiresome. I haven't seen a single person argue that business aren't creating jobs because they are "taking a beating"...they aren't creating jobs because Obama and his administration has made it absolutely clear that they are anti-business. I'll explain it yet again, businesses plan ahead and in doing so they take risk into account. Businesses see a high risk that the Obama admin will hit them with more taxes and regulations and they are unwilling to risk investments until they can be confident they are not too likely to lose them. On the other hand you have Obama picking and choosing which buisnesses live and die, you have an out of control EPA, you have unelected and unaccountable tzars making up rules and Obama making up executive orders (and yes, the progressive Bush signed executive orders as well). Bottom line, if you want to boost job growth you remove the barriers to business creating jobs. Until Obama is willing to do that, and business believes he's willing to do that, then you're not going to have growth.

And yes, of course the rich are doing better, they have better resources to protect themselves from a rapacious government.

His job plan isn't really a job plan, it's a get money into the union coffers so they can help him get reelected plan. Why do you think the republicans should vote for special money for unions?

These proposals aren't being "defeated by Democrats", they are not even being allowed to be advanced for discussion or amendment.

I haven't followed every vote to allow discussion and debate of these proposals (without filibuster), but a number of them were about 50-50, almost an exact reflection of party division in the senate.

And of course the proposals aren't getting the courtesy of a hearing in the Republican controlled house.

And you seem to have not seen where Reid employed the nuclear option to STOP a vote on Obama's "jobs" bill when the republicans tried to force a vote on it. But hey, don't let the facts get in your way of a perfectly good progressive rant.

It must blow some minds, badly, to see two or three Democrats break rank and vote outside the official party line. Who could possibly imagine anybody thinking for him or herself? Much less likely to happen on the red side of the aisle. :-)

It's absolutely true, both sides want the playing field tipped, drastically, in their favor. The right pursues this while lying that there's no attempt to tilt the playing field at all, (but rather maintain its "natural balance". The lie on the left is that it is all in pursuit of righteous justice.

Liars, all. Basic human weakness. Some of the sheeple believe one lie, some of the sheeple believe the other. Most true believers have been so effectively "sold", they will go the their graves insisting their particular lie is the holy writ, sent down with Moses on a rock.

Most of the problems the Occupiers are complaining about are actually the results of the "planners" manipulating the system, and yet their solution is to call for more planning...which will just increase the problems. The tea party folks, on the other hand, have been calling for less government intervention (the planning, control bit) and calling for more personal responsiblity.

Obviously it's much more involved than just that, but it really comes down to freedom. The tea party folks are for it, the Occupiers are against it, although I'm sure most don't realize that.

So, we have been there, done that, and "trickle down" is about the same as "trickled on".

If you're referring to the 8 years under Bush then what you're saying is the 6 yrs of republican congress and the 2 years of democrat congress only were interested in cutting taxes for the rich...is that your contention? You might recall that the "Bush tax cuts" that Obama extended cut taxes for all income categories, not just the rich despite the big lie from the left.

And if you don't like government purchases from private corporations you can downsize government so they have less money to buy from those private corporations...that would be in line with the tea party folks, however...not sure you could live that down in your progressive circles.