This story at the New York Times has me ready to kick kittens:

The share of income received by the top 1 percent — that potent symbol of inequality — dropped to 17 percent in 2009 from 23 percent in 2007, according to federal tax data. Within the group, average income fell to $957,000 in 2009 from $1.4 million in 2007.

Analysts say the drop largely reflects the stock market plunge, and most think top incomes recovered somewhat in 2010, as Wall Street rebounded and corporate profits grew. Still, the drop alters a figure often emphasized by inequality critics, and it has gone largely unnoticed outside the blogosphere.

OMG! We should start a fund to help out the rich in their tough times! Maybe 2010 will be even better and way in the future, say in 2011, they might really recover. Oh wait…..

The author of the article apparently didn’t realize what year it was. Sure the top 1% saw their income decline in 2009, as did every other person in this county. But notice that one key line in there? “most think top incomes recovered somewhat in 2010”. Now since a large part of this groups income is dependent upon the stock markets, let’s have a look at it from 2007 to today:

So a stock market in the 9,000 range in 2009 would cause these people to lose money, yet we are approaching those 2007 levels again, meaning these people have recovered.

But facts won’t stop this pity party:

By focusing on the top 1 percent, the Occupy Wall Street movement has made economic fairness a subject of street protest and political debate.

“It’s very interesting that this has become such a big topic now when the numbers are back to where they were in the 1990s,” said Steven Kaplan, an economist at the University of Chicago’s business school. “People didn’t seem to be complaining about it then.”

And they weren’t complaining in 2009 either. They started complaining when it became obvious that the hay day was returning for these people while the 99% continue to suffer. It started when we heard that companies were sitting on a record amount of cash last year, yet had Republicans say the only way they will hire is with more cash in the sense of tax breaks, which would be paid by the rest of us.

But there is one thing in this entire article that really gets me and something I wish the left would use more:

In the decades after World War II, by contrast, the average income of the top 1 percent grew only marginally faster than inflation and significantly slower than middle-class incomes. That combination caused inequality to decline throughout much of the 1950, ’60s and early ’70s.

Hmm the 50’s. Now where have we heard about the 50’s before? It was John Boehner. He always says he wants to take us back to the prosperity in the years following World War II. Well this article tells a little bit of how that happened by having a middle class earn a larger piece of the pie.

Of course that wasn’t the only thing about the 50’s that Boehner should be reminded of. There was also the fact that the top tax bracket was 91% as compared to the 35% today.

So yes, I would love to go back to the 50’s economic model. Workers actually got paid what they should have and could survive on a 40 hour week with one parent staying at home. The rich were also contributing more than their fair share to the country that gave them everything and they weren’t complaining about it. If we can leave all the segregation and hatred bullshit out of the picture, I say bring the 50’s on!

But we won’t. We are living in a new decade, a new century and a new millennium. We are plagued with a 24 hour news cycle that tells us what to think and a lot of Americans who are too busy to fact check these people. We are stuck in a time were the right feels the rich should pay less taxes than the American worker, if they pay any at all.

We are stuck in a time of delusional thinking that is destroying what America once was. At least we have the Occupy Wall Street people out there showing that there is a serious problem that America must address. Now if only some of our leaders will listen.

P.S.:

For some added hilarity, check out “professor” Ann Althouse who posted about this NYT article and declared:

What? Occupy Wall Street is not fact-based?!

Facts have nothing to do with this. Simply knowing what year it is does!