If Tweety Twump thinks so much good of Putin's leadership, should we expect him to do for America what Putin has done for Russia? Besides committing war crimes bombing civilians in Syria, Putin has run the Russian economy into the ground.
But at least Tweety gets to start with an America that is BETTER OFF, and WEALTHEIR.
"The Myth of the Stagnating Middle Class"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443947/middle-class-income-not-stagnating
by Ben Shapiro January 18, 2017 4:00 AM
" More Americans have easier lives today than in years past"
"The American middle class is disappearing. We hear it from everybody. Senator Bernie Sanders (D., Vt.) focused throughout his campaign on what he termed the “disappearing middle class” — disappearing, Sanders said, thanks to income inequality. Sanders explained, “If you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent, you know what, we’ve got to transfer that back if we’re going to have a vibrant middle class.” From the other side, Donald Trump has echoed the same message: “The American worker is being crushed. . . . The great American middle class is disappearing.""
"In actuality, the American middle class has been doing just fine. In 1967, 33.7 percent of all American households earned between $50,000 and $100,000; by 2014, that number (in constant 2014 dollars) had fallen to 28.5 percent of American households. That means the death of the middle class, right? Wrong. It turns out that everybody just got wealthier. In 1967, the households earning an annual income of $50,000 or less constituted 58.2 percent of all Americans; as of the end of 2014, just 46.8 percent fell into this group. And while only 8.1 percent of American households earned more than $100,000 a year in 1967, today, 24.7 percent do. That’s not a collapsing middle class. That’s a growing upper middle class. By the same token, in 1971, 61 percent of American households fell into the middle-class income tier; just 50 percent did in 2015. Where did those 11 percent go? They nearly all went to the upper-middle or highest income bracket: Just 14 percent of Americans households were in that category in 1971, but 21 percent were in that category as of 2015. And as Edward Conard points out, three of the four percentage points moving downward come from Hispanic immigrants, meaning that the rest of America saw a massive increase in wealth. That’s not all. Statistics show that we’ve out-earned all of our foreign competitors. In his book The Upside of Inequality, Conard states that “the U.S. economy has grown employment two to three times faster than the more manufacturing-oriented economies of Germany, France, and Japan, while providing families with median disposable incomes that are 15 percent to 30 percent higher than that of those countries.” Income statistics are also skewed by the fact that so many Americans are alive and retired — they’re retired because they don’t require more income, but their income statistics naturally decline with retirement. If we compare full-time workers ages 25 to 64 in 1979 with that same subset of workers in 2013, income exceeded inflation and grew 33 percent total. The great myth of middle-class income stagnation, as Conard explains, springs from the fact that advocates of that myth count pass-through tax entities (many of which reportedly have little or no income) as households, and that there are more households with fewer people today. If a household of five people in 1970 earned $50,000, and a household of two people earns that amount today (in constant dollars), that looks, on paper, like income stagnation. But the two-person $50K-earning household today is in fact far better off. Income statistics are also skewed downward because they do not count income that goes toward employer-provided heath care. Conard summarizes: “In total, all of these uncontested adjustments — size-adjusted households, health care, taxes, and government-transfer payments — increased median household income growth between 1979 and 2007 . . . from 20 percent to 34 percent — in line with the earnings growth of full-time workers.”"
The future of Russia might be better with Tweety helping Eussia one way or another? What does Putin have on Tweety? Why is the "bromance" going on?
Tweety told Bill O'Reilly that America is as bad as Russia killing people, and even if it is true, a President of the united States DOES NOT SAY IT ON NATIONAL TV!
"Kremlin Asks Fox News to Apologize to Putin After O’Reilly Calls Him ‘a Killer’"
By KIMIKO de FREYTAS-TAMURAFEB. 6, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/world/europe/oreilly-putin-trump-killer.html?_r=0
The "good news" in Russia is their economy will not be as bad as the last few years; Tweety will see to that I am sure. lol
"Russia's Economy Goes Out With A 'Bang'"
Dec 26, 2016 @ 08:49 AM 22,102 views The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Kenneth Rapoza, Contributor
"
Next year is shaping up to be a much better one for the Russian Federation. Following back-to-back years of economic recession and much of the Western world putting its leader, Vladimir Putin, in the dog house because of his actions in Ukraine and his support for Bashar Assad in Syria, Russia is ready to make a comeback. This might not be entirely translatable in its stock market however, which is already up over 40% year-to-date.
On Monday, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development revised its outlook for industrial production in 2016 to 1% compared to the previous 0.4%. In November, national statistics firm Rosstat said industrial production in the first 11 months of 2016 rose 0.8% from 2015 and 2.7% compared to the same month a year ago. IP also rose around 1% from October levels.
Russia's Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in the local press today that the economy could surprise next year by accelerating growth to 1.5%. It's not blockbuster by any measures, but after negative three percent growth over the last two years, it is at least a move in the right direction for once."
