That's the definition of self-made.

No, it isn't. 'Self-made' means made by ones self. She made her millions on the backs of middle class and poor workers, not by herself.

Employees don't create jobs.

But without employees, there would be no wealth. She wouldn't be a millionaire without the actions of her employees. Hence, she is dependent upon others.

What does that have to do with anything?

You claimed that she didn't get rich in the backs of the poor and middle class.

If someone gets a 50% raise, their spending habits won't change?

You are clearly confused as to what you stated previously. You are claiming that if someone starts buying 50% more things, their pay will go up 50%. It doesn't work that way. You claimed that income for the bottom 90% hasn't gone up because the expenses of the bottom 90% have gone up. That makes NO SENSE.

No, they don't

Then what are you arguing about?

My point was that nobody paid the tax rates you claim.

Nobody? That is false, but irrelevant so I will drop the point.

Trickle-down refers to tax breaks, it doesn't specify individual or corporation. Many individuals pay their business tax on their personal rate, so both rates matter to businesses.

Trickle-down is "an economic system in which the poorest gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest."

You are the one who brought correlation into the argument.

You neglected to read this part of my statement:

---

"This shows there is

A) No correlation between top tier tax rates and unemployment

B) There is a negative correlation between top tuer tax rates and unemployment"

---

Sorry, I thought your graph was about net wealth instead of income. It was very small, but I thought I recognized it.

Ah. That clear up the confusion about the expenses are linked to income argument.

The standard of living has increased dramatically since the 70s

If you can quantify this and show the bottom 90% received SOL increases that the top 1% didn't, you might have a point. Sadly, I doubt that.

I personally have a problem with the fact that the top 1% saw income increases over 42 times that of the bottom 90%...I suppose the rich would refer to them as the proletariat.

To say that trickle-down doesn't work is to say that companies and individuals do nothing with their money.

What they do with it is irrelevant if they aren't passing, "trickling," it down. See the picture in the description if you want to know how often that happens.

If the GDP went up over 400%, why did only 13/1000th of that growth get "trickled down?!"

their money goes directly into the economy.

Wrong. It gets invested. There are two categories within that: stocks/ETF's/etc. and loans/bonds/ etc.. Loans and bonds get passed down...back to the rich. Who makes money from loans? The poor? HA! This just starts the cycle all over again.

which helps the economy just as much as spending money.

WRONG! Consumer spending has a compound effect, increasing exponentially. Investment growth is linear.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z66q6n8n9alqcc_#!ctype=l&strail;=false&bcs;=d&nselm;=h&met;_y=gdp&fdim;_y=country:United+States&scale;_y=lin&ind;_y=false&rdim;=basic_index&idim;=basic_index:2:7:14:21&ifdim;=basic_index:parent:&hl;=en&dl;=en

-

Since we implemented trickle-down policy, income inequality has SURGED. We are now have the HIGHEST income inequality of ANY developed nation.

But these conservative idiots continue to proclaim the wealth will "trickle down." Really? Why hasn't that happened...ever?

Average Median Compensation has increased 26% from 1980 - 2003.

Your figure of 5% comes from one study that only considers hourly wages, and doesn't take into consideration the value of benefits.

Table 3 in my link.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf