REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 00:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1151
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:35 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wea
lthydeclines-for-the-lower-93
/


A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%
An Uneven Recovery, 2009-2011

by Richard Fry and Paul Taylor

During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.

From 2009 to 2011, the mean wealth of the 8 million households in the more affluent group rose to an estimated $3,173,895 from an estimated $2,476,244, while the mean wealth of the 111 million households in the less affluent group fell to an estimated $133,817 from an estimated $139,896.

[img]/

These wide variances were driven by the fact that the stock and bond market rallied during the 2009 to 2011 period while the housing market remained flat.

Affluent households typically have their assets concentrated in stocks and other financial holdings, while less affluent households typically have their wealth more heavily concentrated in the value of their home.

From the end of the recession in 2009 through 2011 (the last year for which Census Bureau wealth data are available), the 8 million households in the U.S. with a net worth above $836,033 saw their aggregate wealth rise by an estimated $5.6 trillion, while the 111 million households with a net worth at or below that level saw their aggregate wealth decline by an estimated $0.6 trillion.1

[img]]
Because of these differences, wealth inequality increased during the first two years of the recovery. The upper 7% of households saw their aggregate share of the nation’s overall household wealth pie rise to 63% in 2011, up from 56% in 2009. On an individual household basis, the mean wealth of households in this more affluent group was almost 24 times that of those in the less affluent group in 2011. At the start of the recovery in 2009, that ratio had been less than 18-to-1.

(The focus in this report on the upper 7% of households rather than some other share of high wealth households reflects the limits of the tabulations published by the Census Bureau. The boundaries of its wealth categories dictated the split of households analyzed in this report.)

Overall, the wealth of America’s households rose by $5 trillion, or 14%, during this period, from $35.2 trillion in 2009 to $40.2 trillion in 2011.2 Household wealth is the sum of all assets, such as a home, car, real property, a 401(k), stocks and other financial holdings, minus the sum of all debts, such as a mortgage, car loan, credit card debt and student loans.

During the period under study, the S&P 500 rose by 34% (and has since risen by an additional 26%), while the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index fell by 5%, continuing a steep slide that began with the crash of the housing market in 2006. (Housing prices have slowly started to rebound in the past year but remain 29% below their 2006 peak.)

The different performance of financial asset and housing markets from 2009 to 2011 explains virtually all of the variances in the trajectories of wealth holdings among affluent and less affluent households during this period. Among households with net worth of $500,000 or more, 65% of their wealth comes from financial holdings, such as stocks, bonds and 401(k) accounts, and 17% comes from their home. Among households with net worth of less than $500,000, just 33% of their wealth comes from financial assets and 50% comes from their home.

[img][/img]

The Census Bureau data also indicate that among less affluent households, fewer directly owned stocks and mutual fund shares in 2011 (13%) than in 2009 (16%), meaning a smaller share enjoyed the fruits of the stock market rally. Likewise, fewer had individual retirement accounts (IRAs) or Keogh accounts (22% in 2011 versus 24% in 2009) and the same share had 401(k) or Thrift Savings Plan accounts (39% in both years). Among affluent households, there was also a decline in the share directly owning stock and mutual fund shares during this period (59% in 2011 versus 62% in 2009), but a slight increase in the share with IRAs or Keogh accounts (70% versus 68%) and a larger increase in the share with 401(k) or Thrift Savings Plan accounts (65% versus 61%).

Overall, net worth per household in the U.S. in 2011 made up nearly all the ground it had lost since 2005—$338,950 versus $340,252 in 2005, the latest pre-recession data published by the Census Bureau. (Total household wealth doubtless rose for a period after 2005 before falling precipitously during the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and rebounding since then. However, no household wealth data are available from the Census Bureau for the years between 2005 and 2009, so it is not possible to pinpoint when, or at what level, the peak in wealth per household occurred.)

Looking at the period from 2005 to 2009, Census Bureau data show that mean net worth declined by 12% for households as a whole but remained unchanged for households with a net worth of $500,000 and over. Households in that top wealth category had a mean of $1,590,075 in wealth in 2005, $1,585,441 in 2009 and $1,920,956 in 2011.3
About the Report

Much of the original analysis in this report is based on published tabulations of household wealth and asset ownership by the U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates of the 2011 level and composition of household wealth were released by the Census Bureau on March 21, 2013. The data can be downloaded from here. The Census Bureau’s wealth tabulations are based on its long-running longitudinal household survey called the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The Census Bureau has published comparable wealth tabulations based on SIPP since 1984 (the data were collected in 1984; the report publication date was July 1986). SIPP is among the nation’s most prominent sources of data on the wealth of American households. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System also publishes periodic estimates of the aggregate net worth of the nation’s households and nonprofit organizations. The most recent Federal Reserve System estimates are for the fourth quarter of 2012. However, these “flow of funds accounts” estimates provide no demographic information; that is, they do not illuminate which households own the nation’s wealth, only the total amount of that wealth. SIPP provides detailed demographic information on the ownership of wealth, and the 2011 wealth estimates provided by the Census Bureau are the most recent estimates available on which households own the nation’s wealth.4 The estimates are based on responses from a sample of the population and may differ from the actual values because of sampling variability and other factors.

The terms “wealth” and “net worth” are used interchangeably. “Household net worth” refers to the value of the household’s assets minus the value of household liabilities, or the value of what it owns minus the value of what it owes. “Net worth” includes the value of nonfinancial assets owned, such as equity in one’s own home and a motor vehicle, as well the value of financial assets such as bank accounts, defined-contribution retirement accounts, savings bonds and directly owned stocks, bonds and securities. Net worth as measured by the Survey of Income and Program Participation does not include the value of traditional pensions (defined-benefit retirement plans) or present or future benefit streams tied to Social Security.

Unless otherwise noted, dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation and reported in 2011 dollars. The inflation adjustment utilizes the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS) as published in DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith (2012). This is the price index series used by the U.S. Census Bureau to deflate the data it publishes on household income.
Additional details on the Census Bureau wealth estimates are provided in the Appendix.

This report was conceived and researched by Richard Fry, senior economist with the Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends project. The report was written by Fry and Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and director of the Social & Demographic Trends project. Research assistant Eileen Patten provided expert assistance with the preparation of charts and formatting the report. Research assistants Patten and Anna Brown number-checked the report. It was copy-edited by Marcia Kramer. The authors appreciate the insights on the distribution of wealth provided by Rakesh Kochhar, senior researcher with the Pew Research Center.

continues further ...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 3:46 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


saw a reference to this, a link, a summary over on Yahoo news.

The major problem is that this is what we all already know, except for the economic right-wingers around here. They'll nit pick and split hairs to deny the whole thing, accuse the authors of bad methodology, probably argue talking points by Fox News, Rush-Beck-Hannity and those guys, funded by the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch. They'll claim it's all lies, and if you ask any Republican politician, he'll claim that was the idea, giving a break to the job-creators, and it's ALL Obama's fault now because he's been President for 4 years.

They'll never admit the truth that we all know.

And so the odds of bringing about ANY change are too small to talk about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Doesn't it boggle your mind? It does mine. Nothing bad has happened to the people who crashed the economy, meanwhile the rest of the us are being flushed down the drain. And every time Obama caves, he caves in favor of big business.

I realize that's history, but not that old and still headed in the wrong direction. Btw, as an economy I think we're flirting with a serious depression. The sequester could put the weak economic 'growth' (where is that, I wonder?) into the negative.

I think it means IRL is we need to step up and get better people in Congress, and a better president.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 29, 2013 4:31 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


I think it means IRL is we need to step up and get better people in Congress, and a better president.



Don't see how anybody could argue with that conclusion.

Couple of minor problems with that, however:

The choices for President were not Obama vs Better, but Obama vs Worse.

The folks in Congress are elected locally. Even if you, me, Niki and Sig make great choices in our districts, there's a lot of Bubbas and Raps out there in theirs, electing dumb, racist homeboys who like guns and who are in the pockets of military contractors and big banks, whose only moral value is how much pork they can bring home to their district, and how much they can take away from somebody else's.

There's also the issue of gerrymandering. The only bipartisan action of the last 20 years has been on reapportionment, to make sure that the incumbents of BOTH parties got safer seats for each other. Last election results I saw, nationwide, 97 % of incumbents got re-elected.

This country needs a really big scale urgent NATIONAL goal, like winning World War II or putting a man on the Moon, that everybody has to get behind to make it happen. Sadly, national education, global warming, the ecology revolution, green transportation, national healthcare, reduction of violent crime, terrorism, or guns-- none of those have been important enough, large enough, to overcome partisan argument. All have been tried, and failed to catch fire.

There would be some other candidates-- spreading the wealth around, reducing poverty, world-wide, is a good one, but politically doomed by those who think wealth is a zero-sum game. A victory by someone else means a loss for themselves. Internet for EVERYONE, cable TV for everyone, worldwide, both as tools for better education and more learning, more innovation, are too trivial, and too close to reality anyway, and look what they've become-- sinkholes of porn, sleeze, propaganda, infotainment, sensationalism, celebrity culture, and bad music.

Another worthwhile goal as I see it-- serious commitment to outer space, space stations, Lunar colonies and habitats, even the long term mission to Mars. Hey, we all want to live on a Skyplex, own a Firefly, travel to Higgin's Moon or visit Belerophon, don't we?

Sadly, the only thing I see on the horizon is another World War; either a Crusade/jihad with a religious basis, triggered by a terrorist act and escalated; or a nuclear exchange caused by a misstep by either N. Korea or Iran, that evokes a response that escalates out of control.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 29, 2013 8:36 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"The choices for President were not Obama vs Better, but Obama vs Worse."

I understand the choice between bad or worse. I voted for Obama the first time, b/c of previous shenanigans by republicans to reduce the number of democrat-leaning voters (still ongoing), and the outright fraud perpetrated with electronic voting in previous elections. But here's where I agree w/ SignyM - if your (district/ state) is a lock either way, you have the freedom to vote your conscience. If Democrats see their numbers dip in ANY election - whether for president, representative or senator - in favor of more progressive parties like the Green Party, they will take note. Even in a state they're losing. I didn't vote for him the second time.


"The folks in Congress are elected locally."

But they don't necessarily have to be funded locally or supported locally. Personally, I don't send my money to the DNC - I don't agree with their choices or how they chose to allocate the money. Nor do I send my money to groups that have a laundry list of candidates they support. I send my money directly to individual campaigns across the country. And if I had more time (and who knows, maybe I will in the future) I would happily make phones calls or do other support work for out-of-state candidates.
ADDITIONALLY - I regularly write/ email/ participate in email drives aimed at the president, and my representative and senators. If they see an active populace, they take heed.


"There's also the issue of gerrymandering."

And voter-pool and vote tampering. I don't have an answer for that. Though if I see a group actively working to change things for the better, I will definitely support them.


"This country needs a really big scale urgent NATIONAL goal ..."

... and hopefully, not a war, as you foresee. What I think people need is hope that their efforts will change things (and not just as an empty election slogan). And also a way to gain AND KEEP media attention. Success - if people are informed of it - will breed more involvement. Failure, or alternatively the media putting a lid on information like they did with Occupy Wall Street and making it invisible, will breed demoralization and hopelessness. It's just me, I'm all alone, there's nothing I can do ...
As I think about it what we need is 1) an credible source of information (I F Stone used to be a single-man operation who did just that), alternative to mainstream media and the endless noise and false reporting of alternative sources like Infowars, 2) a continuous organization that can keep track of issues and persons, instead of having to re-form and re-tool for every issue, and 3) targeted political action. But mainly, we need a credible single source of information so that it can't be buried and we be distracted with pointless shiny objects.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 9:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Doesn't it boggle your mind? It does mine. Nothing bad has happened to the people who crashed the economy, meanwhile the rest of the us are being flushed down the drain. And every time Obama caves, he caves in favor of big business.

Of course it boggles my mind; it should anyone's (and how many times have I put up threads about it?). But as NewOld said, we all KNOW this--our righties think it's just great, despite most of them being among those of us who've been screwed, but that's neither here nor there. It's not changing; it's not gonna change until we hit disaster level, and even then, them as has got theirs will do just fine.

Where we go, I don't know, but we all know it ain't good and I don't know how we make enough people THINK about it and think about what it means to THEM to change it. Do you?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Along those lines:
Quote:

CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Up 1000 Percent Since 1950

A report from Bloomberg, shows that CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now 204:1. This is up over 1000 percent since the 20:1 ratio back in 1950.

Former fashion jewelry saleswoman Rebecca Gonzales and former Chief Executive Officer Ron Johnson have one thing in common: J.C. Penney Co. (JCP) no longer employs either.

The similarity ends there. Johnson, 54, got a compensation package worth 1,795 times the average wage and benefits of a U.S. department store worker when he was hired in November 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Gonzales’s hourly wage was $8.30 that year.

Across the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index of companies, the average multiple of CEO compensation to that of rank-and-file workers is 204, up 20 percent since 2009, the data show. The numbers are based on industry-specific estimates for worker compensation.

Almost three years after Congress ordered public companies to reveal actual CEO-to-worker pay ratios under the Dodd-Frank law, the numbers remain unknown. As the Occupy Wall Street movement and 2012 election made income inequality a social flashpoint, mandatory disclosure of the ratios remained bottled up at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which hasn’t yet drawn up the rules to implement it. Some of America’s biggest companies are lobbying against the requirement.

“It’s a simple piece of information shareholders ought to have,” said Phil Angelides, who led the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which investigated the economic collapse of 2008. “The fact that corporate executives wouldn’t want to display the number speaks volumes.” The lobbying is part of “a street-by-street, block-by-block fight waged by large corporations and their Wall Street colleagues” to obstruct the Dodd-Frank law, he said.

Brand-Name Opposition

The leading opponent of mandatory pay-ratio disclosure is a Washington-based non-profit called the HR Policy Association, which represents top human resources executives at about 335 large corporations.

“We don’t believe the information would be material to investors,” said Tim Bartl, president of the group’s advocacy arm, the Center on Executive Compensation. Accounting for country-to-country differences in wages and benefits at global companies would be costly, time-consuming and all but impossible, he said in an interview.

The group has brand names behind it: 17 companies on HR Policy’s board of directors have CEO pay ratios in the top 20 percent of S&P 500 corporations, Bloomberg data show. They include General Electric Co. (GE), with a ratio of 491; McDonald’s Corp. (MCD), at 351; and AT&T Inc. (T), at 339.

Growing Ratio

These multiples are based on CEO pay for either the fiscal year ending in 2011 or 2012, as disclosed in the companies’ most recent filings before noon on March 26. Because most companies don’t disclose their average workers’ pay, Bloomberg used U.S. government data on worker compensation by industry. The average ratio for the S&P 500 companies is up from 170 in 2009, when the financial crisis reduced many compensation packages. Estimates by academics and trade-union groups put the number at 20-to-1 in the 1950s, rising to 42-to-1 in 1980 and 120-to-1 by 2000.

“When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel,” said Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, in an interview. “It’s not that either hates labor, or wants to crush their lives. They just don’t care.” MUCH more at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/ceo-pay-1-795-to-1-multiple-o
f-workers-skirts-law-as-sec-delays.html


...and as long as they don't care, and can get whatever they want, it will continue.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 7:19 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Doesn't it boggle your mind? It does mine. Nothing bad has happened to the people who crashed the economy, meanwhile the rest of the us are being flushed down the drain. And every time Obama caves, he caves in favor of big business.

I realize that's history, but not that old and still headed in the wrong direction. Btw, as an economy I think we're flirting with a serious depression. The sequester could put the weak economic 'growth' (where is that, I wonder?) into the negative.

I think it means IRL is we need to step up and get better people in Congress, and a better president.




Yup... kinda funny that this all happens during our Savior's watch.

I made close to 400k during GWB's presidency. If you don't include unemployment, I've made less than 30k during Obama's presidency.

Sorry if that makes me just a tad biased.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:24 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


I made close to 400k during GWB's presidency.



So, over 8 years, that's $ 50K a year. That ain't so great. I did that. Surely wasn't enough to put you into that over $ 250K a year bracket that's ALL the Republicans care about.

Not sayin' you didn't take a major hit; you did, but so did I. You're living in the fallout zone from the great crash of 2008, which happened on Bush's watch. The economy hasn't recovered YET-- there are, or may be, many reasons why.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:01 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


I made close to 400k during GWB's presidency.



So, over 8 years, that's $ 50K a year. That ain't so great. I did that. Surely wasn't enough to put you into that over $ 250K a year bracket that's ALL the Republicans care about.

Not sayin' you didn't take a major hit; you did, but so did I. You're living in the fallout zone from the great crash of 2008, which happened on Bush's watch. The economy hasn't recovered YET-- there are, or may be, many reasons why.



Sure, I wasn't rich, but I made more than most in my circle outside of union jobs.

I started at 28k a year, so you can do the math.....

I just got my one year review at "the mart". Even though it was damn near a 4 out of 5, there's no raise. Not even a lousy nickle to combat inflation.

I used to get 5 to 6% a year raises just for being there and being competent. Not 5 or 6 cent raises... 5 to 6% raises.

Let's just say I was making a lot closer to 100k a year in 2009 than the 10k a year I make now......



This isn't my first time on unemployment either. I'm only 33 and I've spent nearly 2 1/2 years on unemployment.

My first job I lost was because "we had to get those dirty Republicans out of Illinois"... I lost my job so George Ryan could be ousted. They got Blago in there and what happened???? The same dammned thing....

My most recent job was cut because my salary (SALARY not my job) was sent to India. Now they have 10 people there doing much more than I could ever do, likely making little more than 5k a year US dollars.



So... FFFFFF it....

I learned my lesson the first job, and I saved the second job.

I got my house paid for. I got my part time minimum wage job. I reduced my property taxes by nearly 1/2 after about 250 calls to various local, county, state and federal entities and I'm also going to be recieving nearly 200 bucks a month for food stamps starting next month.


Like Bugs Bunny said, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.....






EDITED TO ADD:

I'm not getting back more than I pay in taxes.

In the end, I only get 112 back on face value after all property and income and ssi/medicade taxes come through, but I'm still forced to pay 400 a year for car insurance by my government. Even though it's not a "tax" i'm still forced to pay it.

I'll take it....


I'd write a book about how to do it, but when all of the idiots can do it they'll make sure we can't do it anymore.

I'll just say it doesn't take a genius IQ. Just a moderate IQ and some free time and the will to persevere.

I did the math because I wouldn't have wanted to be taking more than I was forced to pay. Unfortunately for me, I still am forced to pay 300 bucks a year, but that's much better than the $4,500 a year out of my meager $9,600 a year I make now.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:26 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


It must be difficult to hold down a decent job, any job when you have problems.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2013 5:52 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Like Bugs Bunny said, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.....



or, as somebody said on George of the Jungle, in Phil Silver's voice, " If you can't whup 'em, join 'em. THEN whup 'em!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 6:47 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It must be difficult to hold down a decent job, any job when you have problems.



Probably is, MD...

I wouldn't know. I don't have a decent job, but I can survive pretty well off of only 10k a year.

I'd say the only problem I have now is too much free time and the trouble I can get myself into with the lack of responsibility and the shackles of credit card debt that the other 99.9% are chained with.

Oh... that's not what you meant. My bad...

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 6:50 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
or, as somebody said on George of the Jungle, in Phil Silver's voice, " If you can't whup 'em, join 'em. THEN whup 'em!"



I like that even better! I don't know who Phil Silver is, but I do remember George of the Jungle. "Watch out for that tree!"

Here's me biding my time and joining them.... the second I find an opening, I'm going to unleash an explosive can of whoop ass soda I've been shaking up just for them.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Ya gotta wonder, why does Obama hate the poor so very much ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 09:40 - 638 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:22 - 52 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:04 - 418 posts
More men contract and die from Covid-19
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:57 - 17 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:52 - 30 posts
All things Space
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:23 - 258 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:48 - 4514 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:17 - 7422 posts
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL