Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 4, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HIGH WAGES: GOOD OR BAD?....Here's the headline the LA Times copy desk put on Bill Sing's article about the economy today:

Falling Jobless Rate Boosts Wages but Fuels Concern on Prices and Profits

Good for them. Instead of mindlessly repeating the usual "inflation fears" trope that's common to most stories about employment gains, Sing's story at least discusses both the positive and negative aspects of low unemployment. It was still focused a little too heavily on the negative, I thought, but it's a start.

Kevin Drum 11:28 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (95)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Man, it must be awesome to live in Mexico -- no wage pressure at all! Bush has done his best to have most of us live like that.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 4, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

I am sorry, but I have yet to see in action any f*&king example of when rising wages for workers (not CEOs) caused problems. Quite simply, putting more money into the pockets of workers means more money spent in the economy, buying things. It's cyclical, and raises the economy all around.

In contrast, when more money flows to the already-rich, much of that money is removed from the economic flow (after all, just how many 42" plasma TVs can one person buy?)

So please, let's stop with the bullshit about rising wages for workers 'hurting' the economy already!

Posted by: castor on February 4, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Hopefully not too OT:

Lately I have been getting really pissed off that the same business types who complain about public education not providing highly trained workers, are the same Mutha F*ckers who move production off shore when wages rise to compensate more highly trained workers.

Posted by: Keith G on February 4, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

now, the next step is for wages to "rise" more than inflation, since we're heading towards year 6 of real incomes falling for 80% of american households.

i seem to recall that bush feller promising that if we just passed his 2003 tax cut, 5.5M new jobs would be created between july 1, 2003 and december 31, 2004. here we are, 1 year later and 1M jobs short.

if we'd actually had 5.5M new jobs by december '04, then maybe real wages would be rising!

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

This jobs report is consistent with economic growth engendered by deficit spending. It would have helped in the article to use the BLS figures to describe where the growth occurred.

Posted by: TJM on February 4, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Unemployment has fallen to 4.7%.

Have Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean stopped talking about 'the jobless recovery' yet??

Posted by: GOPGregory on February 4, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, GLOPGregory, for that 4.7% figure which the US Dept of Labor just announced. In that same announcement, they also stated that productivity fell and labor costs were increasing. The market fell following this unexpected development.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 4, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

We need to keep the worker bees constantly looking over their shoulder, waiting for the next bit of bad news...sorry 'bout that pension, "say,could you take a cut in pay to keep the corporation in the black"? I'll just make a little bonus on the side if you don't mind. Keep buying our stock. It's doin' real well...

Short term policies. Short term results.

Posted by: beebopareebop on February 4, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Sing's story at least discusses both the positive and negative aspects of low unemployment"

Too bad we don't have any.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

'GOPGregory' posted:

"Unemployment has fallen to 4.7%."

The Unemployment Rate fell because there are fewer workers in the national workforce, not because more jobless workers found new jobs. That means MORE unemployment, not less.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing comes to mind. It is kind of non sequitur because workers build things for a price, if workers price these things high than they get fewer customers.

The real elephant in these dominoes is the affect of government, which is responsible for some 40% of the wages in the U.S. Everytime I get off my ass to work (which is rarely) I have to be efficient enough to hire 2/3 of a worker for government activities and mandates.

Posted by: Matt on February 4, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

There's no inflationary potential is this, however:

September 25, 2005, Sunday
By NINA MUNK (NYT)

In 1985, the combined wealth of the Forbes 400 was $238 billion, adjusted for inflation. Today, the 400 richest people in America are together worth $1.13 trillion. To put that number in perspective, $1.13 trillion is more than the gross domestic product of Canada. And it is more than the G.D.P. of Switzerland, Poland, Norway and Greece - combined.

Gagging.

Wages gains where and by whom. Virtually all gains have been at the top 2%.


The guy at Wachovia walks away with $700 million from the merger...Gillette....$650 million. Jobs lost: 15,000 and counting.

Posted by: CFShep on February 4, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

gopgregory, one knows that you can't actually say something that isn't an approved gop talking point, but still: the labor force grows at some 150K per month (give or take).

since Q3, '03, we've gained less than 4.5M new jobs, meaning we haven't even kept up with labor force growth. (to go a step further, net, since the great Bush took office, the only job growth we've achieved in america is...ta da!...public sector job growth. what leadership!)

nor, as i already noted, have we achieved the metric that the Dear Leader himself defined.

try learning a few things.

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Everytime I get off my ass to work (which is rarely) I have to be efficient enough to hire 2/3 of a worker for government activities and mandates."

Yeah: darn those judges and soldiers and elected officials, and their staffs; darn the Park Services and Coast Guard and intelligence officers; darn those diplomats and embassy workers; darn those doctors and nurses at the VA and researchers at NIH and CDC and NOAA; darn those caseworkers and those folks answering the phones and manning the service counter at governmental agencies; darn those facilities and maintenance crews that take care of the buildings...

We could be making so much more money if we didn't have to pay their salaries, too!

After all, it's not like we need any of them.

Posted by: CaseyL on February 4, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Huh??? But Kevin, don't you think that leaning too heavy on the negative is the ONLY RIGHT THING TO DO when describing life under Bush? I mean, everything is only getting worse, day by day. Why accentuate something that might be positive?

I thought you were supposed to be a leftie?

Posted by: peanut on February 4, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

In other news today, it is reported that Captain Sayed Omar George Bush left in a lifeboat first.

Posted by: stupid git on February 4, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Can I ask Kevin, ye sagacious one, why no one points out that the miniscule wage gains are blown away by fuel and housing inflation?

ash
['Just wondering.']

Posted by: ash on February 4, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

every time a merger happens and some poor chump has the stock in an IRA they end up with the empty bag BEEN THERE

Posted by: BEEN THERE on February 4, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

stupid git:

Now dont go knocking Islamic sea captain. Ya wanna start a riot?

Posted by: Keith G on February 4, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Err, peanut -- Kevin's complaint is that newspapers tend to report that workers making more money is bad for the economy. Something Bush would probably agree with.

Posted by: Chris O. on February 4, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

STAGNANT WAGES: STATISTICALLY GENERATED MISLEADING MYTH.

Please, for the sake of good public policy debate, remember something. Stagnant real wages in a low unemployment environment means overwhelmingly that individual real wages are anything but stagnant. Where there is low unemployment, people with education and/or experience rise quickly through the hierarchy of job titles and wage levels. So, while the real wage levels remain relatively stagnant, people are moving upwardly through them as quickly as prudent monetary policy (economic stability and low inflation) will allow.

An example is the the four worker illustration.

Unemployed, $0
Entry Level, $15,000
Asst. Mgr., $25,000
Mgr., $50,000

If, the Mgr. either reaches retirement age mor moves on to a better prospect thanks to the demand for managers generally in a low unemployment environment, he either moves up or chooses to no longer toil; both to his benefit.

Then, everyone rises up in sequence thanks to the demand for their skills: the Asst. Mgr. now is Mgr. and makes $50,000, the Worker now is Ast. Mgr. and makes $25,000, the Unemployed now is needed as Worker and makes $15,000. According to wage level statistics "real wages are stagnant"; but that is only macroeconomically, not individual specific. IT IS A MYTH MEANT TO IMPUGN CAPITALISM AND TAX CUT GENERATED GROWTH. It has relevance in terms of distribution of income alone (an important thing to consider but only in the context of the economy as a whole, including the arguably more important concerns regarding poverty, opportunity, employment, productivity, and economnic growth).

But stagnant real wages does not mean the the people making $25,000 in '01 are still making $25,000 in '06 in real terms. It means the same job title and job description is making about the same in real terms; while that is not ideal, that is utterly normal and contrary to the misery years of '77-'82.

Give the Bush tax cuts a little more time; you'll see real incomes at the lower levels rise dramatically for all job titles and wage levels just as they did from '83-'01. It takes 3-4 years for it to happen.

In fact, if you look at after-tax incomes, despite the slow down (technically there was no recession) of '00-'03 (the data shows the slowdown began in Q4 of Clinton's last year) after-tax real incomes for the lower 50% are generally stable despite the slowdown; that is remarkably good.

Moreover, if you look at after-tax real incomes from 1983-Present, the lowest 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% of Americans are doing 21%-28% better in REAL TERMS than in 1983; this after they were losing income in real terms during the Carter presidency and the 2 legacy years subsequent to it. The Reagan Revolution of '81-'83 both gave people jobs and paid them 25% more for the same jobs. While the top 20% did do better than the rest, that in the end can be attributed to the reward one gets for sacrificing the freedom of youth to get an education. So, the lesson is not end capitalism; the lesson is GET AN EDUCATION. the '83-'06 data shows that what the economic elite received did indeed "trickle down". And, this is not a one time event. It happened thanks to WW II's expansion, thanks to Kennedy's '61 tax cuts, thanks to Reagan's '81 tax cuts, and thanks to Bush's '01-02 tax cuts. Even though the tax cuts benefit the rich more, they benefited the poor vastly more than their situation previous to the tax cuts for the rich.

[Clinton's '93 tax increase was nominal and it anything hindered the recovery that the data shows began in the Q4 of Bush 41's last year.]

It's time for the Econ 101 drop-out "regressive"-Democrats to get a serious economic education; emotionally, they need to grow-up. Soak the rich always sinks the poor. Look at the numbers! As public policy, it's fools gold.

Help the poor by reforming our public schools and stop permitting teachers and bureaucrats to exclusively fix prices in restraint of trade; if you had the same indignation for public school monopolies that you have for big corporation greed and power you'll see competent and civilly-disposed American workers making it in bucket loads. Otherwise, the poor will be left with the global job market's need for what so many products of American schools are: serial fornicating, smacked-up, cracked-up, pot heads and drunks who steal from the register but probably don't even have the math skills to do that competently. Uh, those wages will tend to be stagnant in a capitalist system. But look at the bright side - at least those slackers are tolerated and paid something; Stalin would have just take them out back and shoot 'em.

The Objective Historian

[All of this does not include the income generated by asset growth in homes, investments, and savings that all but the poorest enjoy. Nor does in include the imputed income all Americans enjoy from the increased public spending permissible by the increased overall GDP growth. Nor does it include the '83-'03 increased non-cash value of free food, housing, education, and medical care enjoyed by the poor and middle-income people. That Reagan was so dim-witted? My kind of fool; one whose public policy incentivizes the rich to want to provide for the poor: jobs, infrastructure, benefits.]

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 4, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still laughing at the genius who said lower unemployment rates mean MORE unemployed people.

Really! He honestly said it.

Check out VJ at 12:36.

Posted by: GOPGregory on February 4, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Really! He honestly said it

actually, he didn't.

Posted by: cleek on February 4, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Howard,

The important thing here is the unemployment rate and if it's improving. At 4.7% it's the lowest in 4 1/2 years and according to forecasts it's headed lower. There has been a sharp drop in weekly jobless claims as well and forecasts for F/H economic growth are for a strong 4%.

Expect the unemployent rate to be near 4.3% come the November election and 3.5% come November 2008. Democrats could not make any gains when unemployment was 6.3%. Karl Rove will be very happy to see 4.3%.

Posted by: rdw on February 4, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Last I heard, new jobs were falling far short of the expected new jobs measured by population increase. Hence, lots of people have quit looking for jobs, and the unemployment rate is much higher than we imagine.

This is a terrible jobs economy right now. Maybe it will change sometime, but currently and for the past 5 years the economy has really sucked for quality American jobs.

Posted by: Jimm on February 4, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

If wage gains really do lead to stagnation shouldn't we have a national policy to cut all forms of excecutive compensation...after all at 30% of payroll [not counting perks or other compesation] that's the biggest factor in in higher prices, lower profits...and inflation.

Let's see the Fed raise tax/loan rates on companies that compensate their excecutives more than 50 times minimum wage.

Ha..ha...if that was truly threatened, we could stop listening to "economists" blathering on how higher compensation was inflationary. Most economist are like lawyers, they produce nothing, but spout whatever line they are paid to.

Posted by: S Brennan on February 4, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

actually, he didn't.

He did!

He also mentioned the labor force shrunk which is true but for some strange reason didn't point out the same report showed 295,000 jobs were created well above the 193,000 in the nonfarms report.

Gee, I wonder why he didn't point that out?

The work force has been fairly stable for 3 months but dropped by 39,000 last month. Since the end of the 3rd Qtr the work force has increased by 287K and the number of job by 750K.


Politically, all advantages are to Karl Rove and will stay there through the election.

Posted by: rdw on February 4, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

I think his point is that the falling unemployment rate is misleading, because it's fallen NOT because those in the employment pool have found new jobs, thus becoming employed, but because many in the employment pool have given up and fallen out of the search for jobs. They're still unemployed, but not technically part of the statistic, since they're not counted.

So while the rate has fallen, there still is more umemployment than before. It's just not being tracked in the official unemployment rate.

Posted by: Kryptik on February 4, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

The real elephant in these dominoes...

?????

Posted by: snowy s.o.b. on February 4, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

There really isn't rising employment. The current rate is actually pretty close to 10%. What has increased is worker despair.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 4, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, actually, the unemployment rate is only one indicator. the other useful indicators include: the ratio of those with jobs to the total population of employables; hourly wages; and hours worked.

each indicator has its own strengths and weaknesses; for instance, if enough "discouraged" workers stop looking for jobs, the unemployment rate can drop without any new jobs being created.

so in assessing the overall jobs situation, we really need to look at all the indicators. When we do, we discover that overall, right this very second, we have a fair labor market, not great and not terrible.

when we assess the totality of the bush years, we discover that we have had a lousy labor market.

now, to be fair, some of the reasons we have had a lousy labor market are beyond any president's control (globalization) and some are beyond any republican president's control (a willful refusal to even think about the fact that our major competitors all have forms of nationalized health care that don't burden businesses with the costs), but still, it doesn't change the report card.

and especially the report card that we can give the shallow little man in the oval office based on his very own metric: 5.5M new jobs over 18 months.

instead, we've had 4.7M jobs or so over 30 months, and, iirc, a big whopping 2 months with the 300K new jobs that bush offered on average with his metric.

as for how uncle Karl thinks, he's of course entitled to his opinion, but we can actually ask the american public what it thinks, and the pollsters do.

they are not impressed.

objective historian, good grief, how much foolishenss can you pack into one posting? more than i can take the time to eviscerate, but basically, you don't have the slightest frickin' idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Folks, the facts are availble for all who are interested.

Check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the web.

Here are some interesting facts:

Jan 2006 unemployment 4.7%
Jan 1996 unemployment 5.6%

Put some of that in your pipe and smoke it, Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean.

Posted by: GOPGregory on February 4, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

kudos to gopgregory for demonstrating to us exactly how a well-trained propaganda robot works!

normally, after all, we tend to see the beginning-level propaganda school undergrads show up here, but gopgregory is clearly an advanced student.

notice his basic technique: repeat whatever propaganda point you want to make. refuse to take into account any other information. never, ever answer any questions that might cause you to have to think harder about the propaganda point you are making.

here in the real world, gopgregory, bush promised us 5.5M new jobs between july 1, 2003 and december 31, 2004. 13 months later, we're still nearly 1M jobs short.

put that in your pipe and smoke it.

then we can move on to the advanced studies about jobs, assuming you can handle it....

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK


HOWARD: objective historian, good grief, how much foolishenss can you pack into one posting? more than i can take the time to eviscerate, but basically, you don't have the slightest frickin' idea what you are talking about.

What he's talking about is the American Dream: Everybody will be a manager eventually! Pretty much the way all privates eventually become generals.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 4, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Here are some more objective facts for you, folks:

May 2000 payroll jobs: 131.9 million.
Jan 2006 payroll jobs: 134.4 million.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean.

Oh, you want the source? Sure thing. Try the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Posted by: GOPGregory on February 4, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee: awesome! (sadly, under current bush administration trends, it's entirely possible that all privates will become generals some day.)

and you remind me that when i use an unfamiliar keyboard, maybe i should proofread rather than produce "foolishenss."

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

How Can Anybody believe these numbers? This information is from the same people that gave us Wmd, Niger yellowcake, Sadamn blew up the WTC. The war will cost 19 billion dollars. On and on.......

Posted by: Neo on February 4, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

'The Objective Historian' posted:

"Give the Bush tax cuts a little more time; you'll see real incomes at the lower levels rise dramatically for all job titles and wage levels just as they did from '83-'01. It takes 3-4 years for it to happen."

The first round of tax cuts was in 2001.

It's not happening, unless massive federal deficits, wages going backwards every year, and Poverty rising every year, is what you wanted to "happen".

.

"The Reagan Revolution of '81-'83 both gave people jobs and paid them 25% more for the same jobs."

Wrong.

Inflation adjusted wages went backwards by almost 20% during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

.

"[Clinton's '93 tax increase was nominal and it anything hindered the recovery that the data shows began in the Q4 of Bush 41's last year.]"

False.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

'GOPGregory' posted:

"I'm still laughing at the genius who said lower unemployment rates mean MORE unemployed people."

Looks like the joke is on you.

.

"Jan 2006 unemployment 4.7%
Jan 1996 unemployment 5.6%"

You omitted that President Clinton inherited high unemployment and the 1996 figure was on the way DOWN. You also omitted that the Unemployment Rate was at 3.9% in between 1996 and 2006.

.

"May 2000 payroll jobs: 131.9 million.
Jan 2006 payroll jobs: 134.4 million."

You twit. The population has grown.

You still haven't grasped that there are MORE jobless workers now than when the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal was illegally installed five years ago.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

jeez, that gopgregory is good, innit he?

first, he pretends that right this moment, the first comment that pelosi or dean or anyone else makes is "this is a jobless recovery," when, of course, these were comments they were making a couple of years ago.

and second, demonstrating his serious training at propaganda u, he picks a completely arbitrary start point. he could pick january, 2001, when bush came to office; he could pick march, 2001, the peak of employment; he could pick november, 2001, the trough of employment. instead, he picks may!

and third - and best of all - he's bragging about bush's overall performance of some 2M jobs created during the bush years, which still makes bush, iirc, the president to preside over the worst job-creation performance of any president in the post-world war ii era.

and, of course, he continues to ignore that the labor force has grown some 9M since bush took office....

and, of course, he continues to ignore bush's own metric for job creation....

that's why he's an advanced level student at propaganda u!

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

gopgregory, it's quite possible for the unemployment rate to fall while the number of unemployed actually rises. it's all in the way the statistics are calculated. you might want to thank your fellow repubs since they're the ones who killed a more logical barometer. oh and by the way the unemployment rate in nov. 2000 was about 3.8. put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 4, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

and one more thing: it's been calculated that we need 150,000 new jobs a month just to stay pace with growth in the work force.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 4, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

4 of the top 5 terms in office in size of job growth: Democrats (Clinton, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ). 8 of the top 10 (Clinton, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, Roosevelt, Nixon, Kennedy-Johnson, Truman, Roosevelt)

That's the point of electing Democrats: to put people to work.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 4, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

It is astonishing to listen all the "the-sky-is-falling" Bush haters in here. If you took them seriously, you'd conclude there are long souplines everywhere and people selling apples for 5 cents at every corner. Most of the posts you see here are from people who really believe the country is falling apart. One guy today tried to make the point that dropping unemployment rates is evidence that MORE people, not less, are out of work.

Listen to some facts, people! Can you handle facts, even if they conflict with your hatred - uhm, I mean, your feelings - about GW Bush!?!

Unemployment Jan 2006: 4.7%
Payroll employment Jan 2006: +193,000

Can't handle the facts, Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean??

Posted by: GOPGregory on February 4, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

One guy today tried to make the point that dropping unemployment rates is evidence that MORE people, not less, are out of work.

The published number is merely sleight-of-hand since it neglects the people who have given up looking for a job. The actual unemployment rate -- people out-of-work -- is closer to 10%. That isn't the 25% of the Great Depression but it's a preposterous figure.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 4, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

There are many positive aspects to unemployment - at least when we are talking about the MSM.

A little bit of unemployment would do most talking heads some good.

Posted by: Thinker on February 4, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

gopgregory, if you look at the unemployment rates dating back to the 40s, you'd see that the average performance during your fearless leader's reign is about average. no, it's not the depression redux but it ain't worthy of rushmore either. and considering the rate is still a point above where it was when it took office i wouldn't do too much celebrating. given the stimuli of the tax cuts and the refi rush the rate's a little low, don't you think? and the dow is flat at best over the past five years.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 4, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey, the BLS shows its work,kind of like in high school.If you were to go to the website,you would find that in calculating unemployment,while not in the announcement in the paper,the tables show the total available work force and breaks it down in a number of ways. The work force estimate includes those not counted as unemployed and the BLS shows that including those who have given up looking for work the total unemployment would be close to 1% higher,not 10% in the aggregate.

Posted by: TJM on February 4, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

btw the growth in jobs includes part-time positions. so if you're working, say 10 hours a week, you're counted the same as if you're working 40.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 4, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

It's funny how the financial press (not picking on LAT per se) talks about the "dangers" of high wages (that is in effect the general public's income) only with respect to ordinary workers, not the managers etc. who makes 100s of times more.

Posted by: Neil' on February 4, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

OBJECTIVE HISTORIAN'S QUICK RETORT; MORE LATER.

1992 GDP GROWTH: 4.2%.
4Q 1992 GDP GROWTH: 4.5%.

THE BOOM OF THE 1990s STARTED ON JANUARY 1ST 1992, ONE YEAR BEFORE CLINTON CAME INTO OFFICE.

---

2000 GDP GROWTH: HISTOICALLY ANEMIC 2.25%
3Q 2000 GDP GROWTH: -0.5%
3Q/4Q 2000 GDP GROWTH: 0.8%

THE SLOWDOWN OF 2000-2003 BEGAN IN 2000 WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT.

---

My point was not to make portray the socialist-captitalist hybrid that is the American economy as a utopia where all workers make their way up the economic ladder. They don't and too often for reasons that I do think government can address positively; not by any Regressive-Democrat policies, however. I am a socialist as much as I am a capitalist and believe truly progressive government involvement in the lives of the poor can help them.

My point was that wage data is irrelevant to determine if generally individual workers' wages are rising or falling. It only describes the macroeconomic distribution of wealth. Stagnant wages are not evidence that workers are not earning more from year to year; people are economically ignorant to think it does.

That you could not discern that that was my point and that you choose to insult me as you were evincing your inability to discern it was typical of the thoughtless and offensive approach that has served Regressive-Democrats so poorly of late; perhaps you should focus more and prate less.,

And, sorry folks, supply side economics, and trickle down economics, and Reaganomics (i.e., his epic tax cuts) have proven miraculous in reversing the free fall that was 1977 to 1982, the culmination and two-year legacy of 20 years of Regressive-Democrat zenith of federal, state, and urban power. 1983-2006 have been historicly productive economic times for the United States when the rest of the world is flailing in comparison.

And bonus statistic for the self-deluded Regressive-Democrats: the unemployment rate for African-Americans in NYC in 1964, i.e., before Johnson and Mayor John Lindsay began the Great Society to "fix" the American economy and "help" the poor, working-people, and minorities: 4%. Boom . . . that's got to hurt; not as much as being African-American with Regressive-Democrats in power, but still . . . that's got to hurt.

Those who advocate the Regressive-Democrat agenda are ever-palpable threat to school children, poor people, minorities, soldiers, police officers, workers, parents. Please shut up. You can be self-deluded, but please shut up. Please. I'll give you some credit for environmental activism; that you should continue to work on if you do it politely like little ladies and gentlemen.

The Objective Historian

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 4, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

'GOPGregory' posted:

"Most of the posts you see here are from people who really believe the country is falling apart."

* Poverty has INCREASED every year of the last five years that the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal has been in office, after DECLINING every year of the previous eight years President Clinton was in office

* Inflation-adjusted wages DECLINED every year of the last five years that the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal has been in office, after inflation-adjusted wages INCREASED (the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s) during the Clinton administration

* Both bankruptcies and home foreclosures are at record historic HIGHS

* Federal budget deficits are at record historic HIGHS

* Americans' personal savings rate dipped into negative territory in 2005, something that hasn't happened since the Great Depression
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

'The Objective Historian' posted:

"And, sorry folks, supply side economics, and trickle down economics, and Reaganomics (i.e., his epic tax cuts) have proven miraculous in reversing the free fall that was 1977 to 1982"

False.

Utter miserable disaster.

Massive federal deficits and debt, inflation-adjusted wages went backwards by almost 20% for the vast overwhelming majority of Americans, and according to the IRS, there wasn't a single net new job created that paid over $20,000 (hence the label McJobs).

.

"And bonus statistic for the self-deluded Regressive-Democrats: the unemployment rate for African-Americans in NYC in 1964, i.e., before Johnson and Mayor John Lindsay began the Great Society to "fix" the American economy and "help" the poor, working-people, and minorities: 4%."

A) African-American Poverty was CUT IN HALF by the "Great Society" programs.

B) We don't calculate unemployment in the same manner as we did then.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Ha.

I'll check to confirm that proverty reduction statistic, but what does that mean? That half as many African-Americans were below the poverty line marginally. So, you raised African-American incomes 5-20% depending on the individual by giving them money for doing nothing. Compared to 20%+ African-American unemployment, drug abuse, serial and unconcerned procreation and mothers only families, crime (all the product of all than free-time on the dole), it's an absurd refuge for an absurd, out-dated, and rendered-irrelevant political ideology. Evidence: What does it tell you when the last Democrat to hold the President's office's crowning achievements were stewardship of a boom begun during his predecessor's presidency, welfare limits, and NAFTA expansion?

But, great; if Regressive-Democrats want to urge people to return to their way of thinking because, see, look what we were able to do for America between 1964 and 1979, by all means. [Note, politically, civil rights laws was a Republican majority initiatives; it was the Democrats who opposed them statistically; you can ask your Democratic friend Robert Byrd about how he and his Democratic allies like George Wallace tried to impeed civil rights.]

And, African-American real incomes at all economic levels of society were vastly lower in real terms in 1979. Ronald Reagan, economically, was the best friend poor and working African-Americans ever had; those who preferred work to play and the law to criminality, that is.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 4, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

A MISTAKE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. BETWEEN 1983 AND 2006 REAL INCOME FOR THE LOWEST 20% OF AMERICANS IS UP 21% (B.E.A. HAS THE DATA), FOR THE MIDDLE 60% OF AMERICANS ITS UP 25% IN THAT ERA. I'LL BEAT YOU TO IT AND SAY FOR THE TOP 20% IS UP 47%. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE SYSTEM IS BAD. IT MEANS STOP PARTYING THROUGH SCHOOL AND GET AN EDUCATION; GIVE THE MARKET WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET MORE FROM THE MARKET.

Hmm. Deficits during the Carter years, the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years, and the Bush 43 years; and yet nominal and real interests dropped like they stepped off a cliff; they were and are at historic lows; um, maybe that means it was a good time to borrow, a good time to cut taxes and permit capitalists to create jobs, and a good time to sit back and see how borrowed money well invested (not wasted like in the 70s) can generate 3% annual growth for 24 years while the rest of the world's head is spinning watching us go. And, collect record tax revenues to make up for the deficits.

Regressive-Democrats are done; they only serve to entertain on Kos and to provide a mechanism for the adults to remain in power in the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. So, while Regressive-Democrats are done politically, they do serve to advance the cause. Thanks.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 4, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans fight poverty effectively providing people's needs and by giving people jobs that pay more to start and pay even more with experience.

Democrats fight poverty ineffectively and counter-productively to society by giving poor people more money than they need so as to win power and thus incentivizing them to live irresponsible, derelict, anti-social, and criminal lives.

Link: 1964-2006.

The End.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 4, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

People; please have some perspective to understand this.

Reagan cut taxes across the board 25% in 1981.

Clinton raised taxes only 1.5% across the board in AND implemented Reagan's welfare reform agenda. Clinton was economically just a warm body being felated in the Oval Office; a economic speck to Reagan's sun.

This is Reagan's century and George W. Bush's century, beginning in 1983, and we are in year 24 of that century. Every success and every failure is theirs.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 4, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

That's the point of electing Democrats: to put people to work.

So that's why it's been President Gore followed by President Kerry. You twits lost seats when unemployment was 6.3%. It'll be 4.3% this November and 3.3% in 2008.

Posted by: rdw on February 4, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

it's really something to drop back into this thread and see the kind of piffle that gopgregory and objective historian have been producing. really, guys, as propaganda robots, you're fine; as analysts, you're talking through your hat.

rdw, every now and then, you make me question why i think you're a cut above the propaganda robots. like your 10:34 posting.

Posted by: howard on February 4, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

'The Objective Historian' posted:

"I'll check to confirm that proverty reduction statistic"

You do that.

.

"Republicans fight poverty effectively providing people's needs and by giving people jobs that pay more to start and pay even more with experience."

Then why has Poverty INCREASED every year of the last five years ?

.

"Democrats fight poverty ineffectively and counter-productively"

Then why did Poverty DECREASE every year of the eight years President Clinton was in office ?

.

"Reagan cut taxes across the board 25% in 1981."

Creating massive federal deficits and debt.

.

"Clinton raised taxes only 1.5% across the board in AND implemented Reagan's welfare reform agenda"

False.

.

"Clinton was economically just a warm body being felated in the Oval Office; a economic speck to Reagan's sun."

Gibberish.

Everything was going in the wrong direction economically by the end of Reagan's terms.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 4, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

REAGAN 1st Term vs CLINTON 1st Term

* Net Growth of Manufacturing Jobs/Month during Reagan admin – (LOSS)
* Net Growth of Manufacturing Jobs/Month during Clinton admin – 189,000

* Unemployment Rate at end of term during Reagan admin – 7.54%
* Unemployment Rate at end of term during Clinton admin – 5.20%

* Average Inflation Rate during Reagan admin – 4.4%
* Average Inflation Rate during Clinton admin – 2.5%

* The composite 30 year treasury bond yield during Reagan admin – 11.20%
* The composite 30 year treasury bond yield during Clinton admin – 6.50%

* Misery Index during Reagan admin – 11.9
* Misery Index during Clinton admin – 8.4

* Federal budgets during the Reagan admin – Massive deficits and debt
* Federal budgets during the Clinton admin – Turned deficits into surpluses
.

Posted by: VJ on February 5, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

And, what do you think Clinton did to effect the economy at all other than sit in the oval office?

He did 3 things of interest:

1) Raised taxes 1.5% across the board; it is of interest only because it was a non-event compared to Reagan's 1981 25% across the board tax cut.

2) Welfare Reform.

3) NAFTA expansion.

Economic infants: pay attention. The time period 1983 to the present is all about Reagan and George W. Bush whether it is deficits, surpluses, booms, busts, peace, or war. Bush 41 & Clinton were policy non-entities. To hope in desperation that Clinton had anything to do with the economy during his term, especially when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were in charge of the fiscal policy initiating branch of government from 1995-2000 and Alan Greenspan, a Reagan appointee, was in charge of setting monetary policy, is pathetically delusional. Further the boom of 1992-1999 began with the full year 1992 when Bush 41 was president and GDP growth was 4.2% (a boom year by historical standards).

The folly that Clinton "turned deficits into surpluses" is "misleading the American people". The economic expansion generated by Reagan's epic tax cuts turned deficits into surpluses.

Word.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

VJ,

There is a 5-10 year economic policy lag; people's ignorance of it is the only thing the Regressive-Democrats have going for them. Your Reagan v. Clinton first term numbers considered this way only buttresses what an economic savior Reagan was. His first term was his Regressive-Democrat legacy; America '85 to '05 is his America Rising legacy.

Sorry; try to understand this without embracing the urge to jump when you finally do.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

VJ: Everything was going in the wrong direction economically by the end of Reagan's terms.

Er, uh.

1988: Unemployment falling, inflation falling, interest rates both real and nomial falling, real and nomial incomes for poor, middle, and rich rising, GDP rising, poverty declining, deficits falling.

You are just ignorant; but luckily for America you and the Regressive-Democrats are even more impotent than you are ignorant.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

VJ:

Clinton tax increase 1.5% across the board. False? What do you calculate it was?

True.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

VJ,

Poverty increases and decreases always for the same reason to the 98-99% degree: because of the behavior of poor people. Government can and should overcome that cause and its manifestation, yes; but that is THE CAUSE of poverty.

Poverty declined in Clinton's term because of the Reagan boom, welfare reform, and NAFTA. If you think otherwise, then simply point to one thing Clinton did to lessen poverty? [His overall 1.5% tax increase was a utterly irrelvant sedative that successfully quieted you Regressive-Democrat economic ignoramuses; Reagan cut taxes overall 25% and W. cut taxes overall 12%.]

Poverty is increasing now because the cure, i.e., tax cuts to permit capital formation and job creation, always takes 5-10 years to manifest.

Do you know how to read? Perhaps you could read an economics text book.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Objective Historian, i see you haven't learned a thing overnight: you have rapidly joined the upper echelon of morons who post here. such dim-wittedness is hard to fathom, but dig we must.

as i said earlier, since basically everything you write is ignorant, there's no real point in eviscerating your empty remarks, tempting as it would be to spend the next hour citing study after study, data point after data point, to show others (you're obviously hopelessly lost in some hallucinatory ether) how wrong you are about virtually everything (your spelling seems to be pretty good, though).

i'm going to, instead, limit myself to a couple of basic factoids: a.) reagan increased taxes six separate times after the '81 tax cut, including his best tax hike, the '86 one; b.) without the clinton tax hike, there would have been no surplus.

party on, you fool.

Posted by: howard on February 5, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Howard:

You are delusional.

Debatably, the post '81 Reagan tax cuts were either nominal or reformist, i.e., revenue neutral. But that is not the enormity of your delusion.

B) is. Clinton raised taxes across the board a non-eventful 1.5%. Do you understand? So between '81 and '01, taxes overall were cut 23.5% between Reagan's tax cut and Clinton's quaint tax increase. Sorry. The only narrative that fits the facts (and not merely the coincidence that Clinton was President) is that Reagan's cuts put funds in the hands of the independent entrepreneurial and financial experts in America, they started and/or financed companies like Microsoft, Dell, etc., this created the boom that began in '83 when GPD growth for the year (YEAR!) was 7.7%. GDP growth in '83-'84 was 6.0%. [Note: 2.75% is normal.] Since '83, GDP growth has been a miraculous and sustained 3.0%.

And statistically (not that you'd take the time to inform yourself), the Clinton tax cut would not have dented the deficit in the slightest if it were not for GDP growth.

Taken together, i.e., that Reagan's tax cut of 25% in '81-'86 caused the boom, not Clinton's silly 1.5% tax increase AND that the cut initiated the 20 year boom in '83, it is obvious Clinton's tax increase did nothing to lessen the deficit.

CLINTONIAN ECONOMIC POLICY, OTHER THAN WELFARE REFORM AND NAFTA EXPANSION, WAS VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT; IT AND CLINTON'S IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY IS AN ABSURD MYTH CLUNG TO BY ABSURD PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO PROMOTE BUT THE SEDUCTIVE FANTASY THAT BECAUSE CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT AND BECAUSE DEFICITS WENT DOWN IN THE 90s, CLINTON HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE TWO AND EVEN A CASUAL KNOWLEDGE OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ECONOMICS MAKES THAT OBVIOUS TO . . . AN OBJECTIVE HISTORIAN.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

objective historian, congratulions for proving your idoicy yet again! brilliantly done! i'd swear you were a parody if you hadn't moved to the all-caps approach, which instead confirms your lunacy.

as i continue to say, actually dealing with your vast ignorance isn't worth the time: people as delusional as you.

i will, however, as a favor, suggest that you read the impeccable conservative economist Bruce Bartlett's, new book, whose title alone contains more economic sense than anything you've written: Imposter: How George W. Bush bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277/qid=1139168149/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6524320-0367913?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Bartlett, admittedly, suffers from the disadvantages of being an honest conservative, a real economist, and a veteran of the Reagan administration, so of course his well-researched and argued opinions can't possibly be as meaningful as your twaddle.

Posted by: howard on February 5, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

The obsequious historian likes to point out Limbaugh facts-facts that are so tweezed and squeezed that they are divorced from reality. I have a number! I claim this number means something!
But what is that number based on?
Do not argue with my number! I got it from the government of my Republican masters!
Don't you think they might have tweaked the numbers to make themselves look good?
Blasphemer! Idolater! You are not fit to lick the boots of my Republican overlords! Certainly not this worn out spot that I've been working since 1980!
But isn't the unemployment number based on the fact that since civil rights and the increase in women working outside of the home, the net work force has doubled, while wages have stagnated against inflation? Didn't the Bush II administration change how they counted the unemployed so the number looks smaller, for imbeciles with number fetishes? Isn't the outcome of this the fact that a one-income household can't support itself, making Reagan and Bush the cause of the family dysfunction that increases crime rates? Either both parents work and nobody watches the kids, or they all starve together?
I I I la la la I can't hear you! I'm the Obsequious Historian, not the reality based observer! You're challenging my homoerotic fixation on cruel, abusive and distant father figures!
Can you remember when America made things? Things that worked, things that lasted, things that people were paid well to make? When people held their bosses accountable, and the government worked for the people's benefit?
Commie! You said worker! You're a commie! Moooom! there's a commie on my interweb saying people should be paid fairly and Americans should have good paying jobs! Mooommy!
Well, thank God most Americans like being abused by their leaders, clergy, and bosses, because otherwise they might vote for their own interests and hold these people accountable for their actions.
TOH: Accountability is for poor people!

Posted by: Boing!!!! on February 5, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

And:

Poverty levels do not include food stamps, public housing, or Medicaid. With those included, the real poverty rate is closer to 2% and has been dropping since WWII including every year between '83-'06. [Note: the imputed income from food, housing, Medicaid goes up faster than inflation.]

Accountability is for everyone; just my point. If you'd focus that obsessive scrutiny on the statistical behavior of the poor the way you to Bush 43, poverty would have ended a long time ago.

Povery will only end locally, nationally, and internationally when people who can't afford to have children stop having children by either fornicating responsibly or not at all. Right now, America's poor year-in and year-out are doing the opposite. THAT IS THE CAUSE OF INCREASED POVERTY, NOT THE GOP. Turn that vitriolic gaze upon the real cause of poverty if you want to end it.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

'TOH' posted:

"And, what do you think Clinton did to effect the economy at all other than sit in the oval office?"

He reversed Reaganomics.

.

"Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were in charge of the fiscal policy initiating branch of government from 1995-2000"

And they never submitted a budget resolution of their own, but instead used President Clinton's.

.

"The folly that Clinton 'turned deficits into surpluses' is 'misleading the American people'. The economic expansion generated by Reagan's epic tax cuts turned deficits into surpluses."

FALSE:

1981 – $079 billion budget deficit
1982 – $128 billion budget deficit
1983 – $208 billion budget deficit
1984 – $185 billion budget deficit
1985 – $212 billion budget deficit
1986 – $221 billion budget deficit
1987 – $150 billion budget deficit
1988 – $155 billion budget deficit
1989 – $153 billion budget deficit
1990 – $221 billion budget deficit
1991 – $269 billion budget deficit
1992 – $290 billion budget deficit

.

"There is a 5-10 year economic policy lag"

Nope.

After eight years of historic record levels of Consumer Confidence during President Clinton's two terms, as reported by the private-sector Conference Board, Consumer Confidence plummeted by more than 10% when the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal was falsely announced as the "winner" of the election in November 2000 (the largest drop in over 10 years, not seen since the last recession, during Poppy's administration, in 1990).

Consumer Confidence again plummeted by another 10% when the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal was "appointed" by the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court in December 2000 (again, the largest drop in over 10 years, not seen since the last recession, during Poppy's administration, in 1990).

A 20% drop in Consumer Confidence in less than 60 days is a massive shift in consumer sentiment, with such large back-to-back monthly declines never witnessed in post-WWII America, yet it continued to drop even further in January, February, and March. Given that Consumer Spending comprises some seventy percent of the American economy, it's no surprise that the nation's economy finally sunk into recession in March.

From the greatest Prosperity in our nation's history to recession and declining wages in the interceding four months.

.

"Your Reagan v. Clinton first term numbers considered this way only buttresses what an economic savior Reagan was. His first term was his Regressive-Democrat legacy"

Allrightythen,

REAGAN 2nd Term vs CLINTON 2nd Term

* Unemployment Rate at end of term during Reagan admin - 5.5%
* Unemployment Rate at end of term during Clinton admin - 3.9%

* Federal budgets during the Reagan admin - MORE massive deficits and debt
* Federal budgets during the Clinton admin - MORE surpluses

* African-American Poverty at end of term during Reagan Administration - 31.3%
*African-American Poverty at end of term during Clinton Administration - 22.0%

.

"Poverty declined in Clinton's term because of the Reagan boom"

The only Reagan "boom" was inside the heads of air-brained RightWingers. The inflation-adjusted wages of the vast overwhelming number of Americans went BACKWARDS by almost 20% during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

Some "boom".


.

"If you think otherwise, then simply point to one thing Clinton did to lessen poverty?"

I know otherwise, and it happened because he:

* Raised taxes on the top 1.2% of income earners and raised the Corporate Tax rate. Used the money to pay off $600 billion of the Reagan/Bush federal deficits/debt, which even Greenspan testified to a Congressional committee had a dramatic effect on improving the economy.

* Expanded the 'Earned Income Tax Credit', which provided tax relief to 15 million hard-pressed working families and lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty.

* Enacted a $500 per-child tax credit for 27 million families with 45 million children. The largest tax cut for typical American families in decades.

* Raised the Federal Minimum Wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, increasing wages for 10 million workers, which lowered the child poverty rate from 22.7% to 18.9%, the biggest drop in nearly 30 years.

The additional list of how Reaganomics was reversed is very long.

.

"Poverty is increasing now because the cure, i.e., tax cuts to permit capital formation and job creation, always takes 5-10 years to manifest."

Tax rate cuts have NEVER stimulated the American economy or created a net increase in the American workforce. Tax rate cuts have repeatedly led to economic slow-downs or recessions, massive federal debt, rising Poverty, and declining wages.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 5, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Duh.

The world is moving forward, er, uh, progressing. The goal for our young people and poor people should not be to manufacture things. That is old school. The people who make money in this century will not be on the assembly line, but rather in knowledge based employment. That is not the GOP's fault and there is nothing productive (but plenty counter-productive) government can do about it. Stop longing for 1950; it's inane. Start demanding young people take all their abundant free time (don't dare deny THAT) to get an education instead of walking around smacked-up, cracked-up, ecstasied, waked-and-baked, or drunk with their pants around their ankles looking for a zipless f---, uh, . . . . sexual liason.

Spoiled Americans; with so many actually poor people in the world, i.e., living on $1 a day without food stamps, free housing in Manhattan, and Medicaid, maybe it's time we focused on getting the poor focused 24/7/365.25 on lessening the burden they are on the world, not increasing the burden they are on the world through their serial non-commitment fornication, drug abuse, dereliction, and criminality.

Oh, wait, I forgot; poverty is supposedly George W. Bushes fault. Ha. Those 2% real poor who in the Third World would be the economic elite.

What inanity; I give great thanks to the American worker and taxpayers and am so sorry they find themselves to be the countrymen of, overhwelmingly statistically speaking (i.e., anecdotes aside), such debauched ingrates.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

VJ:

You really need to take a look at the data, 1977 to the present. I don't me snapshots like the one you provided, but graphs.

Reagan's 1981 25% tax cut (not withstanding Clinton's 1.5% tax increase) is responsible for 2006 America's low interest rate, low unemployment, high income across the board, high GDP status.

Look; you're ignorant of the facts.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

the objective historian gets funnier all the time! congratulations for being the biggest ass i've encountered in ages, a person whose grasp of the facts is so shoddy that he/she thinks that reagan's post-'81 tax hikes were nominal and/or administrative, that there is a 5-10 year lag in economic policymaking having an impact, that people are poor exclusively because they fuck too much, and that anyone who notices these little discrepancies between reality and the objective historian's twisted view of same is a "debauched ingrate."

what a buffoon.

Posted by: howard on February 5, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

People are not poor because they fornicate; people cause poverty by fornicating irresonsibly. Subtlely but essentally different; I can see how you missed it.

Poverty is spread and maintained by procreation on the part of the poor; end of story. All other causes are minimal and marginal.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Reagan's '81 tax cut was epic and earth-shaking, revitalizing America to this day; Reagan's subsequent tax cuts '82-'86 were relatively nominal in terms of revenue generation keeping GDP constant. Fact.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

this is actually more fun that i would have thought - it's so rare to deal with who is simultaneously an arrogant shithead and a buffoon.

take this sentence, for instance: "Reagan's '81 tax cut was epic and earth-shaking, revitalizing America to this day; Reagan's subsequent tax cuts '82-'86 were relatively nominal in terms of revenue generation keeping GDP constant."

The clause before the semicolon is false; the clause after the semicolong has no actual meaning in the English language!

And then we get his/her translation of his/her own sentences! The sentences say this: "Povery will only end locally, nationally, and internationally when people who can't afford to have children stop having children by either fornicating responsibly or not at all. Right now, America's poor year-in and year-out are doing the opposite. THAT IS THE CAUSE OF INCREASED POVERTY, NOT THE GOP."

In short, according to the objective historian, the cause of poverty is fucking too much. "fornicating responsibly," in this context, has no meaning, since there are no 100% effective forms of birth control save abstinence, your alternative.

keep trying, objective: hell, even grover norquist got something right the other day....

Posted by: howard on February 5, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

sadly, i do have better things to do today than await the objective historian's latest sally into inanity, so i'll give him/her a break and simply quote bruce bartlett at him to correct one of his/her bigger blunders:

"Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2003/10/28/168618.html

There's a word for this, i know it will come to me, it's right there on the tip of my tongue.

oh yes: fact.

Posted by: howard on February 5, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

First, does anyone deny that poverty would end virtually overnight if poor people would just stop having children until they've learned income earning skills and saved enough to afford them? Anyone?

That they do not so refrain is THE CAUSE OF POVERTY.

---

VJ:

Moron-slap alert!

You wrote:

"Poverty declined in Clinton's term because of the Reagan boom"

The only Reagan "boom" was inside the heads of air-brained RightWingers. The inflation-adjusted wages of the vast overwhelming number of Americans went BACKWARDS by almost 20% during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

Some "boom".

---

After tax real incomes for the lowest 20%:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=458

That figure went from $11,800 1982 to $13,200 in 1993 to $15,400 in 1999 to $14,800 in 2003.

So, under Reagan and Bush REAL after-tax incomes for the lowest 20% rose 12%. In the Reagan era of 25% tax cuts beginning in 1982 and up to now (again notwithstanding Clinton infinitessimal 1993 1.5% tax increase) the REAL after-tax incomes are down from their Reagan caused highs of 1999, but still up 25%. 25%!

But the real point is you are WRONG.

REAL AFTER TAX INCOMES FOR THE POOREST 20% WENT UP 12% UNDER REAGAN/BUSH 41.

BOOM! And, economic boom proven.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Howard.

Those tax increases were largely policy driven, not revenue driven. And their cummulative effects were maybe 1-3% but were cancelled out by other tax cuts and by the tax reform act of 1986. Notice how all of the data you present refers to revenues, not overall percent increase.

At the end of the day, with all the give-and-take of legislative maneuvering, Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 by 25% and despite minor adjustments in either direction, that reduced tax LEVEL (HOWARD: TAX PERCENTAGE LEVEL, NOT REVENUE LEVEL) remained reduced.

Listen; knock yourselves out. You can spend your lives framing America by contorting the statistics.

This is the big picture.

1981, Reagan cuts taxes 25%.
1993, Clinton raises taxes 1.5%.
1983-2006 have been supply-side growth, trickle down to the lowest income quintile, boom years.

This was all Reagan's doing, including the boom that began under Bush 41 (4.2% in 1992) and ended with Clinton (2.2% and declining rapidly in 2000).

Sorry kids.

Listen, why don't you play your pretend games quietly and let us adults continue to run the economy and the world.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

VJ,

You are so sick; look at the Tax Policy Center's data (a liberal organization aligned with the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute).

All REAL after-tax wages were way up from '81-'92; and they have been way, way up since the from '81-'06. I admit, there has been a give back since '00 that is already showing signs of turning around. More importantly, individual's wages, which as I've stated before, are not measured by macroeconomic wage levels have been rising like rockets. When unemployment is 4.7% people with experience are promoted and rewarded. It's only the alcohol, narcotic, sex addicts, serial and irresponsbile procreators, and criminals who are missing out. But what can you do; freedom means freedom for them to be self-destructive and society-destructive. Sex, drugs, and the soundtrack of their lives, folks; that is what they are about. And Regressive-Democrats have subsidized them in their pursuits with whorish political power seeking devotion. Just stupendous.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

'TOH' posted:

"But the real point is you are WRONG. REAL AFTER TAX INCOMES FOR THE POOREST 20% WENT UP 12% UNDER REAGAN/BUSH 41. BOOM! And, economic boom proven."

You are incorrect, and you have only proven that you are ignorant of reality.

The 'Real Average Weekly Earnings' went BACKWARDS during Reagan's terms, as reported by:

The ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, Council of Economic Advisors, 1991 and 1992.

That's a Republican appointed Council of Economic Advisors, from a Republican White House.

Your glaring ignorance is on display for everyone to see.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 5, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Again, real in-kind and in-cash poverty is around 1-2% in 21st century America.

Can you imagine what it would be if poor people just lived with the sexual, alchololic, and narcotic restraint/abstinence of the 1950s? It would be negative; our poorest would have enough to donate to the world's poorest.

Poverty ends where poor people control their depravity. 70% non-marital births among the low-income, inner-city poor is the cause of poverty's increase (or lack of greater decrease) between '83-'06; not Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43.

Why don't you march into urban-blight America and protest their carelessness, ingratitude for benefits received, and promiscuity? Then we might make some headway.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

INCOME CHAMP, INCOME.

Er, uh, there are all kinds of income, ignorant one. Not just weekly earnings.

Real AFTER-TAX (another thing you choose to ignore) income went up 12% from '83 to '92. Whatever they earned, Reagan and Bush LET THEM KEEP MORE OF IT; it's called freedom.

BOOM!

You are beyond the normal range of ignorant. So, you're successful in this way anyway.

TOH

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

And,

That CEA item (which I'll presume you haven't read incorrectly for now) only counts weekly earnings; not all income which is the key.

But that is only the start of the inanity that the poor have suffered since 1981.

What about free housing, free food, free clothes, free education, free medical care, and free (i.e., the not contributed-to) enjoyment of American infrastructure (roads, libraries, etc.) and services (incl. cops and firemen) that poor people enjoy as imputed income. All of these have skyrocketed. Average government spending per person in NYC (city, state, and federal) is $15,000 per year. Tack that on to the income of the poor as an estimate of their imputed benefit just for breathing in the U.S.A.

The poor in America have had a windfall since '83. It's only the most self-interested and ungrateful derelicts, irresponsible procreators, and criminals who are poor and create more poverty. Take a walk through the trailer parks and the projects one day; see your "noble poor".

It is vitually impossible to be sober, celibate (or AT LEAST sexually and procreatively responsible), law-abiding and poor in 21st century America; virtually impossible. If you read books like the "Working Poor" and "The American Dream" even the people they are trying to lionize are all hyper-promiscuous, sexually and procreatively irresponsible, drunks, drug addicts, spendthrifts, and deliquents.

But the real question is, beyond income measurements, why is consumption way higher than reported incomes across the board? Er, uh, the vast majority of welfare recipients are either overtly manipulating the system to get multiple payouts or cheating the system by working also; derelicts, deliquents and criminals.

I'm ready to end poverty in America; let's stop it at it's source: the behavior of America's poor.

STATISICALLY, the hero of this century and last century is the American worker and taxpayer; the culprit, whatever metaphysical blame you wish to or wish not to place on them, is the American poor. You'd think with all they are given for free they'd at least hit the books and behave with decorous law-abiding gratitude. THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. Again take a walk through trailer parks and projects throughout the U.S.A.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, this is even more proof of your inanity; "weekly earnings" does not include welfare. HA!

Again, the bottom 20% of America had a glorious in-cash windfall in real after-tax income during Reagan and Bush 41. More, they had an even more glorious in-cash and in-kind windfall in real after-tax income under Reagan and Bush 41. More, thanks to Reagan, they've had increasingly greater and greater windfalls across the board since 1981.

You are done; go learn something besides how to frame America and convince yourself that the American solidier, worker, and taxpayer is anything but an angel for putting up with the ungrateful poor in their midsts. Go do something besides trying to find ways to delude yourself into believing the taxpayer is selfish and is the source of American poverty.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

And again,

Even the statistics you cling to don't even show what you want them to show.

Invidual worker's wages are personal and have grown exponentially year-in and year-out regardless of the aggregate wage levels.

Ha!

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

Howard's funny; so, the minor and behavior-manipulating tax increases Reagan periodically signed into law proves what? That instead of 25% across the board tax cut, he really only conducted a 24% tax cut that rescued America, poor, middle-income, and rich.

Point taken; but luckily W is here to continue Reagan's work with a 12% across the board tax cut in 2001.

1981: THE U.S.A.'S ANNUS MIRABILUS. Recognize!

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

VJ,

Thank you.

All these statistics from the Clinton years combined with the awareness that Clinton did only 3 things or relevance:

1) Raise taxes 1.5% overall in 1993 after Reagan cut them 25% overall in 1981.
2) Expand NAFTA.
3) Welfare Reform (a Reagan wish-list item),

serves to remind me of how much we have to be grateful to Reagan for, i.e., all of it 1983-2006.

Recognize!

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmmmm.

If the Reagan tax cuts of 25% in 1981 were a mistake, why didn't Clinton raise taxes 25% instead of 1.5%?

Er, uh, because the Reagan tax cuts caused the on-going boom. Duh.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Your economic ignorance knows no bounds.

Let's try a reality check:

If your failed RightWing economics of tax rate cuts is so good, please explain why wages of the vast majority of Americans has gone BACKWARDS each and every year of the past five years, Poverty has INCREASED each and every year of the past five years, there are less workers in the national workforce now than in 2000, and bankruptcies and home foreclosures are at record historic HIGHS ?

Two-thirds of the American people say the country is going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

You must be one of the nutballs in the RightWing one-third.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 5, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

I will explain all of it after noting that you cannot refute my facts from before because I was right.

The explanation is the the economic indicators are lower while the nation transitions to a different configuration so as to match our labor and capital to the demands of a changing marketplace. They will all rise shortly and eclipse overwhelmingly the small set backs since '00 (Clinton's last year being felated in the Oval Office).

The economic explanation for 1983 to the present - all of it - every last dollar of income increase and growth; again: Ronald Reagan.

The explanation for the low GOP poll numbers? They are hypothetical and not judged against an enunciated Democrat alternative.

Come '06 and '08, you'll see how it is FOR REAL, when some witless fool like Kucinich propose tax increases and kow-towing to dictators. You think that 2/3s will hold up? HA! 1/10th more like it.

Your only hope is psuedo-Republican like Clinton* (Mr. DLC NAFTA and Welfare Reform "triangulator") but in the age of the blogosphere I think that is hopeless, too. Maybe the previous Virginia governor can do it, but I doubt it.

TOH

* Practically speaking Clinton served us well; because of him the Democrats co-operated with Welfare Reform and NAFTA-Mexico. And you take pride in those '93-'00 years. He was our boy; as good as holding office when we did not have Congressional majorities or had weak Congressional majorities.

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 5, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

TOH, can you please teach the rest of us how to become as 'objective' as you?

Posted by: cq on February 5, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

TOH,

I knew you had no answer.

The RightWing can never explain why their failed economic policies don't work.
.

Posted by: VJ on February 5, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly