From the perspective of the upper 1% of income earners whose wealth accumulated quite disproportionately and inequitably, the Republican plan worked quite well. This is the group that will power via campaign donations the rise of a Republican resurgence.

This should be the lead story on every TV news show, along with the growth of earnings of the top 1% during this same period. THIS is the objective of our peculiar brand of American conservatism. Teabaggers, read it and weep.

What a terrific commercial this would make for Democrats in the 2010 elections. Any chance they'll use it?

"Teabaggers, read it and weep" - PS

Pat, you know if they do read it, they won't weep...they will just re-frame it...

Lou nails it. The result for the top 1% is exactly as planned. They care not for the masses, only themselves, and will continue to leverage ignorance and propaganda toward maintaining this reality. Neo-feudalism indeed.

Steve, I love you man, but your hack is showing a bit. It may be true that: "GOP policymakers inherited a sweet deal at the start of the decade," but the country also inherited Rubinomics, which had (and continues) to mask the true disaster of Reagan's reign. We must resist the temptation to paint the economic failures as strictly a partisan one.

The "1%" is, time and time again, able to convince the other 99% to vote against their own self interests.

Will the "Sleeping Giant" awaken? Pundits ponder and pontificate, while educators dispair. . .

Let's not kid ourselves that there's any economic policy we can come up with to fix this. America is an empire in decline; the situation as it was from 1945 to 1970 will never return.

Since 1970 (the same year US oil production peaked, oddly enough), relative decline has set in: inflation has become a constant problem, our currency is not linked to anything meaningful anymore, the national debt grows no matter who is in power, jobs and industries are moved overseas, and mindless consumption is what drives our economy.

The world has changed, and the US finds itself in the same position as Britain after WWI.

The guy who "lost" most of the last decade (the zilchies?) went by the name, George W Bush! To follow up on terraformer, the man who said of the "have mores" - "I call 'em by base" - yes indeed it was planned, and BushCo and his masters were the administrative node of that effort.
PS - Bush's Iraq incursion hurt our image and diverted resources from Afghanistan, such as making it easier for OBL to escape at Tora Bora. Maybe we can call him "terrorformer."

Its the outsourcing of jobs that's killing this country. It's the fatal cancer that's killing this country.

I heard a man call into the radio a few weeks ago. He worked for many years in auto manufacturing. When that job was lost to outsourcing he was told he needed to go to school and get educated in a field where the new jobs would come from. He went to school for computer sciences and found a job. Now that job has been outsourced to India. guess what he's being told? He needs to re-educate himself...blah, blah , blah. He said he's 55 years old. IF he could afford to go back to school again, what would he go for? How would he start over in another profesion at his age?

It's not just Republican policies...neither party will confront the problem of outsourcing because they're both up to their necks in it.

I work in an in-house advertising department. They're outsourcing our work to China...advertising! This country is being bled dry.

Okay, GOP. Reframe this:

Announcer: Out of a job? Want to know why? Ask the Republicans who controlled U.S. economic policy from 2000 until 2009. Ask them why, for the first time in American history, we have fewer jobs at the end of a decade than at the beginning. Ask them why middle income households made less in 2008 when adjusted for inflation than they did in 1999. Ask them why the net worth of American households has declined compared to every previous decade since the 1950s. Ask them why the wealthiest Americans, whom George W. Bush proudly called his "base," were the only ones who emerged better off at the end of the last decade than they were at the begining. Ask Republicans why the only solutions they're proposing to the economic disaster they created are more of the same? Then ask yourself this: if I care about my family, if I want to see my children do better than I have -- why in the world would I vote Republican?

The WaPost article ends with saying the financial crisis is over and employment will turn around in 2010. Do we believe this?

Saint Zac: I think there's an easy solution to wipe out most outsourcing, it just takes political will: disallow wages paid to non-US citizens (except for authorized guest workers) being deductible as a company expense for taxation. That would be a wrenching change so maybe we could adjust the details, but working on that angle in some regard could greatly retard outsourcing.

>Saint Zac: I think there's an easy solution to wipe out most outsourcing, it just takes political will: disallow wages paid to non-US citizens (except for authorized guest workers) being deductible as a company expense for taxation. That would be a wrenching change so maybe we could adjust the details, but working on that angle in some regard could greatly retard outsourcing.>Saint Zac: I think there's an easy solution to wipe out most outsourcing, it just takes political will: disallow wages paid to non-US citizens (except for authorized guest workers) being deductible as a company expense for taxation. That would be a wrenching change so maybe we could adjust the details, but working on that angle in some regard could greatly retard outsourcing.

The WTO will LOVE this suggestion...
Think again. Germany has no such law - and still exports more than any other nation worldwide.

The solution is not a trade war - but science and technology.

Campaign finance will fix this. Remove the incentive to turn a political career into a cash cow, and you'll find people running for office based in principles and convictions, and who represent their constituents - we the people - and not the corporations. See Alan Grayson. He does what he does because he is not worried about being re-elected.

Here something the WTO does allow: Tariffs to resolve a long standing trade deficit. They also allow action against currency manipulators (read: China).

Why doesn't the US push to use any of these tools? Ans: The multinationals that own our government lock stock and barrel are making too much money using wage, environmental, and working condition arbitrage to destroy the US middle class.

After all, "free trade" practiced in the neoliberal sense, is simply a way to get away with doing things you would be ashamed of (or that would be illegal) in your own home town. But since all the violations (labor leaders jailed, pollution poured unrestricted into the environment, machines with no safeguards, maimed workers thrown out into the streets) occur thousands of miles away, the happy WalMart shoppers buy, buy, and buy.

Neither of our two corporate-owned parties will lift a hand to stop it. I hate to say it, but a crazy like Lou Dobbs running on this issue as a third party candidate, could really activate the base of BOTH the democrats and pubs.

>"Campaign finance will fix this. Remove the incentive to turn a political career into a cash cow..."

Bingo. But how to change that? The system is corrupt and cannot change... the financial interests cannot let it.

It is as Eisenhour outlined in his final address. (read it if you haven't) Corporate and para-military funding are in firm control of the congress.

A half dozen-senators don't pass legislation.

Those policies failed spectacularly

Um, not so much. Those policies actually succeeded spectacularly. The Republicans did what they set out to do. They broke us.

The mission really was accomplished. If you don't like the results, that's because you weren't among the intended beneficiaries. And that is the fault of your parents, not the GOP.

"'There has been zero net job creation since December 1999,' the WaPo piece explained."

Um, no.

As is quite plainly illustrated by this chart:

Civilian Employment-to-Population Ratio

It wasn't until 2001 when the job market went over a cliff and never got back to the 2000 levels.

Heck of a job, Chimpy Bush !

(The MSM just likes the 1999 to 2009 as a decade meme. Nevermind that they're wrong.)

Joe, I think they meant just comparing from 1999-2009. Of course it could go up and down between markers; so another, sub-interval could show an increase. Note the need to be careful about intervals, since the anti-AGW "skeptics" use IIRC 1998-2008 or so, conveniently picking a previous hot year to compare to later - ignoring the overall recent trend.

Perhaps then going forward we ought not spend whatever (middle-class) household income left on the bone to fund quadruple expansion of government.

Just sayin'.

80s looked pretty good. Didn't know they were as good as the 90s. Always thought the 90s would have been better.

"Steve, I love you man, but your hack is showing a bit.

When discussing economics, almost all pundits go hacktacular.

Lots of more obvious social dynamics could explain that chart of job creation. How about women massively entering the workforce during the 1940's and WWII? This increase in labor participation among women (from 15% to nearly 60% of working age women) mean job creation has increased, at a decreasing rate, since then (as there is a ceiling to participation).

Massively increased numbers of available workers means pay can slowly fall, means all kinds of jobs can be created which were priced out previously. Many of these jobs are replacing work women used to do uncompensated.

Also, it's a graph of non-farm payroll, during a period of increased urbanization and leaving the farm life behind.

neil,

"Joe, I think they meant just comparing from 1999-2009."

Yes, which was my point.

They claimed that "There has been zero net job creation since December 1999".

The chart I posted proves they are wrong.

Tent,

"80s looked pretty good."

Only if you liked McJobs.

"Didn't know they were as good as the 90s."

It wasn't.

Not to mention, neither "household income" or "household net worth" are a measure of anything whatsoever.

So, why does Andrew Sullivan think he's a conservative? He hates the social agenda of conservatives and now he finally admits that the economic agenda is complete bollocks. Given that the US doesn't really have liberal and conservative foreign agendas, it appears that Mr. Sullivan is just profoundly confused.

1) one thing should be noted, the 2000's were the actual manifestation of the so-called "reagan revolution". In the 1980's, the republicans were considerably constrained in implementation of their disastrous plutocracy. Not so in the 2000's where republicans pretty much ran roughshod over everything unconstrained, just as reagan would have loved to do in the 1980's.

2) all these charts should be redone taking out the top 5% earners. The full depravity of republican rule in the 2000's and even since the 1980's would be all the more apparent without the upper wealthy.

I'm agreeing with the other comments (and disagreeing with Steve) who note that the culprit of the net zero job growth phenomenon has more to do with the fact that the U.S. is an empire in decline, as were the Brits, post WW-II.

This will be the hard fact on the ground, no matter the political party in power.

The good old days, as we like to refer to our economic supremacy in the post war era, are gone for good.

The rising economic powerhouses and growth engines are in the East---China, India, et al. The sooner we can deal with that, the better. Our living standards will take a hit and go down a few notches as will our spending power.

I think that during this next decade, we'll resemble Great Britain during their stagnant 1970's era.

Bush inherited a dot com bubble that was bursting even as he sworn in. This was going to cause a deficit due to lack of revenue.

He didn't get a sweet deal.

That said, it probably wasn't the best time to implement an optional Iraq war and a flawed prescription drug plan for Medicare.

To be charitable, Bush got lemons, and made... sewage.

Obama is getting that sewage and I'm pulling for him to be the waste treatment plant our country needs.