10 Reasons to vote GOP

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Analysis: Ten Good Reasons to Vote GOP

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006


If the polls are to be believed, the Republicans who control the White House and Congress are in trouble.

Their problem?

People vote their pocketbooks, or wallets, the old adage goes.

But the economy is booming. Even gasoline prices have plummeted. Unemployment, the bogeyman of politicians, has shrunken to a record low point.

As for the security matter, since 9/11, the worst attack on American soil since the Civil War, the United States has been free of any significant terrorist attack. None. Zippo. Zilch.

If Americans do vote the GOP out of either House of Congress, many of these accomplishments are threatened.

Should Democrats get control of the House of Representatives, they have already promised that one of the Republican initiatives that made all these things possible will be rolled back.

Higher taxes -- and with it, economic recession and more unemployment.

The Democrats will also signal the terrorists a "victory" for their side with a push for a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Remember, the Congress, not the president, funds our troops abroad. A Democratic Congress will most assuredly withhold funding unless Bush relents.

The list of Republican accomplishments is both long and real, and provides the platform upon which even greater results will be built under a Republican Congress and White House.

For sure, the GOP has had its share of shortcomings. The economy could be doing better. The deficit could be smaller. The postwar plans in Iraq could have been better implemented.

If anything, the Republicans are facing a message deficit. The liberal media establishment is just not letting them tell their story to the American people.

Here are 10 good reasons why you should vote Republican come election day. You won't hear about them on ABCCBSNBC News.

Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.

Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.

Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.

Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.

Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.

Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.

Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program.

Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices.

Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working.

In contrast to this stunning record of real achievement, the Democrats offer no real plans for the way they want to improve America or make us safer.

Instead, issues like the Mark Foley scandal have been used to smokescreen their own lack of ideas in a public debate.

The choice voters will make is whether they want higher taxes and less security by surrendering the tools used to combat terrorism or lower taxes and the continued use of tools like the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, terrorist interrogations and missile defense.

Consider what leading Democrats are promising if they gain control of Congress.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who would lead the House tax-writing committee if Democrats win in November, said he "cannot think of one" tax cut he would renew. That agenda would result in $2.4 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years.

If Democrats take majorities in the House and Senate, the average family of four can expect to pay an average of $2,000 more in taxes.

The leader of House Democrats and the woman who would be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after 9/11 that she "doesn't really consider ourselves at war ... we're in a struggle against terrorism."

By opposing the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance missile defense and even interrogating the most dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield, Democrats are in direct opposition to the vital tools we use to fight terrorism.

Many Democrats, including the prospective House Ways and Means chairman, favor cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.

Democratic leaders have made it clear that they see investigations and impeachment as viable options should they take control of Congress. They are therefore promising to tie the hands of the president and his administration in the middle of a war.

Democrats want to reverse the president's economic policies that have led to a historically strong economy.

Enough said.
 
fossten said:
Even gasoline prices have plummeted.


From where?


They are currently $2.19 a gallon in the US, according to GasBuddy.

In 2004 they were around $1.50. In 1999 they were around 1.25.

How have they plummeted?

Unemployment at a record low? Please.. Record for who?

21664414.gif



The number of unemployed persons (6.9 million) and the unemployment rate
(4.6 percent) were essentially unchanged in September. Thus far in 2006, the jobless rate has ranged from 4.6 to 4.8 percent.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
LOL Joey, you really should leave this kind of stuff to professionals.

You do realize that you are using a graph that ends in 2004, right? How is that supposed to do anything but show what ISN'T HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?

:lol:

Furthermore, by any measure, a drop of 65 cents in less than three months would be considered a plummet. If the cost of gas WENT UP by 25% in the last three months, you'd be screaming bloody murder, wouldn't you?
 
fossten said:
LOL Joey, you really should leave this kind of stuff to professionals.

You do realize that you are using a graph that ends in 2004, right? How is that supposed to do anything but show what ISN'T HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?

:lol:

Furthermore, by any measure, a drop of 65 cents in less than three months would be considered a plummet. If the cost of gas WENT UP by 25% in the last three months, you'd be screaming bloody murder, wouldn't you?

Open mouth, insert foot. :slam You missed this:

The number of unemployed persons (6.9 million) and the unemployment rate
(4.6 percent) were essentially unchanged in September. Thus far in 2006, the jobless rate has ranged from 4.6 to 4.8 percent.

A quick review of the graph proves that 4.6% is NOT a "record low unemployment rate" as touted by you RWWs. Like Joey suggested, 4.6% may be "a record low"........ for GW BuSh. When unemployment dips under 4%, you may comence your "celebration". But until then, STFU.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Open mouth, insert foot. :slam You missed this:



A quick review of the graph proves that 4.6% is NOT a "record low unemployment rate" as touted by you RWWs. Like Joey suggested, 4.6% may be "a record low"........ for GW BuSh. When unemployment dips under 4%, you may comence your "celebration". But until then, STFU.

And YOU missed this:

Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Nowhere in the article does it say that unemployment is at a "record low." Nice try, Johnny and Joey, but your straw man won't work.

While we're on the subject, I notice that neither of you have bothered to rebut the other NINE reasons to vote for the GOP, nor have you bothered to refute the editorial at the end explaining why it's such a BAD idea to vote for the Jackass Party.

So let's recap:

I post an article.
You post a phony straw man rebuttal of one tiny aspect of one point out of ten.

You claim to have *owned* me on that.

Typical liberal thinking: A defeat is a moral victory, just like Paul Hackett, right?

I guess maybe both of you should STFU. At least I know who the actual Plame leaker was. :rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
And YOU missed this:

Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Nowhere in the article does it say that unemployment is at a "record low." Nice try, Johnny and Joey, but your straw man won't work.

While we're on the subject, I notice that neither of you have bothered to rebut the other NINE reasons to vote for the GOP, nor have you bothered to refute the editorial at the end explaining why it's such a BAD idea to vote for the Jackass Party.

"Almost nil", WTF does that mean? 4.6% is "almost nil"?? BS. The ONLY trend stats (read: hard numbers) posted by your "article" was "jobless claims fell to the lowest level in 10 weeks". 10 weeks?? BFD, so they are on a down trend for the last 10 weeks. Whoopee!! Who GIVES A CRAP about the last 10 WEEKS?? Also, it's been claimed many times by the RWWs here (not necessisarily you) that unemployment is at "record lows", which is BS. And Joey proved that.

As far as the other nine items, there are merely unsubstantiated, overinflated claims that have been debunked many times. It's easy to build an argument around distorted perspectives, but you lack the intelectual honesty to consider the BIG PICTURE. I'm not wasting more of my time .......... unless you really DO like the abuse.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
"Almost nil", WTF does that mean? 4.6% is "almost nil"?? BS. The ONLY trend stats (read: hard numbers) posted by your "article" was "jobless claims fell to the lowest level in 10 weeks". 10 weeks?? BFD, so they are on a down trend for the last 10 weeks. Whoopee!! Who GIVES A CRAP about the last 10 WEEKS?? Also, it's been claimed many times by the RWWs here (not necessisarily you) that unemployment is at "record lows", which is BS. And Joey proved that.

As far as the other nine items, there are merely unsubstantiated, overinflated claims that have been debunked many times. It's easy to build an argument around distorted perspectives, but you lack the intelectual honesty to consider the BIG PICTURE. I'm not wasting more of my time .......... unless you really DO like the abuse.

Blah blah blah...rant rant rant...

You CAN'T refute the claims, Johnny, because they are FACTS. And we all know that you get YOUR information from treehuggingpussy.org anyway.

The only time you waste is everyone else's. But run home to mommy if you must. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not going to get into join the fray here, but I would like to add, let's not pretend that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is an unbiased sourced. It's not. It's a liberal organization formed in the 80s.

And, seemingly like all these liberal groups, they seem to try to deny their affiliations and ideology, and pass themself of as neutral.

Now this doesn't mean you can dismiss their data, or their very strong opinions. But you should at least know where the source is coming from.


EDIT: THE BOARD IS FLIPPING OUT. FOR SOME REASON THIS POST IS NOW SHOWN BEFORE JOHNNY'S...
 
This is pearls before swine, but here goes.......

fossten said:
Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.

This is all BS: http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm All BuSh's tax cuts have done was give an artifical, short term (debateable) "boost" in a weak attempt to make BuSh look good at the expense of our kids having to pay off huge national debt years from now. The economy is barely getting back to where it was 5 years ago, while wages have been falling behind inflation since Dec '03. The PRIMARY benefactor of any "goodness" of the BuSh economy are corprorations, and NOTHING has "trickled down" to the worker bee.

fossten said:
Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Wishful mental masturbation of the GOP: http://www.cbpp.org/10-27-06inc-stmt.htm and http://www.cbpp.org/10-6-06inc.htm, Joey's and my posts above all debunk this crap.

Today's announcement of a marked slowdown in recent growth follows upon Labor Department figures issued earlier this month showing that job growth has slowed significantly in 2006. These figures contribute to the mounting evidence that the economy has performed relatively poorly during the current recovery. The economy always recovers after a recession, regardless of the policies pursued. But this recovery has been unusual in that economic growth and investment growth are both below the average for recoveries since World War II. And job growth and wage and salary growth are far below average, with the income of the typical non-elderly household failing even to keep pace with inflation.


fossten said:
Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.

More distorted "facts" from the GOP: http://www.cbpp.org/10-5-06bud.htm Again, the GOP selectively ignores the inflation factor to make themselves look better than they actually ARE. Sure, a high DJIA is great........... if you've got large investments in the stock market. The average Joe American however doesn't, therefore the primary benefactors are the wealthy.

fossten said:
Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.

This is a WHOPPER of a deceptive LIE: http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/28/news/economy/real_wages/ Since Dec '03 wage increases have fallen behind inflation. The only people who's wages have outpaced inflation are the wealthy (CEOs, corporations, execs, etc), not anyone in the middle class. Also see chart below to see how Mr. Joe Average American is NOT getting ahead, but is indeed falling behind each year BuSh and the GOP are in power.

fossten said:
Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.

This blatent LIE has already been debunked by Joey in the post above.

fossten said:
Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.

Yeah, we can't count the attack on the US embassy in Syria on 9/12/06, or the daily attacks on US soldiers (are they NOT an US interest??) in Iraq now can we? That'd be too intellectually honest, yet hypocritical for shrubbies, considering they always count each and every attack on non-US-soil foreign interests in the '90s against Clinton. :rolleyes:

fossten said:
Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.

More BS twisted LIES: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=PRS85006092&data_tool="EaG" Productivity since GW BuSh has been in office is about the same as it's always been over the last 30 years.

I'll get to the last 3 soon.

*owned*
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
This is pearls before swine, but here goes.......
This is all BS: http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm All BuSh's tax cuts have done was give an artifical, short term (debateable) "boost" in a weak attempt to make BuSh look good at the expense of our kids having to pay off huge national debt years from now. The economy is barely getting back to where it was 5 years ago, while wages have been falling behind inflation since Dec '03. The PRIMARY benefactor of any "goodness" of the BuSh economy are corprorations, and NOTHING has "trickled down" to the worker bee.
Well, the unemployment rate is down to 4.4% in October (the best in 5 years). And the debt fell substantially as well. The democrats are banging their heads against the wall about now, furious about the good news. I'm sure they are wishing the elections were being held today because if there is anymore good news about the economy they're chances of winning will evaporate.

To say that President Bush's tax cuts are only responsible for a "debateable" (sic) boost to the economy, is ridiculous. I'm curious, however, if the tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy, what did? Certainly, not democrat obstructionist tactics and complaining.
 
MAC1 said:
Well, the unemployment rate is down to 4.4% in October (the best in 5 years). And the debt fell substantially as well. The democrats are banging their heads against the wall about now, furious about the good news. I'm sure they are wishing the elections were being held today because if there is anymore good news about the economy they're chances of winning will evaporate.

<whiney voice> "the best in 5 years, wahh wahh wahhh"

LOOK at the FACTS posted above in Joey's post. When unemployment falls under 4% (like it LAST WAS in late 2000), then you can begin whacking off in glee. Otherwise, your "celebration of great news" is based on slanted "evidence". And the DEBT did not fall at all, it continued to grow, but at a slower rate than the White-House had been predicting (and there's ample proof that these predictions were way over estimated as well, in order to make GW look good when he "beat" them). More GOP distortion.

MAC1 said:
To say that President Bush's tax cuts are only responsible for a "debateable" (sic) boost to the economy, is ridiculous. I'm curious, however, if the tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy, what did? Certainly, not democrat obstructionist tactics and complaining.

You missed this.......

The economy always recovers after a recession, regardless of the policies pursued. But this recovery has been unusual in that economic growth and investment growth are both below the average for recoveries since World War II. And job growth and wage and salary growth are far below average, with the income of the typical non-elderly household failing even to keep pace with inflation.

Do you actually believe that the POWERFUL US ECONOMY would "remain down" and need BuSh's help following a short recession period? LOL, that's a good one. Ask yourself, what is the REAL COST of BuSh's tax cuts, because your children will end up paying the price tenfold. You better start planning on it.
 
Fact Sheet:

1. More Than 6.8 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003

On November 3, 2006, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 92,000 Jobs Created In October. The unemployment rate decreased to 4.4 percent, the lowest rate since May 2001. Payrolls have now increased 470,000 over the past 3 months and more than 1.9 million over the past 12 months. Since August 2003, more than 6.8 million jobs have been created - more jobs than all the other major industrialized countries combined. Our economy has now added jobs for 38 straight months.

2. The American Economy Remains Strong And Continues To Grow


* Real Wages Grew 2.4 Percent Over The Past 12 Months. This means an extra $755 for the average full-time production worker or about $1,327 for the typical family of four with two wage earners.

* Real After-Tax Income Per Person Has Risen By 9.8 Percent – $2,660 – Since The President Took Office.

* Our Economy Has Grown A Solid 2.9 Percent Over The Past Four Quarters – Faster Than Any Other Major Industrialized Country.

* Productivity Has Grown At An Annual Rate Of 3 Percent Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Up From A 2.4 Percent Annual Rate During The Preceding Five Years.

* Gas Prices Have Fallen Almost 82 Cents A Gallon Since Early August.

* Employment Has Increased In All But One State Over The Past 12 Months Ending In September.

3. The Economic Outlook Remains Positive

The President's Tax Cuts Have Helped Our Economy Grow Faster Than Any Other Major Developed Nation. President Bush worked with Congress to cut taxes for everyone who pays income taxes, double the child tax credit, reduce the marriage penalty, substantially cut taxes on small businesses, cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to encourage investment and jobs, and put the death tax on the road to extinction. To keep our economy growing, the President and Republicans in Congress want to make these tax cuts permanent, leaving more money in the hands of American workers, families, and businesses.

Recent Paycheck Growth Increases Have Been Larger Than Those In The 1990s Economic Expansion, Compared Either Over The Past Year Or For The Entire Business Cycle. Real hourly wages for production and non-supervisory workers have increased 2.4 percent in the past 12 months, and broader measures, such as disposable income per capita and hourly compensation, show even larger increases. Falling energy prices helped boost real wages by 1.0 percent in September alone – the largest increase in more than 30 years.

The Deficit Has Been Cut In Half Three Years Ahead Of Schedule. A strong economy has led to historic revenue growth. FY05 revenues were the largest in history, and the FY06 budget deficit was $248 billion, down from an original February projection of $423 billion and lower than 18 of the last 25 years as a percentage of our economy.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
This is pearls before swine, but here goes.......
This is a WHOPPER of a deceptive LIE: http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/28/news/economy/real_wages/ Since Dec '03 wage increases have fallen behind inflation. The only people who's wages have outpaced inflation are the wealthy (CEOs, corporations, execs, etc), not anyone in the middle class. Also see chart below to see how Mr. Joe Average American is NOT getting ahead, but is indeed falling behind each year BuSh and the GOP are in power.
September 9, 2006

Statistical Politics

by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow and a nationally syndicated columnist.

I propose this new addition to my growing list of Reynolds' Laws: "The closer we get to elections, the worse economic reporting becomes."

Consider the recent Page One story in the New York Times, "Real wages fail to match a rise in productivity" by Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt. It began by claiming: "The current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers. The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity -- has risen steadily over the same period."

The authors seem confused. The current expansion began in late 2001 and is not over, so whatever happened after hourly wages "peaked in early 2003" or "since last summer" tells us next to nothing about whether there will be an increase in real wages and benefits over the whole cycle.

The suggestion that every previous expansion offered "a prolonged increase in real wages" contradicts Mr. Leonhardt's thesis in last year's "Class Matters" series. His lead article, co-authored with Janny Scott on May 15, 2005, said, "For most workers, the only time in the last three decades when the rise in hourly pay beat inflation was during the speculative bubble of the 1990s." In this week's update, we are instead told that "for most of the last century, wages and productivity -- have risen together."

The title's comparison of productivity to wages makes sense only if benefits are worthless to workers and free to employers. If productivity grew faster than total compensation, unit labor costs would be falling. Yet unit labor costs rose 3.2 percent over the last year, and real hourly compensation rose 1.7 percent.

Nonfarm business productivity rose 3 percent in 2004, and hourly compensation 3.6 percent; productivity rose by 2.3 percent in 2005, and hourly compensation rose 4.4 percent; productivity rose 2.7 percent in the first half of 2006, and hourly compensation rose by 6.2 percent. The headline should have read, "Productivity fails to match rise in worker compensation."

The article ignores recent facts, but compares last year with the previous cycle's peak. "Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent, according to Labor Department statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal research group."

Analyze this: The year 2000 was the peak of a nine-year expansion that was feeble during President Clinton's first term, when real compensation fell in 1993, 1994 and 1995 and rose less than 1 percent in 1996. Yet this week's New York Times complaint is that total compensation rose "only" 1.4 percent a year since the cyclical peak of 2000? How dumb do they think we are? How dumb do we know they are?

If benefits are ignored, "median weekly earnings" have not kept up with inflation lately (there is no official "median hourly wage"). The reason, which the authors discard too quickly, is that "nominal wages have accelerated in the last year, but the spike in oil costs has eaten up the gains." Yet Mr. Greenhouse and Mr. Leonhardt quickly pass over that nonpartisan, global issue in favor of the irrelevant old policy wish list of "economists" -- meaning the EPI-AFL-CIO.

"Economists offer various reasons for the stagnation of wages. Although the economy continues to add jobs, global trade, immigration, layoffs and technology -- appear to have eroded workers' bargaining power. Trade unions are much weaker than they once were, while the buying power of the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. -- Together, these forces have caused a growing share of the economy to go to companies instead of workers' paychecks. In the first quarter of 2006, wages and salaries represented 45 percent of gross domestic product, down from almost 50 percent in the first quarter of 2001."

Mr. Leonhardt studied math, so it must have been painful for him to conjure up a Marxian contest between 45.3 percent for wages and 10.3 percent for profits when that obviously leaves 44.4 percent of gross domestic product unaccounted for. The missing 44.4 percent is nearly as big as wages, and nearly 4 times larger than before-tax profits, so why aren't workers fighting for more of that 44.4 percent? They are, to some extent, since a fraction of that missing 44.4 percent is benefits. The authors admit "total employee compensation... was briefly lower than its current level of 56.1 percent in the mid-1990s."

Yet more than a third of GDP is still missing, which is why serious economists never compare labor's income shares to "gross" domestic product. GDP includes big items that are not any American's income -- notably, depreciation for wear and tear on everything from computers to highways.

The sensible practice is to examine labor compensation as a share of national income. Then, it turns out that "labor's share of income has averaged 70? percent [of national income] over the past 50 years and has remained within a narrow range of that average," according to the St. Louis Fed.

Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon likewise found that, "contrary to the widespread impression that labor's share has been squeezed, there was no change in labor's share from 1996:Q3 to 2005:Q1.... Labor's income share ... fluctuated around a mean of 71.2 percent between early 1984 and early 2005."

The article quotes myopic economists at Goldman Sachs saying, "The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor's share of national income." Five years ago was 2001. Labor's share of national income is always highest in recessions because profits are lousy (and lousy profits produce recessions).

The contradictory New York Times articles of May 2005 and last month seem to view economic nonfacts as malleable political propaganda. The latest piece says: "Political analysts are divided over how much the wage trends will help Democrats this fall in their effort to take control of the House and, in a bigger stretch, the Senate. Some see parallels to watershed political years like 1980, 1992 and 1994, when wage growth fell behind inflation, party alignments shifted and dozens of incumbents were thrown out of office."

Perhaps so. With any luck, dozens of incumbents from both parties will be thrown out. Meanwhile, major newspapers might try being just a bit less partisan with the numbers, or at least less conspicuously uninformed.
 
MAC1 said:
Fact Sheet
...

Wow Mac, you did a great job pasting that from the White House web page. Nice job with the colors and formatting too.

I have a question: Why are they touting the price of gas, implying that Bush had something to do with it? Why was it that when prices were three bucks a gallon, all we heard was that Bush had no control over gas prices and it was just market forces at work?
 
I may yet post a separate topic on this, but one thing NO ONE wants to talk about when it comes to the economy is consumer debt. Americans owe more than TWO TRILLION DOLLARS, and that's not including home mortgages. When you include mortgages, the total goes beyond TEN TRILLION DOLLARS. It has risen 100 percent in a decade. Meanwhile, the personal savings rate has fallen below zero for the first time since the Great Depression.

Unlike most everyone else around here, I don't pretend to be an economist. But from what I can make of it, it certainly seems that we are on a path to ruin. Years of low interest rates and the nearly criminal laxness of lenders who gave money away like candy has put us in a situation that cannot be sustained. The average consumer now owes more money than he makes, so people borrow more still to keep their heads above water.

Consumer spending is, by far, the primary engine of our economy. It's where you get those rosey numbers. But this economy has been built on a mountain of debt. Tax cuts may give us a short reprieve from the oncoming disaster, but unless wages increase dramatically, the day will soon come when consumers finally hit a brick wall and find it is impossible to keep up with their obligations. Defaults will skyrocket, which will lead to housing glut, causing that market to collapse as well.

Not to be Mr. Doom and Gloom, but that's the way I see it. Like I said, I'm no expert, and I hope I'm wrong.

Just to be clear, I'm not pinning the blame for this on Bush. But I do believe that the pretty pictures we're being fed are based on an economy that has been artificially inflated with the short-term in mind, and that it cannot possibly be sustained for much longer. The Fed Chairman seems to be aware of it. I assume Bush is too, or at least his handlers are. The banks sure as hell are. They got their bankruptcy "reform" law passed in the nick of time, making it physically impossible for people get out of of loans that they never should have been given in the first place.

I believe this also explains the dreary attitude that most average folks have about the economy despite all the rosey pictures they're shown. They look at that 2.4 percent wage growth, then compare it to their twenty percent APR credit card bill and wonder if they'll even have it paid off before they die.
 
TommyB said:
Wow Mac, you did a great job pasting that from the White House web page. Nice job with the colors and formatting too.
I have a question: Why are they touting the price of gas, implying that Bush had something to do with it? Why was it that when prices were three bucks a gallon, all we heard was that Bush had no control over gas prices and it was just market forces at work?
Great Comment -- Your disdain for President Bush is obvious, but what about the facts?

It's understandable the President would comment about lower energy prices since democrats made such a big deal about it. What's the matter, you don't like it when the President rubs liberal complainer noses in their own crap.
 
TommyB said:
I may yet post a separate topic on this, but one thing NO ONE wants to talk about when it comes to the economy is consumer debt. Americans owe more than TWO TRILLION DOLLARS, and that's not including home mortgages. When you include mortgages, the total goes beyond TEN TRILLION DOLLARS. It has risen 100 percent in a decade. Meanwhile, the personal savings rate has fallen below zero for the first time since the Great Depression.
Out of control personal debt has to do with lack of personal financial responsibility. If the average American has about $9,000 in credit card debt—Who’s fault is that? I know liberals would love to pin it all on the republicans and President Bush. And I suppose its President Bush’s fault that many Americans purchased a home whey above what they could reasonably afford.

Why do you think congress amended the bankruptcy code? In order to make it more difficult for debtors to shrug off credit card debt by filing bankruptcy. In other words, to force consumer debtors to be more responsible for they’re own financial decisions.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
This is pearls before swine, but here goes.......
This is all BS: http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm All BuSh's tax cuts have done was give an artifical, short term (debateable) "boost" in a weak attempt to make BuSh look good at the expense of our kids having to pay off huge national debt years from now. The economy is barely getting back to where it was 5 years ago, while wages have been falling behind inflation since Dec '03. The PRIMARY benefactor of any "goodness" of the BuSh economy are corprorations, and NOTHING has "trickled down" to the worker bee.
The Clinton economy was stumbling during 1993 and 1994. Then republicans won control of congress with a 54-seat swing from democrat to republican, mainly as a result of their promise to be fiscally responsible and to curb taxes as codified in Newt Gingrich’s so-called Contract with America. When the republicans took control of the House it was the first time in 40 years that they had a majority. Through the leadership of Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America the republicans: 1) pushed for a balanced budget, 2) passed capital gains tax cuts and 3) curbed spending.

Almost immediately the economy improved. By 1995, the economy was gaining strength and job creation was on the rise. Moreover, the stock market began to dramatically improve.

I know that you like to hold the Clinton economy out as the template for all economies. However, thanks to the capital gains tax cuts and curbing of out of control spending Clinton has at least one thing he can look back on with a sense of achievement. It was the republicans, however, that pushed for a balance budget by curbing spending to match revenue. Though, we know now that the Stock Market was merely a bubble waiting to burst due to corporate over borrowing and scandal, nevertheless, the Clinton economy beginning in the mid-90s came only after the republicans took control of the House and by popular mandate made good on their promises.

Let me reiterate what I said previously in this thread—As long as there is out of control spending it will be extremely difficult to impossible for any president to do what President Clinton did, which was balance the budget. President Clinton does deserve credit. However, let’s be honest with dulling-out that credit and not make it disingenuously one-sided. In other words, your model Clinton economy had at least as much to do with the republicans as it did with Bill Clinton and the democrats.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top