Bush - Obama economic downturn
- Thread starter taylor414ce2003
- Start date
Unless you can provide something resembling a specific example of HOW Bush ran the economy into the ground.
You can't. The economic troubles we're experiencing now are a mix of cyclical and the result of bad congressional policy.
But since you want to focus on the bad economy right now, are you willing to acknowledge that other 7 years of good economy before it?
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so.
Last edited by a moderator:
The economy has been getting worse for some time. It just got really bad this year.
And I blame everyone, Congress (both dem and republican), Bush, his administration, everyone.
No need to call people names Calabrio.
And I blame everyone, Congress (both dem and republican), Bush, his administration, everyone.
No need to call people names Calabrio.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I know median income has actually decreased these last 7 years - from 48,000 to 47,000 - not great for the average worker.
But, what scared me most about Bush was that while tax revenue has increased 10% during the first 6 years of his administrations (2001-2007 - during this time there was also a Rep majority in the house and senate) his spending increased 25% - This is pretty consistent though with Republican administrations. There is sort of this myth that Dems Tax and Spend - they do tax - but they don't spend like the Republicans. Maybe they understand that simple concept - don't spend more than you make - that eventually hurts us.
Now, however, to get out of this mess - we probably will see spending like we haven't seen since the 30s. I find it odd that when times are good - like during the clinton years - usually the Republicans claim credit because they held the hill. But, it seems difficult for them to take at least a good size portion of the blame for our current problems, even though for 6 years they held the white house and the hill. You have to remember - that the Dems haven't held the hill for even 2 years. Before that the Republicans held the hill for 12 years - there were a lot of bills and laws that were passed during that 12 years that are effecting us now. Economic cycles are pretty slow - and I think we are now starting to see the effect of 12 years of a Republican House and Senate.
But, what scared me most about Bush was that while tax revenue has increased 10% during the first 6 years of his administrations (2001-2007 - during this time there was also a Rep majority in the house and senate) his spending increased 25% - This is pretty consistent though with Republican administrations. There is sort of this myth that Dems Tax and Spend - they do tax - but they don't spend like the Republicans. Maybe they understand that simple concept - don't spend more than you make - that eventually hurts us.
Now, however, to get out of this mess - we probably will see spending like we haven't seen since the 30s. I find it odd that when times are good - like during the clinton years - usually the Republicans claim credit because they held the hill. But, it seems difficult for them to take at least a good size portion of the blame for our current problems, even though for 6 years they held the white house and the hill. You have to remember - that the Dems haven't held the hill for even 2 years. Before that the Republicans held the hill for 12 years - there were a lot of bills and laws that were passed during that 12 years that are effecting us now. Economic cycles are pretty slow - and I think we are now starting to see the effect of 12 years of a Republican House and Senate.
This fact is meaningless without context. Also, a link to the info would be nice, I frankly don't trust your interpretation and want to check it out for myself...
You are drawing an overly broad conclusion that in no way follows the premise you set. Yes spending has increased under Bush and that can be tied to the republicans in the legislature during the first 6 years of his administration, but everthing you say after that is nothing but speculation mascarading as fact or logical observations.
Spending increases with Republican adminsitrations...that has very little (if anything) to do with the republican administration and everything to do with the legislature. They are the ones who control the purse strings, not the president. He proposes a budget, and that is it. Tip O'Neil was quoted as saying that most all of Reagan's proposed budgets were DOA on arrival to the legislature.
And to say that spending increases more under republican administrations then under democrat ones...are smoking crack?! That is patently absurd!
You can probably say that under Clinton spending didn't increase as much as under republican administrations of the last 50 years or so, but that is only one democrat, and the republican's were in control of both houses for most of his administration.
I would like to see you prove that spending on average under democrat administrations didn't increase as much as under republican administrations. LBJ? Carter? spending didn't increase under them? Where are you getting your numbers? are they nominal or real numbers? The chart you cite is not very clear, it needs to be put in context. It looks awful deceptive...
Either way, that in no way disproves the notion that democrats are the party of tax and spend. You need to look at what party is in control of the legislature. To say that the president and his party is somehow responsible for increased spending while neglecting to mention the legislature is either extremely ignorant or willfully deceptive.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Not to mention the elephant in the room - Obama's proposed MASSIVE spending increases.
as opposed to bush's on his way out. and plus the war that was a cost during his office. (and will be for obama) because it's after the election, i;m sure the republicans will turn and blame obama in the future for bush's bailout's as he leaves office.
Spending on the war was justified. The bailout is questionable at best, and the vast majority of domestic spending is not justifiable and wasteful (EPA, welfare state, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. etc.).
An no conservative on this forum has defended Bush's huge increases in spending, we may defend specific programs (which are pretty consistent across the board), but as a whole, no conservative is defending Bush's spending policies. And we try and put the blame where it is due; in large part on Bush, but mostly on the legislature (under republican control and under democrat control at different times).
Don't try and claim some sort of double standard when it is obvious that their is none. It is unbecoming...
Well, Shag - I was a little bit off - I was just vaguely remembering something I had read... but I was certainly close - and I did find the article I had read late this summer.
Economic Policy Institute
Article - "Income Picture"
Look at Figure 2 - Real median household income 2000-07 decreased by $2,000
2000 - $58, 555
2007 - $56,656
(sorry - got 48 & 47 instead of 58 and 56, but I got the concept right)
And poverty grew - The poverty rate grew from 11.3% to 12.5%. During the seven-year cycle, the poverty rate declined significantly in only one year (2006). In contrast, poverty rates fell significantly in the 1990s.
And from the US Senate - (I found this while searching for my article)
Modest recent growth in typical household’s income has not been enough to reverse a seven-year decline. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income grew a modest 1.3 percent to $50,233 in 2007. However, the modest income growth in the last three years has not been sufficient to reverse the four years of income losses from 2000 to 2004. (And this doesn't take into account this year - no doubt it will go down even more).
Last year, median household income remained 0.6 percent ($324 in 2007 prices) below its level in 2000. By contrast, during the Clinton Administration (1992-2000), median household income rose by 14.0 percent ($6,198 in 2007 prices)
Crack certainly has never, ever been my drug of choice.. blick...
And although Congress does approve the budget - the proposed Budget comes from the White House, and is signed off by the President. The most fair comparison? Let's just compare the years where the White House, Senate and House were controlled by the same party, and just use discretionary outlays (removing spending that is set by law - like Medicare) i.e. the spending that the White House and the Hill have control over. This would get rid of the whole 'its the President's fault, no its Congress's fault' argument, OK shag? Because I think when there is a split in the parties between the house and the hill it is very hard to lay blame (or take credit for the good). Often (as during the Reagan years) the congress agreed with most of the president's budget with few changes. Or there is so much animosity - that both sides end up adding so much that it is sort of 'well, if you want that, you have to give me this' spending sprees on both sides.
Top spenders
from Cato
The increase in discretionary spending—that is, all non entitlement programs—in Bush’s first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire two terms (21.6 percent), and just higher than
Lyndon Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3 percent).
GWBush - 2001 - 2005 - 8 percent increase in Annualized Real Growth in Discretionary Spending
LBJ - 1964 - 1969 - 4.6%
Carter - 1976 to 1980 - 2.4%
Bush and his Republican congress/senate increased spending more than LBJ and his Democrat congress/senate. Johnson was long considered 'top of he heap' when it came to increases in discretionary spending - Maybe it is a Texan thing...
The Stock Market numbers are interesting too...
Gains (%) for Stocks by Party of the President and Majority Party in Congress
03/04/1901–10/23/2006
Democratic President 7.19%
Republican President 3.85%
Democratic Congress 6.46%
Republican Congress 3.51%
Dem Pres, Dem Cong 6.53%
Dem Pres, Rep Cong 9.60%
Rep Pres, Rep Cong 1.54%
Rep Pres, Dem Cong 6.37%
So, it looks like private industry likes a mixed house/hill demo - like I do - but, if you have to go with a dem/dem or rep/rep you go with the Democrats...
Oh, and Calabrio I think you are just as guilty of spewing party line as I am, maybe more - I certainly am not afraid to look at my party and say I am afraid (I have said many times I think that the Dems controlling the hill at this time is a really bad thing - and I was really glad that they didn't get a 60-40 majority in the Senate, and I hope Franken loses)... But once again it is really easy to label me - right? Why don't you just use the communist label again - that certainly gets the old 'red scare' going.
So, maybe I should say 'pay no attention to Calabrio' - he just spews party line - but, sometimes you have some interesting points, and I have changed or modified my ideas a couple of times after reading some of your ideas - but I am sure you attribute that to 'the right is always right and the left is always wrong'.
And obviously you wouldn't ever think of looking at the 'other side' to see if just maybe, there might be something of value there.
“When you're finished changing, you're finished.”- Ben Franklin
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Classic dishonest cherry picking of an article by foxpaws. Par for the course.
You left out this quote:
Oh, and:
It wasn't cherry picking foss - I gave the exact numbers for the thing we are talking about - political parties - plus, I gave a link to the article - It is interesting that when congress isn't in session the market does better... But, the numbers are still there - about how the market does with each party in power - and the split of that power.
Although the US would probably be a much better place if congress wasn't in session so much, we have do deal with the fact that it is - and so the party in power numbers do have relevance to this thread.
From the first paragraph from your quote... (my source)
In every presidential election year, voters and investors alike focus on the race for the White House, and rightfully so. You see, as shown in the accompanying chart from Ned Davis Research, the historical data depicts market returns that vary greatly under Republican or Democratic leadership.
Schumacher is just stating numbers - like I did - and from 100+ years of numbers it looks like the Dem/Dem equation is better then the Rep/Rep for the market. Like he said - sort of a short time period - but it is all we have so far... 26 presidents.
Cool place - huh Foss?
There are other factors, how much they effect the market - well, Schumacher doesn't really go into that. But, in this thread we were looking at political parties, so that is the data for the political party split. Maybe you want to look at tides and the stock market - or sun spots, go ahead - I bet there are charts for those too. But here we were looking at economics according to political party in power, and those are the numbers. Just like the US Budget - there will of course be mitigating factors (as hrmwrm mentioned - Bush and the cost of war).
I actually thought that these numbers/this article was very interesting and that others on this site might like to see the correlation between party and the stock market. I was rather surprised at the numbers - and it certainly isn't what I expected. I imagine most people thought like I did - that a Rep/Rep demo would be really good for the market.
Although the US would probably be a much better place if congress wasn't in session so much, we have do deal with the fact that it is - and so the party in power numbers do have relevance to this thread.
From the first paragraph from your quote... (my source)
In every presidential election year, voters and investors alike focus on the race for the White House, and rightfully so. You see, as shown in the accompanying chart from Ned Davis Research, the historical data depicts market returns that vary greatly under Republican or Democratic leadership.
Schumacher is just stating numbers - like I did - and from 100+ years of numbers it looks like the Dem/Dem equation is better then the Rep/Rep for the market. Like he said - sort of a short time period - but it is all we have so far... 26 presidents.
Cool place - huh Foss?
There are other factors, how much they effect the market - well, Schumacher doesn't really go into that. But, in this thread we were looking at political parties, so that is the data for the political party split. Maybe you want to look at tides and the stock market - or sun spots, go ahead - I bet there are charts for those too. But here we were looking at economics according to political party in power, and those are the numbers. Just like the US Budget - there will of course be mitigating factors (as hrmwrm mentioned - Bush and the cost of war).
I actually thought that these numbers/this article was very interesting and that others on this site might like to see the correlation between party and the stock market. I was rather surprised at the numbers - and it certainly isn't what I expected. I imagine most people thought like I did - that a Rep/Rep demo would be really good for the market.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
YES IT WAS. You represented that the article supported a premise that the article did NOT support. That's both cherry picking and a non sequitur.
And dishonest.
As usual.
I was just quoting the numbers and that if you go by the figures that you could ascertain that Rep/Rep is the least desirable of all the options...
There are many factors - and political party is one of them - there are 100s as the article stated - it is just an interesting point of fact.
Just as when you look at the U.S. Budget - the party in charge of the House, the Senate, the White House is one of many factors - but on this thread - the party is what we were discussing.
I have noticed however - you have avoided the other numbers in my post that are the ones that correlate Rep house, Rep senate and Rep president equal spending.
What is wrong with looking at some interesting numbers - those numbers regarding the stock market and the political party in charge are interesting - and aren't totally irrelevant, in regards to this thread. Sort of like whoever is in the white house and who wins the super bowl or how the dow does after the national team wins the world series.
Early on there was a claim that whatever was in the congress/white house was to blame for overspending - there are many factors in that equation as well - but, this thread is about party and the numbers relating to just that information.
If we start looking at wars, debt ratio, previous bailouts, value of the dollar, the cost of energy, etc., then the U.S. budget numbers can all change in regard to that - this was just about political party.
I thought it would be interesting to share information - sorry...
So - if you just want to see just congress's effect on the stock market for the last 25 years... (in this case is is pro republican) you can check out this Cato article (I do like Cato...)
There are many factors - and political party is one of them - there are 100s as the article stated - it is just an interesting point of fact.
Just as when you look at the U.S. Budget - the party in charge of the House, the Senate, the White House is one of many factors - but on this thread - the party is what we were discussing.
I have noticed however - you have avoided the other numbers in my post that are the ones that correlate Rep house, Rep senate and Rep president equal spending.
What is wrong with looking at some interesting numbers - those numbers regarding the stock market and the political party in charge are interesting - and aren't totally irrelevant, in regards to this thread. Sort of like whoever is in the white house and who wins the super bowl or how the dow does after the national team wins the world series.
Early on there was a claim that whatever was in the congress/white house was to blame for overspending - there are many factors in that equation as well - but, this thread is about party and the numbers relating to just that information.
If we start looking at wars, debt ratio, previous bailouts, value of the dollar, the cost of energy, etc., then the U.S. budget numbers can all change in regard to that - this was just about political party.
I thought it would be interesting to share information - sorry...
So - if you just want to see just congress's effect on the stock market for the last 25 years... (in this case is is pro republican) you can check out this Cato article (I do like Cato...)
Gotta love liberal distortion based on cherry picking. FYI Fox, that is what you are echoing here.
Both links you cite base there conclusions on numbers put out by the Census Bureau, which as this blog shows has so much systematic error built into it that it is so unreliable and inaccurate as to be meaningless...
First, they are based on a person's memory of what they made in the last year:
Second, in the Census Bureau income measure, people are asked only about pre-tax income, so any effect of the Bush tax cuts would not be apparent:
Third, the income figures do not reflect all forms of income. Not only are capital gains excluded, but other noncash benefits are excluded as well:
For each person in the sample 15 years and over, the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) asks questions on the amount of money income received in the preceding calendar year from each of the following sources:
That's unfortunate because people are in a negative funk about everything, and that almost surely biases memory in the negative direction. See, for example, this article entitled "The Year of Bad Feelings" by Byron York. Because people are negative about everything right now, a more objective measure of income is needed.
Second, in the Census Bureau income measure, people are asked only about pre-tax income, so any effect of the Bush tax cuts would not be apparent:
Data on income collected...by the U.S. Census Bureau cover money income received (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, social security, union dues, Medicare deductions, etc.
What you really want to know is how much money people have after taxes.
Third, the income figures do not reflect all forms of income. Not only are capital gains excluded, but other noncash benefits are excluded as well:
...money income does not reflect the fact that some families receive noncash benefits, such as food stamps, health benefits, subsidized housing, and goods produced and consumed on the farm.
You must have missed what I said earlier, and it seems you don't really know how the budget works. Congress doesn't simply "approve" the budget; they determine and make the budget. the president only proposes a budget. It only serves as a recommendation that Congress can choose to take or ignore; in whole or in part. The president then signs off on or veto's the budget, but considering the political pressures on the president in regards to working with Congress, a veto of the budget is rare.
I would hardly agree that is the "most fair comparison". It is effectively rigging the rules to support your conclusion. It intentionally ignores things like Medicare (created under LBJ) to distort the picture. You cannot look solely at discretionary spending to make any conclusion on which party is the bigger taxer and/or spender by looking only at that.
You are making it too complicated. It is real simple; look at the proposals and initiatives passed or at least seriously proposed by the two parties. Democrats consistently propose and push (if not pass) tax increases (Clinton) and heavy spending increases (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Welfare State, etc. etc.). Republicans have (since Reagan) looked to cut taxes or at least oppose tax increases, while, until Bush, not pushed heavy spending increases.
I will not argue that spending has not increased substantially under Bush and with a Republican legislature. But to look solely at that, or just at what increases in taxes and/or spending have been enacted by the government and under who is missing the point and only serves to obfuscate the issue. To determine which party is the party of tax and/or spend, you need to look at which party supports what policies and what spending and or taxation is associated with them. To look at anything else instead of that is to ignore the best indicator of the validity of the view that the Democrats tend to be the party of tax and spend and only clouds the issue.
too bad http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/beware-misleading-income-statistics-are.html only goes to 2005, or you might make a case.
Spending on the war was justified.
thats your opinion. escalating from afghanistan to iraq was never justified.
Don't try and claim some sort of double standard when it is obvious that their is none. It is unbecoming...
my reply would have been for:
You are drawing an overly broad conclusion that in no way follows the premise you set. Yes spending has increased under Bush and that can be tied to the republicans in the legislature during the first 6 years of his administration, but everthing you say after that is nothing but speculation mascarading as fact or logical observations.
bush administration and not legislature was up for the bailout. funny how you always try to hide one behind the other. just because one follows the other doesn't clear the first party of the deed.
Spending on the war was justified.
thats your opinion. escalating from afghanistan to iraq was never justified.
Don't try and claim some sort of double standard when it is obvious that their is none. It is unbecoming...
my reply would have been for:
You are drawing an overly broad conclusion that in no way follows the premise you set. Yes spending has increased under Bush and that can be tied to the republicans in the legislature during the first 6 years of his administration, but everthing you say after that is nothing but speculation mascarading as fact or logical observations.
bush administration and not legislature was up for the bailout. funny how you always try to hide one behind the other. just because one follows the other doesn't clear the first party of the deed.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
"Wha? Me?" Haha...
Conclusion drawn. The article did NOT draw this conclusion; in fact, the article pointed out that to do so is to use correlation to prove causation.foxpaws said:
FAIL.
And, to quote YOU, I don't have to respond to every single little thing you post. It would appear that Shag has shredded the remainder of your dishonest tripe.
So, we take some ANONYMOUS conservatives blogger's (his 'name' is Engram) idea on what the census bureau numbers mean - wow - are there any numbers that are any good?How about 2 + 2 = 4 - or is that under contention as well? Will you find some op-ed article that proves that the sum is 5?
Oh, and Engram's little theory has a major problem - his income numbers include in-kind benefits - it appears that Engram's income increases are loaded in the increase in health insurance that the company pays - so, while your 'total' income (which includes in-kind benefits in Engram's supposition) has increased - it is an increase that you don't see in your take-home pay - but, what your employer has paid to have you employed has increased - fuzzy money that doesn't count as real income under the standard definition.
If you look at the chart that he is using from the Tax Policy center - they don't adjust for inflation, unlike the Census numbers did. Allowing for inflation the numbers are pretty similar -
If you allow for inflation (sensible) and the fact that gains you don't see, such as additional health care costs paid for by the employer shouldn't be allowed (sensible) then the numbers would look just the same - a slight decrease over the Bush years.
Can't you even say that perhaps real income has gone down under Bush? The numbers show it - but, no, you have to argue against census bureau numbers using a 'I won't reveal my real name' blog?
Oh, here is a great comment from the blog - which pretty much sums it up for me...Why do you choose to remain anonymous? Why can't you name your "major research university." To do so would bolster your credibility.
Similarly, not one of your commentators feels free enough to sign their post.
What's behind this self-censorship?
John Freeland (A non anonymous Harvard guy in Economics. Uber liberal - the man thinks 16 year olds should be allowed to vote - aggghhhh - but at least he doesn't hide behind anonymity)
There are very few examples in the last 50 years where we have total control by one party. The Republicans have the misfortune to have Bush43 as their example - we Dems are forever grateful for that. LBJ sat at the top of the heap forever... Now, Obama will beat them both I am sure.
I was attempting to show that spending works on both sides - and that one side isn't totally to blame - during one of the most spend happy times recently - Reagan - the Democratic congress actually lowered non-military discretionary spending by 14%.
Once again - from Cato
Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.
Now - notice - here in this article they credit Reagan - but under the assumption you have stated Shag it is congress that has control of the budget, so Reagan should get basically no credit for this non-defense discretionary decrease in spending - right? That would be his Democratic congress. And the huge increases in military spending during the Reagan years was something the Democratic congress should get credit for on their own - right (all budget decisions are laid at congress's door)? So, lets just keep running along to the natural conclusion here. The Democratic congress, taking it upon themselves to increase military spending to the extent that the Russians couldn't possibly keep up, caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Wow, and that congress never even gets credit for the ending of the cold war - Reagan gets credit for that. I think the history books all need to be revised according to the 'shag's rule of who's to blame for government spending'
The president does propose a budget - it is reviewed, challenged and changed by congress - and then the president and congress do go back and forth. There have been times when it has been months before the two come to a 'meeting of the minds' and the president signs off on it - the president does have to sign off on it Shag - as Truman said - the buck stops here. The budget is a combination of the two branches of government.
And once again - who actually take proposals and creates the tax code - it is congress - the President 'just' proposes it, and then with congress the two branches of government work out a compromise - I guess the Reagan tax cuts were also a product of his Democratic congress - right? That is your simplistic approach Shag - let's take it to its natural conclusion here as well. You can't have one without the other - right? Tax cuts/increases are also creditable to only the congress.
And I don't argue that Democrats don't spend like crazy - I just believe that both sides spend like crazy. They spend in different areas, but they both spend. I was showing that it is a myth that Republicans don't spend money - the numbers show they do - lots, as much as the Dems. And I was also showing that you can't assign blame completely to either the legislative branch or the executive branch. They do work together (or against each other) to create how much this country spends and taxes.
I think actually what is your problem (and the right in general) with the Dems spending is that it is different than Reps spending (and the opposite is also true). The military machine is an excusable and necessary expense for the right, human care needs are excusable and necessary expenses for the left. The idea we spend is 'stomachable' if the money is being spent where you believe it should be spent.
Foss - I know there is a problem in many cases when using correlation to prove causation. It only shows that two variables are related in a systematic way, but it does not prove nor disprove that the relationship is the cause and that particular outcome is always the effect. Only experimental method can do that.
Since the stock market doesn't lend itself to experimental method - everything related to the stock market uses correlation to prove causation. There isn't anything else available. It is 'speculative' and not a science.
Like the lengths of skirts - watch out guys - in downturn economic times, traditionally the skirts also lengthen... a sad, sad state of affairs ahead I fear.... But it is based on a correlation/causation proof. Maybe you can hope this time the skirts will remain short, and the hemlines high.
Since the stock market doesn't lend itself to experimental method - everything related to the stock market uses correlation to prove causation. There isn't anything else available. It is 'speculative' and not a science.
Like the lengths of skirts - watch out guys - in downturn economic times, traditionally the skirts also lengthen... a sad, sad state of affairs ahead I fear...
. But it is based on a correlation/causation proof. Maybe you can hope this time the skirts will remain short, and the hemlines high. So, we take some ANONYMOUS conservatives blogger's (his 'name' is Engram) idea on what the census bureau numbers mean - wow - are there any numbers that are any good?How about 2 + 2 = 4 - or is that under contention as well? Will you find some op-ed article that proves that the sum is 5?
Oh, and Engram's little theory has a major problem - his income numbers include in-kind benefits - it appears that Engram's income increases are loaded in the increase in health insurance that the company pays - so, while your 'total' income (which includes in-kind benefits in Engram's supposition) has increased - it is an increase that you don't see in your take-home pay - but, what your employer has paid to have you employed has increased - fuzzy money that doesn't count as real income under the standard definition.
If you look at the chart that he is using from the Tax Policy center - they don't adjust for inflation, unlike the Census numbers did. Allowing for inflation the numbers are pretty similar -
If you allow for inflation (sensible) and the fact that gains you don't see, such as additional health care costs paid for by the employer shouldn't be allowed (sensible) then the numbers would look just the same - a slight decrease over the Bush years.
Can't you even say that perhaps real income has gone down under Bush? The numbers show it - but, no, you have to argue against census bureau numbers using a 'I won't reveal my real name' blog?
Oh, here is a great comment from the blog - which pretty much sums it up for me...Why do you choose to remain anonymous? Why can't you name your "major research university." To do so would bolster your credibility.
Similarly, not one of your commentators feels free enough to sign their post.
What's behind this self-censorship?
John Freeland (A non anonymous Harvard guy in Economics. Uber liberal - the man thinks 16 year olds should be allowed to vote - aggghhhh - but at least he doesn't hide behind anonymity)
I never cited any of that blog's numbers, only what it points out in regards to the systematic error in the Census Bureau's numbers. Nothing in your little rant there in any way logically disproves any part of what I quoted. It only makes ad hominem attacks and raises irrelevant red herrings.
You might wanna try countering my argument, and not look to smear the source of the points in my argument.
My points that I get from him still stand, and your numbers quoted from him are discredited.
Also, you still have yet to put those numbers in context. You only cite them which gives only a superficial examination. This link puts the numbers you cite in better context. Here is an excerpt:
First, comparisons are made to an artificially high benchmark -- the late 1990s "tech bubble."
Remember the dot-com binge. Wages rose sharply; bonuses and cash incentives mushroomed. Unemployment and poverty dropped. In 2000, the jobless rate among white men 20 and over was 2.8 percent. But all these gains reflected a boom that, though pleasurable, was temporary and unsustainable. Stocks are now trading below their 2000 highs. Using these years as the base for comparison makes later years look bad.
Picking 1997 -- the last pre-boom year -- is more realistic. From 1997 to 2007, median household income rose $2,600, roughly 5 percent. Though hardly spectacular, that's not stagnation. The poverty rate in 2007 was slightly lower than in 1997.
Second, immigration distorts commonly cited statistics.
Low-skilled immigrants, concentrated among Hispanics, outnumber the high-skilled. They drag down median incomes and raise poverty and the number of uninsured. One way to filter out the effect on income is to examine groups with few immigrants or their American-born children. Consider non-Hispanic white families. From 1997 to 2007, their median incomes rose about $6,000, to $69,937, a gain of about 9 percent. For black families, the increase was also about 9 percent, though only to $40,222. Again, not stagnation.
Immigration's effects on poverty and health insurance coverage are greater. Since 1990, Hispanics numerically account for all the increase in the number of officially poor. Similarly, immigrants represented 55 percent of the increase of the uninsured from 1994 to 2006, says the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Many unskilled workers can't get well-paid jobs with insurance.
Third, the census figures understate income gains by not counting fringe benefits.
Census counts only money income -- wages, salaries, dividends, interest payments. But compensation growth is increasingly channeled into fringes. From 2000 to 2007, only 53 percent of the increase in average compensation came from wages and salaries, says economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. The rest went to health insurance (21 percent), pension contributions (19 percent) and payroll taxes (6 percent). Americans understandably feel they're on a treadmill. They don't see fringe benefits in their paychecks, and small year-to-year cash gains barely register.
The real economic report card is both better and worse than imagined. The big advances of the rich (which occurred mostly in the 1980s and 1990s and reversed slightly last year) haven't prevented most Americans from achieving grudging gains. But a continuation of present trends would imperil future prosperity.
If health-care spending remains uncontrolled, Americans will see more of their compensation diverted from take-home pay into insurance that mainly benefits (as insurance should) a small proportion of very sick people. Similarly, if the immigration of low-skilled workers continues unabated -- whether they're legal or illegal -- the ranks of the poor will swell, as will the uninsured or the costs of providing government insurance.
Remember the dot-com binge. Wages rose sharply; bonuses and cash incentives mushroomed. Unemployment and poverty dropped. In 2000, the jobless rate among white men 20 and over was 2.8 percent. But all these gains reflected a boom that, though pleasurable, was temporary and unsustainable. Stocks are now trading below their 2000 highs. Using these years as the base for comparison makes later years look bad.
Picking 1997 -- the last pre-boom year -- is more realistic. From 1997 to 2007, median household income rose $2,600, roughly 5 percent. Though hardly spectacular, that's not stagnation. The poverty rate in 2007 was slightly lower than in 1997.
Second, immigration distorts commonly cited statistics.
Low-skilled immigrants, concentrated among Hispanics, outnumber the high-skilled. They drag down median incomes and raise poverty and the number of uninsured. One way to filter out the effect on income is to examine groups with few immigrants or their American-born children. Consider non-Hispanic white families. From 1997 to 2007, their median incomes rose about $6,000, to $69,937, a gain of about 9 percent. For black families, the increase was also about 9 percent, though only to $40,222. Again, not stagnation.
Immigration's effects on poverty and health insurance coverage are greater. Since 1990, Hispanics numerically account for all the increase in the number of officially poor. Similarly, immigrants represented 55 percent of the increase of the uninsured from 1994 to 2006, says the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Many unskilled workers can't get well-paid jobs with insurance.
Third, the census figures understate income gains by not counting fringe benefits.
Census counts only money income -- wages, salaries, dividends, interest payments. But compensation growth is increasingly channeled into fringes. From 2000 to 2007, only 53 percent of the increase in average compensation came from wages and salaries, says economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. The rest went to health insurance (21 percent), pension contributions (19 percent) and payroll taxes (6 percent). Americans understandably feel they're on a treadmill. They don't see fringe benefits in their paychecks, and small year-to-year cash gains barely register.
The real economic report card is both better and worse than imagined. The big advances of the rich (which occurred mostly in the 1980s and 1990s and reversed slightly last year) haven't prevented most Americans from achieving grudging gains. But a continuation of present trends would imperil future prosperity.
If health-care spending remains uncontrolled, Americans will see more of their compensation diverted from take-home pay into insurance that mainly benefits (as insurance should) a small proportion of very sick people. Similarly, if the immigration of low-skilled workers continues unabated -- whether they're legal or illegal -- the ranks of the poor will swell, as will the uninsured or the costs of providing government insurance.
The numbers you cite are a statistical slight of hand. That is the only reason to cite from 2000 to 2007, it distorts and gives a false impression.
Also, how exactly do you define income? This article shows the problem with that. How narrow or broad are you going to define it? And what is the justification? You cannot just arbitrarily define it however you want so it is benifitial to whatever point you are trying to make. You have to give a rational explaination to justify however you think it should objectively be defined.
So what we have is numbers you cite that are ment to distort the picture in a certian way. They are based in perception, not hard figures (Census Bureau); they mislead by citing an artificial high as the base point from which they begin their analysis (2000) and they arbitrarally define income as they damn well please to support their point of view (circular reasoning?).
I understand that. But as you originally worded it, claiming that it was a myth the democratic party was the party of tax and spend, what you cited as proof of that being a myth was sloppy at best.
If you are going to look at weather or not that view is valid, the single best indicator is what I laid out; look at the programs and policies that the two parties support, if not pass. To not look at that is foolish. To look at the points you raised instead of that is downright misrepresentive of the truth and only serves to cloud the issue. The facts you brought up are tangential at best, and a red herring at worst, when it comes to examining the validity of that view.
the facts you bring up serve as a substitute for a direct indicator; the can only possibly infer anything about the view in question. That is fine, if that is all you have to go by, but it is either foolish or dishonest to look indirect indicator and give it more weight then a direct indicator when you have that direct indicator of looking at the policies and programs supported by the two parties.
While your indirect indicator may support one view, it cannot logically counter the direct indicator that I have laid out, which supports a different view.
But why was this? It is very likely that is was due to the fact that the president was from a different party and ideology and very effective, so they wanted to diminish his power as much as possible. It has more to do with political infighting among the executive and legislative branch when they are controlled by different parties then anything about weather or not the the democrats are the party of tax and spend.
That is part of the reason why it is a less strong and indirect indicator; it is less clear why those results happen. You want to be able to isolate the motivation as much as possible, so you don't look at the results coming out of the government to prove or disprove the notion of the democrats as the party of tax and spend. Then factors such as political power plays, political pragmatism, and a whole host of other variables are allowed in and only serve to muddy up the water.
The president does propose a budget. But that doesn't mean it is reviewed, challenged and changed by congress. Again, as Tip O'Neil famously said, Reagan's budget was DOA upon arrival to the legislature. Congress is in no way required to even look at the budget proposal by the president. and the only "back and forth" between the president and Congress concerns the potential veto of the budget.
Now you are exagurating and distorting my point to mischaracterize it...
Reagan got his tax cuts through, not by going back and forth with Congress, but by going around Congress and appealling to the American people. That in turn put pressure on Congress from their consituents and got his tax cuts passed. That is why Reagan is called the great communicator.
The Democratic congress was the last to get on board with the tax cuts. Reagan proposed it, the American people got behind it and that forced Congress to accept it.
You called it a myth the the democrats were the party of tax and spend. Nothing you have cited disproves that. Yes, in recent years, the republicans have spent way too much, and that is due to a number of things, but political ideology is not one of them. If anything, the high spending runs in the face of conservatism.
You are also looking at things in arbitrary isolation; comparing spending under various administrations. What about comparing different congresses.
Actually, if you want to look at outcomes, how about looking at the various democrat programs and/or policies passed in the last 50 years and looking at the various republican programs/policies passed in the last fifty years, then adding up the price tag?
Actually, one branch has a lot of power in that area and one branch has very little. So assigning blame equally and not acknowledging that fact is extremely dishonest and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate.
Actually, it is a little different. Military spending by the government is constitutionally and morally justified, entitlement spending is not. And spending beyond your means is plain foolish. Republican, traditionally, have been the party of fiscal responsibility (at least in comparison to the dems) and the dems have been the party of wasteful spending. Recently, the republican's have strayed from being the party of fiscal responsibility, and that was probably the biggest factor in their defeat in the past two elections.
What you are doing here is using cloudy facts to draw illogical conclusions that only muddy the waters here.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Thanks for admitting that you cherrypicked.Foss - I know there is a problem in many cases when using correlation to prove causation. It only shows that two variables are related in a systematic way, but it does not prove nor disprove that the relationship is the cause and that particular outcome is always the effect. Only experimental method can do that.
Since the stock market doesn't lend itself to experimental method - everything related to the stock market uses correlation to prove causation. There isn't anything else available. It is 'speculative' and not a science.
Like the lengths of skirts - watch out guys - in downturn economic times, traditionally the skirts also lengthen... a sad, sad state of affairs ahead I fear...
Backing off your source? My 'little' rant? I did logically disprove it - he uses numbers that aren't inflation adjusted, income sources that aren't allowed in the 'real income' equation, and then, and I thought I wouldn't bring this up - but he also states some extremely weird theory that people were depressed about the economy - so they are more likely to 'misremember' what they made the last year. That their memories would be 'clouded' by the perception of the current bad economy. Well, the Census takes this poll in the March - May timeframe - just when you are doing your taxes - so people do remember what they made - they just dealt with it while filling out the old 1099...
I did counter your argument - your source is anonymous bunk. I discredited his numbers and 'unreliable and inaccurate theory' previously.
I just am trying to state that the average American hasn't faired all that well under Bush - You can state outside reasons all you want - dot.com etc and that the bubble had to burst - but, I am just looking at numbers, not reasons... the reasons are speculative again - guesses. And was the number in 1999 an artificially high standard - it didn't feel artificial to me. It was very real, a real number. Yes, if you want to discredit current numbers you can always find reasons. Massaging the numbers to fit your conclusion - that Bush has been good for the bottom line when it comes to personal income. He hasn't been.
I state what income I see on my W2 - the number everyone looks at (the Census for instance) - but, if you want to skew the numbers go ahead, start adding things, so you can make the numbers fit your conclusion. Then you also have to do the same to the numbers for Clinton. Income gains then during the Clinton era would be near 20%. Nice number huh? Just so you can get the Bush era number out of the negative category you are willing to skew all historical numbers. I am comparing apples to apples. You want to compare apples plus apricots plus a couple of blueberries to apples only.
Once you start adding in all the 'in kind' income it is you and your sources that distort the income picture. The Census has defined income, and both sides have had to live with it. Republicans have been happy with 'my' indicator (the Census's median income figures) until recently when things started to look bad for them, then the Republicans and the right try to change the playing field. For instance since the Bush numbers look bad, somehow the right has to find new numbers so that Bush doesn't look so bad. His economic policies are bad by any indicator.
And the 2008 numbers aren't in yet - the Bush era median income decrease should be even greater at the end of this year.
And shag - I adore how you try to get around the fact that if you blame congress for all the bad things you aren't going to give them credit for the good things (or good according to your scale). The Reagan scenario is perfect for this... Congress apparently did everything right during Reagan - and according to your 'rules' only they should get credit for it. Now you fuzz it up with some sort evil plot by the Dem Congress that they wanted to diminish Reagan's power? Talk about circular logic - a classic case...
And congress listens to the people? Actually, Reagan lobbied heavily for it, and applied the thumb screws big time... and in fact took a 5% decrease (he wanted 30%) to get it through. Compromise is what got it through in the end - along with an economy that was tanking, and a president that at that point was popular with the people, so congress was inclined to be on the side of a popular president (soon to change dramatically). But, Congress did approve it - so they should get the credit, according to you and your 'congress is to take all responsibility'. You still can't have it both ways shag -
So, look at Democrat policies - yes they do cost - but so do the Republican wars. This is a different subject - again, I stated that how the money gets spent is often where the differences lie. Republicans don't like spending on most 'people' projects, however they do see the value in fighting wars. Democrats see spending money on 'people' projects has more value than excessive military spending. So, do you define military spending as Republican Shag - so we can start comparing these numbers. You have to have military spending - but you also have to have people spending - which are the 'correct' amounts for those programs? Or maybe you don't have to have any people spending - that certainly would be an interesting concept.
Shag - I didn't assign blame equally - I stated that you can't assign blame 'completely' to either side - because if you do, you end up with the scenario that congress is to take credit for the ending of the cold war. Reagan's insistence on upping military spending to stratospheric heights is what did it - congress accepted those budget recommendations from the president - it was a compromise. You are being dishonest if you don't think that both sides work to get budgets through. Otherwise how did you explain a 22% increase in non- defense discretionary spending by the Republicans during the 6 years they controlled congress during the Clinton years. Under the ideal Republican philosophy that number should have been flat or retreated. Remember the Republicans controlled congress. There was no large scale war effort or military increases (in fact during those 6 years military spending increased only 4.4%) The discretionary spending increases were the ones Clinton wanted in his domestic spending for the poor, on better education, on 'people' issues. There was a compromise between the 'don't spend anything' Republican congress and the 'we spend' Democratic president. Otherwise - you have to state that during the Clinton years it is the Republican congress that is totally responsible for the 22% increase in discretionary domestic spending. Wow - those Republicans sure like to spend money, except on the military, where they seemed rather miserly during the Clinton years.
How many of these examples do I have to show shag? Republicans like to spend money too. For things far outside the military realm.
Here you believe that there is a constitutional and moral justification for military spending. The left believes there is a moral and constitutional justification for 'people' (or welfare) spending. Both sides will point to article 1, section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" That has lots of lee way - and the court traditionally has come down on the side of congress decides what 'general Welfare' means. Personally - I don't think that is what Jefferson and Madison wanted- but that is what the Court has decided.
And the Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility. Because of their battle cry of 'fewer taxes' that isn't backed by 'less spending' the Republicans can certainly claim their fair share of driving up the national debt. Acquiring huge amounts of debt isn't responsible at all. But, that would probably be a topic for another thread - or no doubt you have all discussed that here ad nauseam.
Oh foss - I didn't cherry pick - show me the other data that would support when there is a Rep/Rep majority that the stock market does great - I didn't leave out any information - those are the numbers. Where are the large amounts of data I overlooked? I was just showing that the numbers that Dem/Dem is better than Rep/Rep - do you have the numbers that contradict that - show me, please. Or that under scientific discovery those numbers would be false... The party in power results are just one of many numbers that are interesting in tracking the stock market which is totally speculative.