The Last 10 Years

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a chart of the last 10 years of the S&P 500 (blue) and the Dow (red) indicates.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/10yearsofSPandDow.jpg

Please notice that after the recession president Bush inherited, he turned it around with tax breaks. The stocks went up by over 80% over 3-12 years, regaining the ground of normal growth, yet the liberal pundits could only complain about the Bush economy.

Here is some data taken by the extrapolated data from OMB.gov. GDP of the nation, adjusted by population and inflation:

1995 2.57%
1996 2.87%
1997 4.42%
1998 4.16%
1999 4.56%
2000 3.38%
2001 1.41%
2002 1.06%
2003 1.63%
2004 3.76%
2005 2.34%
2006 2.80%
2007 2.62%
2008 0.23%
2009 -1.43% (estimated)

Please notice that 3% give or take a little is normal, and because of the Y2K scare, the tech market was way over heated. Above 4% is not normal. The recession President Bush inherited was active till the 2003 tax cuts, then we enjoyed a nice above 2% growth until mid to late 2007, when liberals down-talked normal growth, and the willing media spread their propaganda instead of blowing off the propaganda. Perceptin sometimes causes reality, especially when one plan how to spend money. In 2008, the housing market burst.

[baseline bum]

Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got fucked.



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/another_year_another_wage_loss/

ROBERT KUTTNER
Another year, another wage loss

By Robert Kuttner | September 2, 2006

LABOR DAY was created by the machinists union in New York in 1882 as a ``workingmen's holiday." Unions all over America adopted the idea. By 1894, Congress passed legislation making Labor Day an official holiday. The day also celebrated the act of organizing, politically and in the workplace, to improve livelihoods and lives.

Today, the politics have largely been leached out of it. Labor Day is a long weekend that marks summer's end.

And that extra day of rest is needed more than ever. Government statistics show that the typical family works about 500 more hours a year than families did 30 years ago, because it takes two incomes to make it. Even so, family incomes are failing to keep pace with the cost of living.

This past week, these items have been in the news:

The Census Bureau reported that median incomes for working-age families were down again, for the fifth straight year. Real median income for households under age 65 is down by 5.4 percent since 2000, even though the economy has grown every year. All of that gain has gone to upper-bracket people and corporate profits.


The Pew Research Center released an extensive survey on public attitudes about the economy. Pew reported, ``The public thinks that workers were better off a generation ago on every key dimension of worker life -- be it wages, benefits, retirement plans, on-the-job stress, the loyalty they are shown by employers." And, statistically, the public is right.

The Globe recently reported that chief executives of nonprofit hospitals now routinely make more than $1 million. University presidents are not far behind.

The Economic Policy Institute (on whose board I serve) has released its annual, encyclopedic report, ``The State of Working America." Among its findings: The economy's productivity increased by a remarkable 33.5 percent between 1995 and 2005, but real wages have declined since 2000. Employer-provided health coverage declined from 69 percent in 1979 to 56 percent in 2004. The top 1 percent's share of interest, dividends, and capital gains has risen from 37.8 percent in 1979 to 57.5 percent in 2003.

Politically, it's evident what is occurring. Those in a position to capture astronomical incomes are awarding themselves an ever-larger share of the national economic pie. Meanwhile, ordinary incomes, job security, health security, and retirement security are eroding.

The political mystery is why everyone else is not kicking up a fuss. After all, as the Pew report suggests, it's not as if people are unaware of what's happening. Here's a clue to some of the puzzle: Polls show that people do want more reliable wages, pensions, and health insurance. But too many people have given up on the idea that the political process can be used to restore the American dream.

Theda Skocpol, author of several books of social history, tells of interviewing a hard-pressed woman with small children and a low-wage job. Her only social support was that her mother-in-law -- the children's grandmother -- looked after her children while she worked. As Skocpol observes, this was possible only because Social Security enabled the grandmother not to have to work herself.

Skocpol asked the woman whether she thought there was anything government might do to improve her economic circumstances. The woman replied, ``Nothing they do there ever makes a difference for people like me."

But that was not always so. Social Security, Medicare, college aid, the GI Bill, government wage-and-hour laws, and government protection of the right to unionize made a real difference in people's lives.

These policies, which benefited the vast middle class (and helped to create it), did not just happen. They were the result of political organizing and a public awareness that government could affect the economic opportunity and security of ordinary Americans, for better or worse.

It's understandable why politics today is often a turnoff. But if a great many middle-class and poor Americans have given up on politics, you can be sure that the economic elite is invested in politics as never before. The changes in the tax code and regulatory laws and workplace practices that benefit America's super-rich did not just happen, either. They are the result of relentless maneuvering by the financial elite and its political allies.

So this Labor Day, at the beach or in town, we suffer not just from reduced economic opportunity but diminished political imagination. You can ignore politics, but you can't escape it. So we might as well reclaim democracy to benefit the many rather than the few.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Wild Cobra]

Another calculation since 1940 using the OMB numbers vs. population, adjusted to 2000 dollars gives this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/USWealthperperson1940to2011.jpg

This is the wealth of the USA per person, not personal wealth.

[Wild Cobra]

Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got fucked.
I'll agree with that, but not that it is President Bush's fault. The trend of the spending value of personal wealth has been declining for decades. That part is not the sitting president's fault.

Why only go back a decade? Why not four or five?

Oh wait...

That data is Cherry Picked because the year 2000 was exceptional, at least before all the layoffs following the Tech Bubble bursts following the Y2K scare.

[SouthernFried]

Socialism is good for business and prosperity.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Socialism is good for business and prosperity.

still using the socialism card... no one buys it you moron...oh wait only the dead enders do..:rolleyes

[101A]

Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got fucked.


You watched the market lately vs. the unemployment numbers.

Seems the new administration is hell-bent on prolonging that trend.

[baseline bum]

You watched the market lately vs. the unemployment numbers.

Seems the new administration is hell-bent on prolonging that trend.

We'll know for sure if he signs this blowjob to the insurance vampires that the senate seems hellbent to pass.

[DarrinS]

I can only speak for myself, but I've pretty much made up my losses from 2008 in the first 3 quarters of this year, which is pretty amazing.

[101A]

We'll know for sure if he signs this blowjob to the insurance vampires that the senate seems hellbent to pass.


He'll sign whatever passes. Right now he's sold out to Pharma and the Hospitals; now they're trying to buy out the Docs - Note: Conceding to these three groups will do more harm than just about anything else; with those in his pocket; he can then take on Insurance - but if the law allows us to get raped by THE ACTUAL PROVIDERS OF HEALTHCARE - well, you do the math.

Of course, it's entirely possible that he will allow us to get raped by the providers AND sell out to Insurance AND create a public option (which if structued JUST SO could take the sickest people off the insurance co's hands - while dumping their costs squarely on the American taxpayer - with a guaranty to the providers NOT to beat them up on price) - a trifecta of budget exploding, healthcare inflation goodness that could ONLY be crafted in the bowels of Washington!

For a preview of how this could possibly happen, just look at who has benefited the MOST from the bailouts and stimulus. If the people that basically caused that meltdown can reap most of the benefits, what makes any of us think that all of the entities responsible for the "crisis" in healthcare can't be made to profit ridiculously from the "fix"?

[101A]

I can only speak for myself, but I've pretty much made up my losses from 2008 in the first 3 quarters of this year, which is pretty amazing.

It's true; the markets done fine for me, as well. But I balance in my mind my "gains" against the inflation which will devalue those drastically before I retire.

Also, for the gazillions of Americans out of work; they cashed in their investments LONG ago - never got a chance to make it back. (damn, I sound like a bleeding heart).

[DarrinS]

It's true; the markets done fine for me, as well. But I balance in my mind my "gains" against the inflation which will devalue those drastically before I retire.




I don't consider them gains so much as breaking even again.

[ElNono]

Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got fucked.

Trickle down economics, son... The rich do well, then it trickles down to the middle class and the poor... except when it doesn't... :greedy

[Wild Cobra]

I can only speak for myself, but I've pretty much made up my losses from 2008 in the first 3 quarters of this year, which is pretty amazing.
LOL...

When I changed jobs last, I had my all retirement savings go into government securities. Back in mid March this year, I changed most of it into stocks.

Lets see...

Stocks have been slowly coming out of the slump, and are now...

Wow...

I have a positive 35+% in just over 6 months.

Thank-you democrats for the low value buying opportunity. I was waiting for a Dow closer to 6,000, but I still got in early enough!

[Wild Cobra]

Trickle down economics, son... The rich do well, then it trickles down to the middle class and the poor... except when it doesn't... :greedy

You mean trickle-down Obamanomics...

Gotta have bailouts for the rich, so it will trickle down to everyone else.

30,383 jobs created or saved by how many billions of dollars?

[ElNono]

You mean trickle-down Obamanomics...

Gotta have bailouts for the rich, so it will trickle down to everyone else.

30,383 jobs created or saved by how many billions of dollars?

I'm fairly sure the bailout was proposed and signed by Bush... not that Obama didn't go along with the whole thing...

At any rate, I thought you just said you made money with the market... what are you complaining about exactly?

[spursncowboys]

still using the socialism card... no one buys it you moron...oh wait only the dead enders do..:rolleyes
What does Obama have to do to be considered socialism? Please specific? When will it be a valid claim?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm fairly sure the bailout was proposed and signed by Bush... not that Obama didn't go along with the whole thing...
I have explained that at least twice before now.

President Bush was damned either way. The economy was tanking. If he didn't act, he still would have been blamed. Since the incoming president wanted it, his best choice was to give them the path they wanted. Both McCain and Obama wanted the bailout.

At any rate, I thought you just said you made money with the market... what are you complaining about exactly?
Personally, I'm in heaven. Unlike a liberal, I think of my fellow Americans.

[ElNono]

I have explained that at least twice before now.

President Bush was damned either way. The economy was tanking. If he didn't act, he still would have been blamed. Since the incoming president wanted it, his best choice was to give them the path they wanted. Both McCain and Obama wanted the bailout.

You don't have to apologize for Bush. His administration was infiltrated by Goldman Sachs people way before the bailout. But you can't take away his responsibility either.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't have to apologize for Bush. His administration was infiltrated by Goldman Sachs people way before the bailout. But you can't take away his responsibility either.
I think it was an area he didn't know enough about. At worse, he took bad advice. At best, he set the stage for the incoming president.

Yes, he should have vetoes it. It said it then, and it is one of many things I say he did wrong. However, when you come out of the gate, blaming him, for a bill originating from a democrat controlled congress...

Shame on you.

Unless a president believes he knows better than congress, he should sign what they give him.

[ElNono]

I think it was an area he didn't know enough about. At worse, he took bad advice. At best, he set the stage for the incoming president.

Yes, he should have vetoes it. It said it then, and it is one of many things I say he did wrong. However, when you come out of the gate, blaming him, for a bill originating from a democrat controlled congress...

Shame on you.

Unless a president believes he knows better than congress, he should sign what they give him.

You came out of the gate blaming Obama for something he didn't even signed into law. Now, I'm not saying he wouldn't have done the same thing, but you're the one that should be ashamed.

Both you and I know that the ones to blame for this are the big bankers. And they operate the same regardless of what party is in power.

[Wild Cobra]

You came out of the gate blaming Obama for something he didn't even signed into law. Now, I'm not saying he wouldn't have done the same thing, but you're the one that should be ashamed.
Yes.

Not only would Obama have done this if he were president 6 months sooner, but he is proposing even more and more debt upon our children, for a bailout that should not be happening!

Yes, I blame him and the democrats.

[EVAY]

The economy grew massively after the Clinton tax increase that was passed in the early nineties, before the mild recession that was a function of normal business cycles. I assume that your point is that tax breaks lead to economic growth. However, the economic growth of the nineties followed tax increases under both the GHW Bush presidency and the Clinton presidency.

The business cycle has much more to do with economic growth than does the 'trickle down' tax theory.

[Wild Cobra]

The economy grew massively after the Clinton tax increase that was passed in the early nineties, before the mild recession that was a function of normal business cycles. I assume that your point is that tax breaks lead to economic growth. However, the economic growth of the nineties followed tax increases under both the GHW Bush presidency and the Clinton presidency.

The business cycle has much more to do with economic growth than does the 'trickle down' tax theory.
Yes, cycles will happen. The recession from increased taxes would have happened sooner if it wasn't for the tech boom, and Y2K.

When the federal government takes in more than 18.5% of the GDP, a recession follows shortly!

[EVAY]

[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;3759328]I think it was an area he didn't know enough about. At worse, he took bad advice. At best, he set the stage for the incoming president.

Good grief, he was the only MBA president we ever had! If he didn't know about that kind of thing, his Treasury Secretary should have. If the Treasury Secretary appointed by the President was wrong, who is responsible for that? Who appointed him????

[DarrinS]

The economy grew massively after the Clinton tax increase that was passed in the early nineties, before the mild recession that was a function of normal business cycles. I assume that your point is that tax breaks lead to economic growth. However, the economic growth of the nineties followed tax increases under both the GHW Bush presidency and the Clinton presidency.

The business cycle has much more to do with economic growth than does the 'trickle down' tax theory.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Wild Cobra]

Good grief, he was the only MBA president we ever had! If he didn't know about that kind of thing, his Treasury Secretary should have. If the Treasury Secretary appointed by the President was wrong, who is responsible for that? Who appointed him????
Well, unless you are an elitist, you know a degree doesn't matter. Nobody knows enough about all topics, and yes, I agree he had bad advice.

Still, tell me this. If a president doesn't feel absolutely right for a veto, should he veto what congress gives him?

[EVAY]

Yes, cycles will happen. The recession from increased taxes would have happened sooner if it wasn't for the tech boom, and Y2K.

When the federal government takes in more than 18.5% of the GDP, a recession follows shortly!

Please don't get me wrong. I am a huge deficit hawk. I hate them now...I hated them also, though, when we spent money like drunken sailors for two wars (the costs of which were never included in a budget, so their cost to the 'budget deficit' didn't show up as high as it would have been), medicare 'reform' ( supported by republicans and democrats alike), and No Child Left Behind, while simulteneously lowering taxes.

Now, c'mon W.C. your own internal logic has to acknowledge that the arithmetic of cutting revenues while increasing expenditures is gonna increase the deficit. This all happened under Republican control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Based on your own argument, that will eventually lead to a recession. The recession started in December of 2007. Sooo...how is it that Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the recession that we are in now?

[EVAY]

Well, unless you are an elitist, you know a degree doesn't matter. Nobody knows enough about all topics, and yes, I agree he had bad advice.

Still, tell me this. If a president doesn't feel absolutely right for a veto, should he veto what congress gives him?

I'm not sure what your question means. I'm not being obnoxious, I just don't quite understand it.

Moreover, my point about Bush having an MBA was that he SHOULD have known, or he should be held responsible for appointing someone who would know and would advise him properly in the field of monetary policy.

I don't honestly think that Bush wanted to veto the Paulson bailout bill. I honestly believe that he (Bush) did what he thought was the right thing to do. I think he was as convinced by Paulson and Bernanke that it was right as were the members of Congress whom you are so much more willing to blame than the president.

The bailout may have been a mistake. It may not have been. I believe that everyone involved acted on what they thought was the best thing to do. As you have pointed out, both presidential candidates supported it. The only opposition to it came from the Republicans in Congress who didn't believe it was the right thing to do. I remember being shocked, literally, that such massive intervention was being proposed and supported by the Republican administration. But since it WAS proposed and supported by the people who were theoretically the MOST knowledgeable about this topic, why do you blame some politicians for taking their advice and not others?

[ElNono]

Now, c'mon W.C. your own internal logic has to acknowledge that the arithmetic of cutting revenues while increasing expenditures is gonna increase the deficit. This all happened under Republican control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Based on your own argument, that will eventually lead to a recession. The recession started in December of 2007. Sooo...how is it that Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the recession that we are in now?

He's full of shit and he knows it, that's how.

[Wild Cobra]

Now, c'mon W.C. your own internal logic has to acknowledge that the arithmetic of cutting revenues while increasing expenditures is gonna increase the deficit.
No, can you prove that?

I am a firm believe in the "Laffer Curve."

As you raise taxes, you reduce the economy. The GDP reduces as tax burdens increase. We have data since before the 40's that shows the federal government gets about 18% to 18.5% of the GDP in tax revenue, regardless of the tax rate. Therefore, when you increase taxes, you reduce revenue, and vise-versa... to a reasonable limit. We have not yet seen how low of a tax rate is too low, because we have never been there.

This all happened under Republican control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Based on your own argument, that will eventually lead to a recession. The recession started in December of 2007. Sooo...how is it that Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the recession that we are in now?
The democrats are responsible for our current recession. They took congress in the 2006 election, and started their bullshit in January of 2007. Now if I were president Bush, I would have vetoed the bailout. We have an entire congress and president now that have bad economic ideas.

[LnGrrrR]

I am a firm believe in the "Laffer Curve."

As you raise taxes, you reduce the economy. The GDP reduces as tax burdens increase. We have data since before the 40's that shows the federal government gets about 18% to 18.5% of the GDP in tax revenue, regardless of the tax rate. Therefore, when you increase taxes, you reduce revenue, and vise-versa... to a reasonable limit. We have not yet seen how low of a tax rate is too low, because we have never been there.


Not exactly. If we're on the low side of the curve, then we should be raising rates. How do you determine where the "peak" of the curve is, WC?

[EVAY]

I assume that you intended to say that the Democrats took the house in 2006, not 1996. The republicans had congressional control from 1994 to 2006.

It is not my intention to argue that huge deficits are acceptable, or that we are not going to have to pay dearly for them in the long run. We are. My point is that the federal deficit doubled under the Reagan tax cuts, when 'trickle down' theory was telling us that the tax cuts would so stimulate the economy that we would have more than enough taxes from the increased business to produce enough revenues to balance the budget. But the federal deficit doubled.

Then both G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton increased taxes, and the economy still grew at a strong rate during the 90's, with revenues increasing enough that we actually had a budget surplus, which was being used to pay down the federal deficit. Now this is historical fact.

Then when G.W. Bush took office, he said that the fact that we were in a surplus mode meant that people were paying too much in taxes ( noone in the republican party was the least bit concerned about the debt that my grandschildren were gonna be saddled with at that moment), so we had to go back to reducing the taxes. With the help of the Republican Congress ( remember they had been in power since 1994), he reduced revenues to the gov't, and then sponsored No Child Left Behind (without paying for it) and Medicare Reform (without paying for it) and two wars (without paying for them). That doubled the federal deficit again. Again under Republican control.

Now we are faced with a democratically controlled White House and Congress who are about to triple the federal deficit.

My point in all of this is that the only difference between the two parties is the multiplier that will be used to increase the deficit.




Well, I believe that the Laffer Curve has been pretty well discredited.

[Wild Cobra]

Not exactly. If we're on the low side of the curve, then we should be raising rates. How do you determine where the "peak" of the curve is, WC?
We don't know where the peak is, but it's obvious to me we are on the wrong side of it to be raising taxes. As long as people believe we need higher taxes, we will never find that sweet spot.

[LnGrrrR]

We don't know where the peak is, but it's obvious to me we are on the wrong side of it to be raising taxes. As long as people believe we need higher taxes, we will never find that sweet spot.

Obvious to you perhaps, not so much to others. :toast

[ElNono]

We don't know where the peak is, but it's obvious to me we are on the wrong side of it to be raising taxes.

How so? Last time we raised taxes, we increased revenue. I think that pretty much tells you where we are on the curve.


As long as people believe we need higher taxes, we will never find that sweet spot.

Believing we need higher taxes or not is not going to really help you find any spot. Actually lowering/raising the taxes is what does.

[Wild Cobra]

I assume that you intended to say that the Democrats took the house in 2006, not 1996. The republicans had congressional control from 1994 to 2006.

correct, I don't know what I was thinking. Must be my funny sleep pattern, I corrected the other post.


It is not my intention to argue that huge deficits are acceptable, or that we are not going to have to pay dearly for them in the long run. We are. My point is that the federal deficit doubled under the Reagan tax cuts, when 'trickle down' theory was telling us that the tax cuts would so stimulate the economy that we would have more than enough taxes from the increased business to produce enough revenues to balance the budget. But the federal deficit doubled.

I would argue the debt would have been even larger without the tax cuts of the 80's under Reagan. He inherited a double digit inflation on the current debt. There was no way in hell he could have kept it from ballooning. If you understand compound interest, you would appreciate just how well his administration managed the crisis.


Then both G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton increased taxes, and the economy still grew at a strong rate during the 90's, with revenues increasing enough that we actually had a budget surplus, which was being used to pay down the federal deficit. Now this is historical fact.

Yes, and when Clinton's taxes netted a couple years above 19% revenue of GDP, any historian of taxes would red flag that. The only reason those last few years were sustainable was technological breakthroughs in the semiconductor industry of the early 90's allowing faster and faster chips, i.e. the tech boom, until it hit a wall in about 2001. That along with the Y2K scare, with everyone needing new computer technologies, fueling the market farther. I was in the Semiconductor industry from 1994 to 2002, at the forefront of that new technology. Serial # 008 was being built when I started for this new, fast growing company. I think sn 004 was being prepped to ship to Intel. Every Intel Pentium chip made until at least 2000, was made on the equipment type I was a part of manufacturing. The very first Pentiums were made on prototype models the company I worked for had. Intel even had a 'skunkworks' at my job site.

I know a little about the tech boom.

Oh... My avatar pic is of a later version of equipment we started producing in 1997. I went to the 1997 SemiCon convention with it.


Then when G.W. Bush took office, he said that the fact that we were in a surplus mode meant that people were paying too much in taxes ( noone in the republican party was the least bit concerned about the debt that my grandschildren were gonna be saddled with at that moment), so we had to go back to reducing the taxes.
Well, first of all, there was no real surplus. Second of all, I wonder if he said or even believed that.

With the help of the Republican Congress ( remember they had been in power since 1994), he reduced revenues to the gov't, and then sponsored No Child Left Behind (without paying for it) and Medicare Reform (without paying for it) and two wars (without paying for them). That doubled the federal deficit again. Again under Republican control.

Some bad policies were made, but his medicare reform has actually come in far under estimates for costs. I don't know if No Child Left Behind was a good or bad policy. Never looked into it, but I am for dismantling the Department of Education anyway. What ever happened to States Rights?


Now we are faced with a democratically controlled White House and Congress who are about to triple the federal deficit.

Only triple?

Figures I have heard is that this congress and president are about to spend more money than all previous congresses and presidents before them!


My point in all of this is that the only difference between the two parties is the multiplier that will be used to increase the deficit.

Parties, yes. That's why I am not belonging to either.

At least the republicans are not making policies that will definitely make things worse.

If we could get rid of the RINO's, I might join the republican party. I dislike them, but hate the democrats. I usually end up voting for the lesser of two evils, or a fictional character like Micky Mouse. I always make a choice, even if I simply check the "other" box and write in "none of the above" just so some election handler cannot use my ballot for additional votes.


Well, I believe that the Laffer Curve has been pretty well discredited.
Opinions go both ways, but it's not discredited. Just depends on who you listen to.

[Wild Cobra]

How so? Last time we raised taxes, we increased revenue. I think that pretty much tells you where we are on the curve.

There will always be a short term increase when you raise taxes or a short term decrease when you lower them. It take a couple of years for the market to completely adjust. The immediate feedback is not an indication of the long term trend.

[Winehole23]

Post hoc ergo propter hocSwing and a miss, profe.

EVAY was arguing for the de-linkage of tax policy and economic growth it seems to me.

[ElNono]

There will always be a short term increase when you raise taxes or a short term decrease when you lower them. It take a couple of years for the market to completely adjust. The immediate feedback is not an indication of the long term trend.

I gather that's your opinion? Because it's actually contrary to what the Laffer curve theory proposes.

[ChumpDumper]

Here is a chart of the last 10 years of the S&P 500 (blue) and the Dow (red) indicates.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/10yearsofSPandDow.jpg

Please notice that after the recession president Bush inherited, he turned it around with tax breaks. The stocks went up by over 80% over 3-12 years, regaining the ground of normal growth, yet the liberal pundits could only complain about the Bush economy.So from your graph and logic, Obama is turning around the recession he inherited from Bush with a 30% increase in stocks in less than a year.

The Cylons helped you.

[ChumpDumper]

and :lol @ "declaine."

[PixelPusher]

Another calculation since 1940 using the OMB numbers vs. population, adjusted to 2000 dollars gives this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/USWealthperperson1940to2011.jpg

This is the wealth of the USA per person, not personal wealth.

I know the mountain peak on the far left is called "Mount Postwar Boom", and the last 2 peaks on the right are called "Mount DotCom" and "Mount Mortgage Securities", but I'm not sure what all the middle peaks are called.

[exstatic]

What does Obama have to do to be considered socialism? Please specific? When will it be a valid claim?

Wait...didn't you say he hadn't done anything? Wouldn't that be a requirement?

You're also the one throwing the term around. Shouldn't YOU define it?

[Wild Cobra]

Bump...

Would you all go back to the first graph I posted and consider...

How can we trust anything the demonrats in congress do?

[exstatic]

Bump...

Would you all go back to the first graph I posted and consider...

How can we trust anything the demonrats in congress do?

Because the two biggest peaks came at the end of multiple term Democratic presidencies?

[Wild Cobra]

Because the two biggest peaks came at the end of multiple term Democratic presidencies?
Which ones?

Clinton's economy started falling before 2000. That's null and void since it was riding the wane of the tech boom, not anything he did. In fact, I would argue high taxes were sustainable only because of the techs. Once that market started falling in 1999, high taxes drove the economy down.

[EmptyMan]

Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got fucked. The real middle class, or that bullshit politically correct "middle class"?

The middle class I know owned during the last decade.

The majority of people can't do shit right financially. If you acted smart , it would have been hard not to rise during the last decade.