Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48
  1. #1
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Here is a chart of the last 10 years of the S&P 500 (blue) and the Dow (red) indicates.



    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.

  2. #2
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got ed.

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...her_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 at udes 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 Ins ute (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 cir stances. 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.

  3. #3
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Another calculation since 1940 using the OMB numbers vs. population, adjusted to 2000 dollars gives this:



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

  4. #4
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got ed.
    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.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    2,617
    Socialism is good for business and prosperity.

  6. #6
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    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..

  7. #7
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got ed.

    You watched the market lately vs. the unemployment numbers.

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

  8. #8
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    You watched the market lately vs. the unemployment numbers.

    Seems the new administration is -bent on prolonging that trend.
    We'll know for sure if he signs this blowjob to the insurance vampires that the senate seems bent to pass.

  9. #9
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    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.

  10. #10
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    We'll know for sure if he signs this blowjob to the insurance vampires that the senate seems bent 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 en ies responsible for the "crisis" in healthcare can't be made to profit ridiculously from the "fix"?

  11. #11
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    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).

  12. #12
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    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.

  13. #13
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Who's debating that the rich did very well under Bush? The middle class got ed.
    Trickle down economics, son... The rich do well, then it trickles down to the middle class and the poor... except when it doesn't...

  14. #14
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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!

  15. #15
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Trickle down economics, son... The rich do well, then it trickles down to the middle class and the poor... except when it doesn't...
    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?

  16. #16
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    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?

  17. #17
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    still using the socialism card... no one buys it you moron...oh wait only the dead enders do..
    What does Obama have to do to be considered socialism? Please specific? When will it be a valid claim?

  18. #18
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.

  19. #19
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    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.

  20. #20
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.

  21. #21
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    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.

  22. #22
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.

  23. #23
    Veteran EVAY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,563
    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.

  24. #24
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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!

  25. #25
    Veteran EVAY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,563
    [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????

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •