Bush Still Destroying the Middle Class

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
DTB got me thinking a little bit about how we are individually now, compared to the former administration. I have read much on this over the past few years, but recently have taken a little political "break"...lack of free time with football here and coaching, etc. Here is a commentary on some real numbers and real results in this economy. It continues to be rosy at the top of the heap, but holding up the heap is getting harder to do for the middle class - let alone the poverty level Americans. Would appreciate comments from conservatives on this as well. I do learn a lot by looking at both sides of every story.


Bush Still Destroying the Middle Class
by bonddad (a Blog featured on TheDailyKos.com)


Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 06:11:05 PDT

There are all sorts of great issues on the political scene now. *There is the "Culture of Corruption" thanks to Delay, Frist and a whole host of other Republicans. *The Iraq War also comes to mind. *Both of these issues are strong issues for the Democrats. *However, there are other issues that are just as important that lack the visceral nature of corruption and war. *These issues center around economic issues, or as I like to think of them "kitchen table issues." *If a family can't afford health insurance or tuition, if they aren't making more money than they were 4 years ago, then the other issues don't matter. *People have to survive before they can think about grander themes. *Right now, Bush's policies have hurt the middle class in numerous ways that II will document below. *These have to be part of our themes in the 2006 election.

Below, I will use statistics from January 2001 when Bush was sworn in as president. *Some Republicans use 9/11 and the recession as mitigating factors to explain Bush's poor performance. *These are mitigating factors. *However, Bush got the job. *He gets credit for the whole enchilada - not just the part that looks good.

Wages

According to the Bureau of Labor Services, the average hourly earnings of production workers was $14.27 in January 2001 and was $16.16 in August 2005 for an increase of 13.24%. *Over the same period of time, the overall inflation index for all items increased from 175.1 to 196.4 for an increase of 12.16%. *That means after inflation, the average production wage increased 1.08% in 4 and a half years. *This is why the average American feels so much richer under Republican economic leadership.

Jobs

According to the Bureau of Labor Services, total nonfarm employment was 132,454,000 in January 2001 and 133,999,000 in August 2005 for a net 4.5 year gain of 1,545,000. *This breaks down to approximately 28,600 jobs/month over the period. *This is important because the economy must create 150,000 jobs/month to deal with natural attrition, people looking for new jobs, people entering the workforce etc.... *In other words, Bush's economy has not created enough jobs to deal with the natural expansion of the population or generally economic conditions. *The next question to answer is "why is the unemployment rate so low?" *The unemployment numbers do not count people who have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks. *This is better documented by the labor participation rate which was dropped from 67.2% in January 2001 to 66.2% in August 2005.

In addition, the Bush economy is heavily skewed towards housing. *Over the same time, the net gain in construction employment was 418,000, or 27% of total employment growth. *In addition, financial services jobs increased by 487,000 over the same period. *All of the financial jobs are not related to real estate. *I have not seen any statistics that break this number down into a real estate and non-real estate portion. So let's make a simple conservative assumption and say that 20% of the financial services jobs are related to real estate activities. *That would mean 6.2% of the jobs created in the financial services area are related to real estate, bringing the total number of housing related jobs to 33.2% of total ob creation during the recovery. *Finally, business and professional services increased employment by a little over 100,000. *Assuming 10% of these are real estate related, an additional .5% of job growth is real estate related, bringing the grand total of housing based employment to 33.7% of all jobs created in the last 5 years. *So, when housing slows so will the job market. *

Of particularly scary significance is the loss in high paying technology and goods producing jobs. *January 2001, the US economy has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs and 560,000 information jobs. * These numbers alone should concern anybody who is concerned with the US' mammoth international trade deficit.

Health Care

Actually, it would be better to title any description of Bush's efforts on heath care as lack of health care. *Kaiser Health recently issued its annual survey of health care. *Here are some of the high points:



Premiums increased an average of 9.2% in 2005, down from the 11.2% average found in 2004. The 2005 increase ended four consecutive years of double-digit increases, but the rate of growth is still more than three times the growth in workers' earnings (2.7%) and two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation (3.5%). Since 2000, premiums have gone up 73%.


The annual premiums for family coverage reached $10,880 in 2005, eclipsing the gross earnings for a full-time minimum-wage worker ($10,712). The average worker paid $2,713 toward premiums for family coverage in 2005 or 26% of the total health premium. While workers' share of their premium has been relatively stable over the past few years, they are now paying on average $1,094 more in premiums for family coverage than they did in 2000.

For those who want the hard numbers, annual premium increases for 2001-2004 were 10.9%, 12.9%, 13.9%, and 11.2%. *Read the rest of the report to get an idea for how poorly Bush's ideas have not solved the problem. *This is a crisis that has only grown in size and magnitude since Bush came into office. *He has done nothing to address the problem.

College Tuition

I have an idea: let's educate people so they can get better jobs. *Call me a revolutionary. *Or a fool. *The last 4 years have seen large increases in public college education costs. *Annual increases in the cost of public education from 2001-2005 were 7.1%, 9.1%, 13.9% and 10.6% respectively. *The average cost of 452 state school tuition costs was $5153 in 2005, with the average for room and board expense coming in at $6058. *This brings the 4-year total to $40,764 for an education and room and board.

*Tuition and fees have increased 51% since the 1994-1995 school year. *In addition, tuition has increased faster than inflation since the early 1980s.

But wait! *A student can get a grant! *This situation isn't so bad! *Well, the problem is the state and local grants aren't keeping pace with the tuition increases. *Therefore, the grants are now paying for less of the education than before. *The bottom line is college is slowly becoming more and more a luxury people are having a more difficult time affording. *

One of these days, I will figure out a way to make these issues really exciting and visceral so people actually start talking about them. *Until that happens, these issues will probably continue to fall through the cracks of US political dialog -- along with the middle class.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
You're new around here, chadman, but here is the typical response you can expect from a lot of these guys:

-I stopped reading after I saw THEDAILYKOS :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: -

See, it's easier to dismiss something as coming from a 'liberal source' than to actually discuss the content.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
I am Middle Class and I am Doing Leaps and Bounds better under The Bush Admin than I did during Clinton ! ....and I was doing better before Clinton came to office under Bush Sr ..... The only time in my life I was ever barely making it was under Bill Clinton .... That guy left and I immeadiately bought the Home of our dreams due to interest rates and the Tax refunds that boosted the economy enough to get the trades rolling again in Chicago which helped me keep my job secure .
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I don't think it really makes any sense to discuss this in anything but a macro sense. I mean, seriously, how many different circumstances can happen to an individual person that has absolutely nothing to do with the president.

We could all probably wrap some theory around how some president affected them, good or bad, depending on the president(see palehoses post) of course. It's amazing how Palehose has thrived during the 9 years the Bush's were/have been in office, but strangely just happened to struggle in those 8 years in between.

Seeing the DOW triple in Clinton's 8 years (and that's AFTER the dotcom bust) was just horrible. I don't attribute that to Clinton, but come on.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Chadman makes me think of Chanman. Did anyone ever find out where he went?
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
kosar said:
I don't think it really makes any sense to discuss this in anything but a macro sense. I mean, seriously, how many different circumstances can happen to an individual person that has absolutely nothing to do with the president.

We could all probably wrap some theory around how some president affected them, good or bad, depending on the president(see palehoses post) of course. It's amazing how Palehose has thrived during the 9 years the Bush's were/have been in office, but strangely just happened to struggle in those 8 years in between.

Seeing the DOW triple in Clinton's 8 years (and that's AFTER the dotcom bust) was just horrible. I don't attribute that to Clinton, but come on.

1. Believe what you wish I will take the $2400 and trust that I know how to spend my money better than they do

2. I did do well in the stock market from 85 to about 2001 but that wasent Bills doing that would be Ronald Reagan

3. Clintons Taxes soaked us so bad we lived check to check for the 1st time in my life.

4. Interests rates during the Bush Admin made it possible for me to buy a much bigger home than I could afford during Billy term .
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
I wont comment on the artical itself because its full of alot of very misleading statistics ....and I will say that someone last week posted one in favor of the Bush Admin economics and it was also full of very misleading statistics ....since I am known as a Conservative here I will give an example of a misleading statement in the Pro Bush economic scheme .

IE: The article stated that we broke records for Tax revenue for any one yr ...maybe it was a quater ect....ect ....point being is the article tried to make it sound like the government collected more Taxes as a whole than ever in the history of our country .... Thats where the problem is because Tax Revenues are taxes collected by state and fed when we buy something IE the sales tax which is related to but definately not the entire tax collected by our government in any 1 year or quarter . In the end these articals do have truth in them but sometimes they try to make people believe for Instance a Tax Revenue is another word for total taxes collected ...and it just dosent mean that .

Here is one for ya's how many people here believe our Country didnt go futher into debt while Clinton was in office ???? There was tons of misleading info out there on that one .
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Palehose said:
2. I did do well in the stock market from 85 to about 2001 but that wasent Bills doing that would be Ronald Reagan

3. Clintons Taxes soaked us so bad we lived check to check for the 1st time in my life.

4. Interests rates during the Bush Admin made it possible for me to buy a much bigger home than I could afford during Billy term .

2. This one is a keeper. The stock market tripling in Clintons 8 years was not only NOT about anything Slick Willy did, but it was Reagan! So was Reagan also responsible for the dotcom bust?

3. Really? And what taxes were those, exactly, that had you living check to check?

4. How do you figure that Bush is responsible for low mortgage rates? Yeah, he's responsible for that but the stock market bonanza under Clinton was the result of two presidents before him.

Priceless!
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Pale I have to laugh on that one. If you didn't make big bucks 7 out of the 8 years Clinton was in. You sure as hell never have. Unless you got lucky in last few year and caught a stock that was on a great run.
 

ryson

Capitalist
Forum Member
Dec 22, 2001
1,142
9
0
IAH
The dismantling of the middle class started long before the current administration.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
djv said:
Pale I have to laugh on that one. If you didn't make big bucks 7 out of the 8 years Clinton was in. You sure as hell never have. Unless you got lucky in last few year and caught a stock that was on a great run.

I do well and did well through the Clinton years as far as earnings go but, Bill taxed my earnings at 38 % ...where my budget was based on a 33 % tax under the Bush sr admin ..I could barely afford my lifestyle when Clinton taxed the crap out of us ....Now at 5 % less taxes I am doing great and even upgraded my home. I wont go into Reagannomics Kosar because its beyound your capacity to understand ...the best way to get a little clue on why the stock market took off under Reagan look no further than the 12% Interest rates that Carter handcuffed the country with compared to the 8% rates that Reagan lobbied Greenspan to get to by the end of Reagans term Yes that is an Amazing 4 point drop over 8 years that we may never see again . Overall and it has to be handled carefully due to inflation and loan money available but low interest rates and low taxes = Economic growth . I do give credit to Bill for keeping those rates down and glad the entire country learned the lesson that Reagan gave us economically . Bill just went overboard on taxes and thats why he killed economic growth which was very appearent by the middle of 1999.

Bush is only kinda responcible but no more than Bill was for interest rates ( again Reagan proved this works Bill and GWB would have to be brain dead not to follow that lesson ) but Bush is responcible for the taxes and Its the combination of both that kept us from Recession.

Priceless is the fact you no nothing about money and believe the Government knows how to spend it better than you . Hence why you wont be going anywhere anytime soon :sadwave:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Well your friends from the right are the ones spending it like nuts. That would be all are money. And there just charging it to us.
And if a 5% tax cut made you so much money. You should have seen a tax adviser long time ago before Bush 41 and you could have saved heck of alot more. Even with Clinton so called high taxes. I was able to double my wealth twice. The last 5 years as things have stayed flat. It's taken a lot of work to make anything. With markets still not back to highs you have to hit the right stocks or make very little.
 

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,520
807
113
usa
on world a disgrace, this country going backward"

-- Raymond, 2005 :mj07: :mj07:
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
djv said:
Well your friends from the right are the ones spending it like nuts. That would be all are money. And there just charging it to us.
And if a 5% tax cut made you so much money. You should have seen a tax adviser long time ago before Bush 41 and you could have saved heck of alot more. Even with Clinton so called high taxes. I was able to double my wealth twice. The last 5 years as things have stayed flat. It's taken a lot of work to make anything. With markets still not back to highs you have to hit the right stocks or make very little.

Yes they are spending it like nuts but their spending it were I want to see it spent for a change . Yes from about 1985 to 2000 if you werent using the stock market to dbl, triple even quadruple your net worth you missed the boat but that was a gift from Reagan ...and djv I am a tax adviser I do that and build killer gaming pc's on the side for both a hobby and for extra cash .
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Regan? He left a deficit for Bush 41 with high interest. He Had little if anything to do with 1991 to 2000.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yep Matt When I saw where it came from and scanned it--it was enough for me. Typical # munipulation and not worth effort to go thru --- one example I didn't have to look up--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Premiums increased an average of 9.2% in 2005, down from the 11.2% average found in 2004. The 2005 increase ended four consecutive years of double-digit increases, but the rate of growth is still more than three times the growth in workers' earnings (2.7%) and two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation (3.5%). Since 2000, premiums have gone up 73%."

now think!! what does this tell you--that health premiums went up in Bush admin--When was last time health care didn't increase in 70's but forgot which year.Since you threw this junk up here Chadman got a little research for you to do.Find health care increase per year on Bill's watch and report back to us what you find.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and on---
Seeing the DOW triple in Clinton's 8 years (and that's AFTER the dotcom bust) was just horrible. I don't attribute that to Clinton, but come on."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The dot.com bust went on into beginning of Bush term and not quite triple but close enough. Yep looking at this one would think--WOW economy was really booming--thats exactly why the majority got drilled on the crash in one of the largest drops of net worth since market crash of 29.

Was it booming or was it the perception everyone had it was booming(and STILL think it did)--

While I could use the NASDAQ and really make these #'s look ridiculous I'll use most conservative S & P instead.
In Dec 30 of 1999 the S & P had the high collective PE ratio in market history 44.20 and DOW was at 11,452
June of 04 of 2004 DOW was at 10,348 with the S&P having a collective PE of 23.13

The exuberance was running high but NOT the economy.
Which time period would you want to be invested in????
Next person that tells you economy was boomimg--ask them how the corrrection treated them when the smoke and mirrors was exposed ;)

The S&P 500's P/E ratio in recent history

Month P/E ratio Context
June 1949 9.07 Just before 1950-66 bull market
Jan. 1966 24.06 At end of 1950-66 bull run
July 1982 6.64 At end of 1966-82 bear market
Sept. 1987 17.68 Just before Oct. '87 crash
Dec. 1999 44.20 At end of late '90s bull market
Sept. 2001 27.67 After Sept. 11 terror attacks
June 9, 2004 23.13 Present valuations are l historically high


Source: Robert Shiller, Baseline
 
Last edited:

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
I bought oil stocks in '98. Oil was $11 a barrel. Thanks, Willy.

Bush and his cronies have made a killing with the oil price rise.

Seriously, I lost my arse in 2000. Decided to go with commodities, oil, steel, gold, copper. sold and spent it all.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
Is interesting that we knew what was coming since 80's and no one did nothing about it--no new refineries --no drilling in Alaska no alternate solutions--finally Bush passed largest initive ever on alternative fuel-- 21 million on hydrogen fuel research alone. Hmmm wonder what these oil cronies think about that ;)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Many of these oil companies are developing alternative fuel programs, largely because of the financial incentives enacted by Cheney and Bush to benefit them. Not only can their oil cronies enjoy record profits - FOR ANY AMERICAN COMPANY IN HISTORY - each month for two months, they also are gaining tax incentives and are having these new profit centers partially paid for with your tax dollars. Why haven't any of these oil companies built new refining facilities over the last few years? Why aren't they using these profits to help ease our dependence on foreign oil? Simple...they certainly don't have to, as they benefit MORE when each of us are wincing each time we watch the gas pump roll.

Of course Bush passed the largest initiative ever on alternative fuel. And he made sure that his largest supporters will benefit from it in many ways.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top