Conservative or Liberal..What will be better for the US..

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Why is it unfair to show that people (90% of them, anyway) are making on average less now than they were before Bush? "

Where did you get this data Chad?

I've ask 5 times for anyone to come forward who is worse off--and yet to see -the 1st.

Unless the 90% your speaking of are the same block that vote 90% Democratic--as tax reduction had no consequence for them and don't believe welfare has a yearly cost of living allowance.

Now if you really want the facts on the matter--instead of some blogs opinion go here and look at chart on bottom of page and tell me what you see--

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

 

[Chadman]

If I have to break it down liiterally, I guess that's fine. What I meant was they are making less net income, not in overall income. Of course people are going to be making more gross income on average - how could anyone argue that? I'd assume that to be a constant throughout the ages, give or take. And that's been over the past five years, and that's not from a blog - it's from IRS numbers, as was presented in the other thread. You consider a link from the NY Times to be a blog entry, of course, so there's really no way to make a point in this scenario.

The only people making more net money - on average - under the bush administration is the upper 1% (or less) who are seeing their incomes skyrocket. Funny, how that works, since you still say they are suffering under such an unfair, repressive tax system. Just doesn't add up.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I consider anything that doesn't support opinion with fact and defies common sense questionable--
--per common sense--

-- if they are making more gross income how can they be making less net--considering--

---their taxes are lower
---inflation lower-
--they been able refinance any previous loans at lower rate.
:shrug:

--what adverse factor could possibly negate these possitives:shrug:

 

[djv]

When the average raise is same as inflation number. I guess you might break even. But when you start paying for your health care up 250% last 6 years. Good Luck. Or gas up $2.00 a gallon.Milk out of sight. Those three things are killing pocket books. And the tax break is a joke to many of us. Bush was clever enough not to touch the AMT tax. Witch just nails many middle class payers.

 

[Chadman]

I consider anything that doesn't support opinion with fact and defies common sense questionable--
--per common sense--

-- if they are making more gross income how can they be making less net--considering--

---their taxes are lower
---inflation lower-
--they been able refinance any previous loans at lower rate.
:shrug:

--what adverse factor could possibly negate these possitives:shrug:

Here's one link for you. Found several, if you like I can post them all...but I think this sums it up pretty well, and includes my point about the top shelf earners bringing the overall average up and being the only people to really benefit directly from this administration and it's policies - otherwise it's much worse for the 90% - or at least not better enough to take any kind of real credit for.

Report: Most not seeing real wage gains

Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s.

August 28 2006: 11:32 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most workers have not seen wage gains keep pace with inflation during the current economic expansion, the first time that has happened since World War II, according to a published report.

The New York Times reports that the median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. Median wages are the point at which equal numbers of workers earn more and less.

The paper reports that while average family income, adjusted for inflation, has continued to advance at a good clip, that has been helped by gains by the top wage earners.

The paper says that about nine out of 10 workers have seen inflation that has outpaced their pay increases over the last three years, according to the Labor Department. That includes workers earning up to $80,000 a year, a level that puts them in the 90th percentile of wage earners.

The paper reports that with employment gains softening in recent months, inflationary pressures stay high due to factors such as high energy prices, so the gap between wages and prices could increase for many workers.

The paper reports that the gap between the top wage earners and other workers is growing. It cites research from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty that showed that in 2004, the top 1 percent of earners --a group that includes many chief executives --received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago.

In addition, corporate profits are growing more quickly than wages and salaries. Employee pay now makes up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, according to the paper, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

1st per the title--

"Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s."

what exactly does does pay per % of GDP have to remotely do with anything-
You again take a positive (highest GDP ever) and try to make it a negative that is totally uncorrelated to what people earn. We are discussing if "wage earners" are better off now--not how booming our economy is--is this the best the blogs could give you?
-look at the facts--again please

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

and the rest of your article The Times reports--the report says ectc ect--but tells you squat shit where their info was derived from --and did they factors did they not include per my common sense notes.

Your a smart fellow Chad--You need to think for yourself and quit being being led--

Can you realistically look at income charts and not come to own conclusion--if you still do not see the light --consider your own plight and then ask why am I doing better and the other 90% aren't--

--and people wonder how when polled most say they are doing fine--but think no one else is--liberal media/blog programming.

 

[djv]

I'll make this easier then all those experts writing so much. I took 20 bucks to store yesterday. I got change in 1999. Yesterday they told be I was short and they need 3 more bucks. I got gas day before, 20 bucks got me 20 gallons in 99. I got 7 gallons this time. And please don't talk tax break. I payed more in 06 then in 99. Heck I been retired over 4 years. I don't even want to start on health care. And if most got tax break I got there loosing there shirts.

 

[Chadman]

1st per the title--

"Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s."

what exactly does does pay per % of GDP have to remotely do with anything-
You again take a positive (highest GDP ever) and try to make it a negative that is totally uncorrelated to what people earn. We are discussing if "wage earners" are better off now--not how booming our economy is--is this the best the blogs could give you?
-look at the facts--again please

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

and the rest of your article The Times reports--the report says ectc ect--but tells you squat shit where their info was derived from --and did they factors did they not include per my common sense notes.

Your a smart fellow Chad--You need to think for yourself and quit being being led--

Can you realistically look at income charts and not come to own conclusion--if you still do not see the light --consider your own plight and then ask why am I doing better and the other 90% aren't--

--and people wonder how when polled most say they are doing fine--but think no one else is--liberal media/blog programming.

So, you dismiss the entire article, which gives plenty of specific information, because of the title, which really isn't touched much on in the story?

The story tells you, specifically, that wage earners, except for the upper crust, are not better off. They reference the Labor Department. I guess I will hunt down that info, specifically. I don't think it's a mystery to most people who go to the store, who, get gasoline, who pay their utility bill, who pay their medical (especially) or car insurance bills, buy clothing, groceries, etc. You continually refer me to the list showing how much more the gross incomes are every year. Has that ever been in question by anyone, ever? People make more, they pay more, but the only thing you want anyone to focus on is people making more?!? OKAY>>>WE GET IT!!! Can you move on?

You talk about your common sense notes. And yet you try to ignore anything costing more at the same time. The only people that are REALLY making a lot more money that higher prices do NOT REALLY AFFECT THAT MUCH are the upper wage earners that have skewed the numbers ON YOUR CHART for the past few years, while the other 90% have not realized those benefits. The same people you say are hindered by the high tax rates they have to endure.

Time to drive this one home, I see, even though most can see the true picture here, and elsewhere.

 

[Chadman]

Some quick comparison numbers for you.

Inflation in Jan. 2000: 2.74%
Inflation in Mar. 2007: 2.78%

Surrounding numbers are very close. In 1998, for example, Inflation ran - for THE ENTIRE YEAR around 1.5%. WHAT IS YOUR POINT, AGAIN?

Unemployment numbers...

Clinton decreased unemployment from 7.3 in '93 (I guess we blame Bush I for the early part of the deal, eh?) to 3.9 at the end of his tenure.

Bush has increased unemployment from those lower numbers for his early years up to around 5.7-5.8% for three years, and recently at 4.6. Higher than Clinton's years.

Referencing this with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and historical inflation numbers from another site - can find it again if you like.

Just getting warmed up. We can continue if you like...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Chad I hope your not doing the ole NTY/liberal blog pick a date here and there dupe--and just reporting what your reading on the blogs--

Maybe you could put your inflation charts up and we'll compare--
Charts I'm looking @ (notice I'm putting them all up again--not just the years that suit me
92--3%
93--3. %
94--2.6%
95--2.9%
96--2.9%
97--2.1%
98--2.4%
99--2.0%
00--2.6%
01--2.8%
02--1.8%
03--1.5%
04--2.2%
05--2.2
06--2.5
Source of inflation data: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
website source
http://www.signaltrend.com/Inflatio...n=Google+ads&gclid=CMGgicvRmo4CFR8sFQodGxncYw

Now You tell me--do you think one gets a better picture with all the facts--or cherry picked dates?

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, before I go looking for more info, do you really think that the inflation numbers you posted show any kind of measurable difference or "success" story for the current administration? I mean, seriously, I don't even have to cherry pick anything - looking at how close those numbers are throughout the years using the numbers you posted.

Didn't I say the surrounding numbers for inflation were very close? Didn't you just back up my point with your post? Can you type with a straight face that the numbers aren't close? Need a Faux News graphic for that one?

Seriously, man, when all you keep harping on are the numbers I'm starting to compare, and you are posting to, as the measure of success of this administration, that's pretty weak. But we can go on.

 

[auspice2]

Guys, those inflation numbers are the biggest lies our country puts out every year. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that milk was $1.79 last year and $3.45 this year. Same thing with most other foods. There's no fuking way in this world that inflation is in the 2% range and everything we eat, drink or ultimately consume has risen 25%. Bunch of lies is all it is. Arguing about who lies best is pointless.

 

[djv]

I don't knows who's there measuring. Inflation numbers in real world. I don't think so. Heck this administration has rang up so many IOU's real conservatives are committing suicide.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hilliarious--I made note last week about the idiots that pick one element like milk out to gauge infl;ation--and comes out chomping but Aupice :142smilie

Yet bet you'll find in liberal blog somewhere that extra 50 cents a week has sent 90% of america below poverty line.

Good thing they have those "easy loan" shops for aupice and his brothers in case they run low at end of week and can't get that milk.:mj07:

 

[auspice2]

Hilliarious--I made note last week about the idiots that pick one element like milk out to gauge infl;ation--and comes out chomping but Aupice :142smilie

Yet bet you'll find in liberal blog somewhere that extra 50 cents a week has sent 90% of america below poverty line.

Good thing they have those "easy loan" shops for aupice and his brothers in case they run low at end of week and can't get that milk.:mj07:

milk, gas, corn

check the prices of any of these things compared to last year. They're the staple of our lives and they've increased so expodentially it's nonsense to think our overall inflation rate is 2%. These published inflation rates are nothing but placebo for the masses. Every item on practically every menu at every restaurant has risen this past year. To put your head in the sand and believe our lying sack of sh!t government is .........well, stupid. :nono:

 

[Chadman]

Hilliarious--I made note last week about the idiots that pick one element like milk out to gauge infl;ation--and comes out chomping but Aupice :142smilie

Yeah, and you also made note of the overall inflation rates of the Bush administration being the lowest IN DECADES, and I showed (and you posted a confirmation) that the previous decade was almost the same, higher in some, lower in some, but virtually the same.

I won't label anyone an idiot here, but...

...And still haven't seen a response to the unemployment number comparison. All you apparently have that has not been dis-proven as being something for people to comparatively be happier about these days is the taxation numbers. This would be the same old argument as before, and I saw some interesting numbers about the tax cuts enacted during the Clinton years after his tax raises done specifically to balance the budget, and then lowered subsequently.

And I think we all know what group benefited to a large degree in the tax cuts. Yeah, we all got a few hundred bucks back in the middle class, but that's obviously been gobbled up in net losses in income. And so it goes...

Plenty of off the cuff stuff here that you should be able to tear apart, Wayne. You're up. If you lose the economics battle in this discussion, I guess you're stuck with the Iraq war being a good thing for America as the Bush legacy... :SIB

 

[djv]

Yes interesting info out today on CEO pay here. They are over 300 times the average worker. This is why Dem's want some sense put on these out of whack salaries. And many stock holders want more for there stock.

 

[marine]

milk, gas, corn

Every item on practically every menu at every restaurant has risen this past year. To put your head in the sand and believe our lying sack of sh!t government is .........well, stupid. :nono:

You retard, prices at restaurants are rising because minimum wage is increasing. You think restaurants are just going to pull frigging money out of the air to pay a higher hourly wage to their workers? It's got to come from somewhere.

 

[auspice2]

You retard, prices at restaurants are rising because minimum wage is increasing. You think restaurants are just going to pull frigging money out of the air to pay a higher hourly wage to their workers? It's got to come from somewhere.

My cousin owns a small restaurant in our town. I understand 'cost of goods sold' as I was a cpa for 20 plus years. I do lots of 'cost analysis' work for him (for free of course). I"m also not a retard, nor do I refer to others as such. I also didn't understand till now that higher labor prices don't count in inflation figures. Thank you for your insight. Nice to learn something from an obvious contibutor to various think tanks.

BTW.....you can rest assuredly that 'cost of goods sold' at lots of restaurants HAVE risen by over 10% this past year without figuring in wages. That's from our vendors we use with the same menu from last year. Large chains that have 'captured proprietary' supply lines will obviously have different results, but small mom and pop establishments are feeling the pinch.

One more small point: when restaurants get increased prices of say 10% on an item, they don't increase the price of the ultimately sold item by just enough to cover the increase. They increase the price by a 'buffer' % to more than cover the cost increase. It's the way things are done in the real world.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Plenty of off the cuff stuff here that you should be able to tear apart, Wayne. You're up. If you lose the economics battle in this discussion, I guess you're stuck with the Iraq war being a good thing for America as the Bush legacy"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only way I lose is if liberals agree the opinion you put up from liberal blogs trumps the facts on the charts displayed--

I think there have been enough facts displayed for the rational people to make their own decisions--as far as the Liberal --"worst economy since great depression groupies--theres absolutely nothing that would sway them
--they will dismiss low inflation by price of milk
--say tax cuts don't help their non tax paying base--claim low unemployment means nothing if everyone isn't earning $50,000 a year
--low interests are useless are if their dead beat base can't pay back their loans
ect ect ect

Fact of the matter is--
booming economy will have no impact on liberal base unless they find way to take it from those competent enough to exploit it and give it to the non productive--

Which is, has and always be their political agenda.