Today's Census Release on Incomes: Under the Headlines
Pay careful attention to today's release by the Census Bureau of its annual data on poverty, income and health. And don't believe the headlines.
Although the new data show that median household income increased slightly last year, a close reading shows that incomes for working families (as opposed to retirees) actually dropped. Put that drop into context and it's even more alarming. Compared to median income in 2000 -- which, like 2007, was the final year of a cycle of economic growth -- it's now clear that this is the first time Americans have become poorer, in real terms, at the end of an expansion than they were at the start. It seems almost certain that incomes will continue to decline in 2008.
The Census figures also show that the number of uninsured dropped slightly in 2007 but, here again, don't be fooled. That decline was almost entirely due to an increase in government-sponsored coverage for children, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, the rate of employer-based insurance
coverage continued its 7-year decline.
Although the new data show that median household income increased slightly last year, a close reading shows that incomes for working families (as opposed to retirees) actually dropped. Put that drop into context and it's even more alarming. Compared to median income in 2000 -- which, like 2007, was the final year of a cycle of economic growth -- it's now clear that this is the first time Americans have become poorer, in real terms, at the end of an expansion than they were at the start. It seems almost certain that incomes will continue to decline in 2008.
The Census figures also show that the number of uninsured dropped slightly in 2007 but, here again, don't be fooled. That decline was almost entirely due to an increase in government-sponsored coverage for children, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, the rate of employer-based insurance
coverage continued its 7-year decline.
posted by Robert Reich | 1:14 PM
95 Comments:
McCain says the economy keeps getting better. This economy is super duper. From the way he tells it, it's the best economy he's ever seen.
I'm not surprised the numbers are down. The IRS is advertising for extra help on television. They are desperate. I bet heads are rolling because their numbers are declining.
*****************************
Slightly off topic, but goes to our beloved Sbvor and his characterization of the following as a 'nutcase conspiracy theory'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/26/alqaida.uksecurity
A Whitehall counter-terrorism unit is targeting the BBC and other media organisations as part of a new global propaganda push designed to "taint the al-Qaida brand", according to a secret Home Office paper seen by the Guardian.
The document also shows that Whitehall counter-terrorism experts intend to exploit new media websites and outlets with a proposal to "channel messages through volunteers in internet forums" as part of their campaign.
Shorter version of that link.
http://tinyurl.com/6s7yfl
If I, as a taxpayer, end up owning some of the liabilities of FNMA and FMAC, then essentially I end up owning a piece of my own mortgage. So it seems to me that I should get a break on my mortgage payments. Could that be part of a grand compromise?
The McBush tribe knows how to spin the numbers.
Can you believe how much McBush plays his POW card. If you ask him how many houses he owns... his answer is I had no house when I was a POW.
McBush is another silver spoon, upper class imbecile that advanced because daddy greased the skids.
The really sad state in American politics is the number of uneducated voters that can't think for themselves. They read today’s statistics and blindly believe. They get all of their knowledge through evening sitcoms and republican talk radio sound bites. The other sad state is the lack of voting numbers in this country due to the apathy and apolitical disconnect over the years. Most Americans are disgusted with the bickering, greed, inertia within our government.
You might be in for another surprise if you take a look at the Poverty Thresholds for 2007 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years
And for real life examples issued by the Census Bureau I copy the following:
Family A has five members: two children, their mother, father, and great-aunt.
Their threshold was $25,364 dollars in 2007. (See poverty thresholds for 2007)
Suppose the members' incomes in 2007 were:
Mother: $10,000
Father: 7,000
Great-aunt: 10,000
First child: 0
Second child: 0
Total family income: $27,000
Compare total family income with their family's threshold.
Income / Threshold = $27,000 / $25,364 = 1.06
Since their income was greater than their threshold, Family A is not "in poverty" according to the official definition.
Now, if we made the threshholds a bit more realistsic, how would our poverty rates look like?
And yet, the poor simply won't go to vote.
Jesus....
Dr. Reich,
The following is a TABLE 23 I've put together showing Total US Personal Income growth over the last 44 years since President Johnson.
___________________________________
TABLE 23: PERSONAL INCOME at END of PRESIDENTIAL TERM and AVERAGE ANNUAL % INCREASE BASED ON INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS PER NATIONAL INCOME and PRODUCTS ACCOUNTS -- 1963-2008: (Current Dollars in Billions)
___________________________________
End Percentage
................Balance...Increase
Kennedy: 1962.....$456.7.....---
Johnson: 1963-68..$712.0.....7.6%
Nixon: 1969-73..$1,110.7.....9.2%
Ford: 1974-76...$1,474.8.....9.0%
Carter:1977-80..$2,307.9....11.8%
Reagan:1981-84..$3,289.5.....9.2%
Reagan:1985-88..$4,253.7.....6.6%
Bush Sr.1989-92.$5,362.0.....6.0%
Clinton:1993-96.$6,520.6.....5.0%
Clinton:1997-20.$8,429.7.....6.6%
Bush Jr.2001-04.$9,701.2.....3.6%
BushJr.2005-08.$12,200.0.....5.9%
___________________________________
SUMMARY:
Carter/Clinton Years.........7.8%
Clinton Years Excluding......5.8%
Carter
-----------------------------------
Reagan/Bushes'Years..........6.3%
Bush Jr. Years Excluding.....4.9%
Reagan/Bush Sr.
___________________________________
Source: US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA
___________________________________
COMMENTS:
Total US Personal Income from all sources has grown on the average 7.8% annually under Democratic administrations since Carter compared to 6.3% under Republican administrations since Reagan.
Clinton's administration had a far higher growth rate on the average than Bush Jr.'s administration.
If one includes the results since President Johnson, the growth rates narrow somewhat to 7.7% on the average during Democratic Presidencies versus 7.0% during Republican Presidencies.
In brief, there's absolutely NO historical evidence whatsoever that total US Personal Income growth under Republican administrations has been BETTER than under Democratic administrations. In fact, the OPPOSITE is true.
Reagan cut taxes in his first term and cancelled a further planned tax cut in his second term because of very high Deficits during his first term (which continued into his secomd term).
Bush Sr. and Clinton raised taxes in their first terms. Bush Jr. lowered taxes in his first term. Evidence shows that most of this tax cut benefited the top 10% of households. This along with explosion in Defense spending has helped skyrocket the annual Deficits in Bush's term.
The rich spend a large portion of their much faster absolute and percentage growth in personal income outside the US. The tax cuts they receive are not compensated for by increased Consumption in the US ... thus, a net tax revenue loss to the US Treasury. Reagan realized this fact and that is why he cancelled a planned additional tax cut in his second term of office. He was afraid this would make the Deficits during his term of office even higher than they already were.
NOTE:
It's worth noting that of the $5 Trillion Cumulated National Debt at the end of Clinton's term, almost 60% or $2.8 Trillion occurred during Reagan and Bush Sr.s Presidencies.
So, of the $9.7 Trillion Cumulated National Debt expected at the end of the Bush Jr.'s Presidency, over $7.5 Trillion or almost 80% will have been generated by Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.!
Bush Sr. had the wisdom and guts to raise taxes or his very high annual Deficits would have been even higher. Clinton's tax increase brought Surpluses in his last term becaused his administration kept
overall average annual spending increases at a prudently low 3% level (as shown in an earlier Table 3 I posted some weeks ago to you, Dr. Reich).
Dr. Reich,
clarification: the headings over the numbers should be seen as follows:
................End .....Percentage
..............Balance.....Increase
Johnson.......$712.0........7.6%
I was speaking to a superintendent of a school in New Jersey Sunday. Her area is very middle class. She was telling me that the mothers have no time for their children because they work 10-14 hours a day to put bread on the table. She says that the children lose out because the families don't have time for their little ones. She says it makes it harder on her to teach her children.
Essentially, she says that most of the breadwinners in a family are overworked and that the children are essentially losing their mother's personal touch and quality time. That quality time is shifted to the classroom but the children suffer in subtle ways and are retarded in their total capacity to learn in School. If they had controls on hours and pay, americans would not need to shortchange their children. In Philadelphia, it is even worse. A lot of mothers don't even have a job. What do you think that does to the children? Of course, if you had daycare centers to help families out, that would be communism. Heaven forbid.
In my mind, the great disaster befalling the banks and fannie mae is not so much the crookedness in the banking system and Wall street but the loss of Unions, the loss of jobs, the flight of factories, and the exploitation of the american worker. The Iron law of labor is crusing the entire economy. All those wallstreet investors demanding more from labor is the problem. The american workforce can't afford the Housing Bubble; they cant afford Wall STreet; and they can't afford the cost of living dictated by Wall street.
Yes, things are bad right now.
But if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts, the situation would be even worse.
I have not heard a response that refutes that statement.
Wall Street and the Banks evidently need to evolve a business model that isn't based on industry or outside corporations. They could just trade money back and forth to infinite wealth.
It's not like they seem to need an economy to function.
To person who wrote, unconvincingly, that nothing here directly refutes his assertion that were it not for the Bush tax cuts the numbers would be worse, I reply that I believe those tax cuts are indirectly the cause of described decline in incomes in the lower-earning families. Think of incentives and what those who have money to invest will do with their money. By the way, there are no 'new economy' jobs, actually. The biggest source of 'new' jobs is in health care, because 1) increasing demand (more older people) and 2) government purchasing of such services. It's not an exportable industry; quite the reverse.
"if it weren't for the bush tax cuts....."
ya right.
not even worthy of a detailed response.
Americans have been fighting the war on poverty since the 1960’s and it seems that the wealthy have won. The middle class is not far behind. Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Only 25.2 percent of American workers have a job that pays at least $16 per hour and provides health insurance and a pension, according to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research in 2005. The present minimum wage baseline hourly pay is $6.55. In the last six years, the number of poor Americans has grown by five million, while inequality has reached historic high levels. The marginal income tax rate has declined from 50 % in 1986 to 35 % today and has exacerbated the growing inequality of income and wealth to the point that the wealthiest 1 % has more wealth than the bottom 95 %. “When you destroy the middle class in this country you destroy America.” Mr. Ross Perot.
Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.
The federal standard method of measuring poverty is based on data from a 1950s-era study that showed the poor spent roughly a third of after-tax wages on food. Since then, the government has simply tripled the annualized cost of groceries to determine the baseline income a family would need to live above the poverty line. That calculation has become increasingly divorced from the reality of American household finances. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that only an eighth of a modern family's take-home pay is spent on food. Under the federal formula, the official poverty line stands at only $20,444, an obviously outdated number. It's hard to imagine how four people could live on that for a year. By contrast, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s method to define poverty would include the cost of childcare, housing, clothing and other expenses the federal formula ignores. But the mayor's plan also would consider income not included in the federal calculation: benefits, such as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and housing subsidies, that improve impoverished families' bottom line.
This more comprehensive view of family finances offers different conclusions about who is poor. Bloomberg's formulation shows fewer New York City residents living in extreme poverty, but it raises the overall poverty rate to 23 percent, compared to only 19 percent under the federal poverty guideline. A greater number of elderly are categorized as poor under the mayor's scheme, mainly because the new formula acknowledges seniors' medical expenditures. One need not be an economist to understand that this is a more accurate way to measure poverty, one that can better target aid to the poor and lift families into the middle class. It can reduce wasteful spending on ineffective programs based on faulty information.
I find it incredible that something as important to 50 million people as the definition of poverty has such a sloppy and inaccurate official definition. It seems that one size does not fit all. It is more like a cost of living adjusted for location.
There is no standard definition of the middle class. The threshold for a minimum middle-class living standard for a two-parent, two-child family varies from about $31,000 (rural Nebraska) to almost $65,000 (Boston, Massachusetts), and the median threshold is about $40,000. By comparison, in a recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 21 percent of those polled considered a family of four making $30,000 to be middle class. When asked about a family of four making $40,000, an additional 21 percent (42 percent total) said the family would be middle class; at $50,000, 60 percent of those polled said the family would be middle class.
Conclusion
Millions of American workers are "missing the middle." Despite their contributions to America's prosperity and economic growth, these workers lack sufficient resources to afford a standard of living that puts them within reach of the middle class. America’s social contract needs to be updated to ensure the economy works for all Americans. Key elements of such a reform include strengthening basic labor market standards and institutions, expanding workers’ access to post secondary education and training, and reforming the system of public and private social benefits for workers. Work supports such as the EITC, Medicaid, childcare assistance, and housing assistance are only a modest part of a larger system of public and private social benefits for working families. Instead of focusing solely on means-tested programs and families with very low incomes, social policy reformers should work to improve the system as a whole by making it more progressive and seamless for working- and middle-class families.
The IRS shows that the top 1 percent had Adjusted Gross Income greater than $388,806. The top 10 percent had over $108,904 in 2006. The median was $31,987 and the bottom 10 percent had less than $5,793. Of the 138,893,908 individual income tax returns, 355,204 (0.26 %) had over $1 million of Adjusted Gross Income.
Anonymous said:
"But if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts, the situation would be even worse. I have not heard a response that refutes that statement."
I think my data and reasoning, backed by other independent research refute your statement convincingly. Bush's tax cut went mainly to the top 10% who didn´t in turn spend the same amount in our country. They spent much less. So his cuts actually contributed to the huge Deficits in 2003-2008 besides the astronomical war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Reagan saw this happen too. He exploded Defense expenditures although he only had a tiny war in Granada. His first tax cut also went mainly to top 10%and the small amounts received by the middle class went mostly to retirement of massive credit card debt and other personal debt which also exploded during his Presidency. This caused a shortfall in tax revenues in addition to Reagan administration's high rate of annual federal spending in general (e.g., Defense). The result was a TWO-PRONGED reduction of tax revenues NOT offset by increased Consumption causing Reagan's Deficits to go out of sight for eight years. Reagan cancelled his 2nd planned tax cut. His Deficits eventually forced Bush Sr. to raise taxes.
Bush Jr. has done the same Deficit explosion that will necessitate progressive tax changes to help cover critical investments in our Human Capital, Social-Infrastructure, Health Care, and Energy Alternative tax incentives... and also to correct the GROSS income inequalities and gaps in our society while keeping Deficits under control until we get results of from Internal Stimulus Investments.
Lot of catch 22s here that require some very clever balancing of federal outlays, tax incentives, tax increases, investments, control of debt, increase in savings rate for near and long term, etc.
I'm betting on Obama's team with its brains and energy to get the balance of changed policies correct for the working and middle class while simultaneously revitalizing the innovative and entrepreneurial, knowhow and trade skill job generation dynamic so unique and essential to America's social democracy and competitiveness this tough global economy... that's going to get tougher.
Anonymous,
minor correction: next to last sentence:
...competitiveness in this tough global economy ...
Art,
My favorite conservative columnist, David Brooks, has just written another of his many wise essays, entitled: "The 2lst Century Man." (NY Times)
He's a tiny bit disingenuous in giving Democratic Convention minuses for "every time I hear the old class conflict theme," or when "the rish are played off against the poor."
These very underlyimg cultural currents he himself has alluded to in his own erudite way in prior writings.
Nevertheless, he's spot on about Obama remaining true to his character especially Obama's passion to unite our country and cool the poisoning divisive demogoguery to confront creatively and pragmatically the solutions to huge societal problems ... pleas not too foreign from my "naive" comments on this blog these past months as you well know.
To person who wrote, unconvincingly, that nothing here directly refutes his assertion that were it not for the Bush tax cuts the numbers would be worse, I reply that I believe those tax cuts are indirectly the cause of described decline in incomes in the lower-earning families.
But WHY do you believe the tax cuts are indirectly the cause?
What in the data makes you believe the tax cuts didnt keep the economy from getting worse?
As for the tax cuts, it is one of the things that you may just look around and see the results for yourself. But to become more precise, here is the situation.
The administration has repeatedly claimed that tax cuts work because they contribute to a better economy and therefore a smaller deficit.
Right… and Iraq is a democracy. Plus I would love to discuss what Santa brought those guys for Christmas but I am kind of busy this morning.
The federal budget would have been balanced in 2007 without the tax cuts. Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, wrote to House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., that the "short term effects" of the tax cuts "have largely dissipated by now and the supply-side effects of those policies are uncertain but are probably small."
One has always to co assess the effect on the federal budget. Orszag estimated it to be $195 billion to $215 billion in 2007, while the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the total cost at more than $200 billion. Orszag also added that “the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves -- is not supported by serious analytical work."
The math is clear. We can’t balance the budget by borrowing more to pay for the tax cuts. We need additional revenues.
.Of course tax cuts are only a part of the fiscal difficulties that have contributed to the bleak outlook. The Center on Budget and Policy priorities published the report THE LONG-TERM FISCAL OUTLOOK IS BLEAK in 2007 stating that “The nation’s budget policies are unsustainable. Our projections show that if current budget policies are continued (e.g., if current laws governing Medicare, Social Security, and other programs remain unchanged, the 2001and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, and relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax is continued), deficits will reach about 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product by 2050, and the national debt will climb to 231 percent of GDP by that year, or more than twice the size of the U.S. economy. Debt-to-GDP ratios in this range are unprecedented in the United States, even during major wars.”
The statistics you quote are alarming. I have been retired for three years now and know that I will not see an increase in our income until I start receiving social security. That means I have to hope that our investments hold their value and that the company I worked for continues its pension plan. Our two sons struggle with day to day paying of bills and meeting unexpected costs. I am sure that they have seen some increase in wages in the last few years but their lifestyles certainly do not show it. It is a tough time for an average American family.
By the way, I have to admire your patience in putting up with Larry Kudlow and the other "commentators" that you face on his show. Keep speaking for the average American.
Anonymous,
My apologies. I appear guilty of having misinterpreted your original statement. In fact, we are both saying the same thing. Bush tax cuts were regressive as my Table 10 in a prior post indicates.
They did not help the bottom 60% at all as you also correctly observe. Yes, the tax cuts DIDN'T keep the economy from getting worse ... because they benefitted largely the Upper 10% who take bulk of their tax savings and invest them around the world. The Upper Group's US Consumption or Investments did not offset the tax revenue benefits they received (Dr. Reich and others have published data showing this fact.)
Our recent Consumption level of 72%of GDP is driven mainly by the working and middle class... who also in this period went on a borrowing rampage to fund their weakening standard of living with Greenspan's cheap money offered on snake-oil terms by the banking community. To make matters worse, their share of the Bush tax cuts were miniscule as published data in my Table 10 shows. Both factors (e.g., no measurable impact on increasing Consumption and higher personal Debt) hurt our economy from a tax revenue and debt generation perspective. So, the net tax reveue effect for our Treasury was negative, or neutral at best. As stated, Dr. Reich and others have published data showing a clear net negative tax revenue effect of Bush's 2003 tax cuts.
Again, I'm sorry for not seeing clearly your point... an oversight I don't usually make. If 80% of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts had gone to the bottom 80% of households and banking lending practices had been risk management responsible, then I believe our economy would be in fair condition right now.
But "IFS" give useful insights only in as much as we learn something from them. Reagan did and cancelled his 2nd planned tax cut. Bush Jr. doesn't learn from prior mistakes. He wants to plunge forward with the tax cuts for the wealthy ... "Trickle Down," is conservative right's gift to Mainstream America. I prefer calling it "Trickle UP" to the Few.
Frank Thomas The Netherlands
Dr. Reich,
You bring up a good point: the kind of ruler one chooses to use, and what one decides to measure with it.
In the past (and present, too?)our unemployment statistics where skewed because they didn't take into account for those who stopped looking for work; and those who turned to the underground economy.
Speaking of underground economy: I read a lot of econ blogs and such - and I'm definitely now expert by a long shot - but nothing I read ever seems to take into account the underground economy - illicit drugs, human trafficking, etc. One good example is marijuana, which is the largest cash crop in California.
No wonder the dismal science is dismal if one doesn't factor in the underground economy.
Anyway, (as I hurl off topic) don't be fooled, you say?
So, I know many of you get on SBVOR for selectively using numbers to benefit his policy views, but isn't that what Dr. Reich is doing here?
The mathematical median is that number which is the exact midpoint of a given range of numbers. It can therefore move based on a shift of either the top or bottom numbers.
So, here's another spin on the numbers...
The median income for the lowest quintile in 2006 was $11,674. The median for the highest in 2006 was $172,941. The median of these two is $92,307. The numbers for 2007 were $11,551 / $167,971 / 89,761. So, the source of the decline in median income, at least according to the census bureau data was a decline at the top rather than something that occured at the bottom. Second quintile income, like bottom quintile declined by $100 (so roughly flat) while third and fourth quintile income increased. I realize that the median is much lower than $90k because of the distribution of income, but the mathematical point would hold nonetheless.
The income disparity here is alarming (and this from a fiscal conservative) and we should be addressing it. You all knkow that I don't favor Robin Hood tax schemes, so my approach would be through training, etc. I would use a paygo approach to funding this as I am sure that going through the federal budget with even a cursory amount of detail would reveal various and sundry pet projects and pork that we could eliminate and reallocate for the bettermnent of all.
Frank,
The numbers you quote above...are they inflation adjusted? I'm not sure how well the Carter numbers hold up on a real basis?
Anonymous Matt
anonymous:
If I, as a taxpayer, end up owning some of the liabilities of FNMA and FMAC, then essentially I end up owning a piece of my own mortgage. So it seems to me that I should get a break on my mortgage payments. Could that be part of a grand compromise?
Would bet it was on the table but, alas, it didn't make the final version.
Kucinich gave a great speech at the DNC, which gives a concise list of what's gone wrong, here's a link to the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kuPfknTIg
and here's the text of the speech:
It’s Election Day 2008. We Democrats are giving America a wake-up call. Wake up, America. In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neo-con artists seized the economy and have added 4 trillion dollars of unproductive spending to the national debt. We now pay four times more for defense, three times more for gasoline and home heating oil and twice what we paid for health care.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the president’s oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq’s oil.
Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America. Money to start a hot war with Iran. Now we have another cold war with Russia, while the American economy has become a game of Russian roulette.
If there was an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold. World records for violations of national and international laws. They want another four-year term to continue to alienate our allies, spend our children’s inheritance and hollow out our economy.
We can’t afford another Republican administration. Wake up, America. The insurance companies took over health care. Wake up, America. The pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing.
Wake up, America. The speculators took over Wall Street. Wake up, America. They want to take your Social Security. Wake up, America. Multinational corporations took over our trade policies, factories are closing, good paying jobs lost.
Wake up, America. We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration wants to drill more, into your wallet. Wake up, America. Weapons contractors want more. An Iran war will cost 5 to 10 trillion dollars.
This administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. They can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. They lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. They skillfully played our post-9/11 fears and allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Every day we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green.
Wake up, America. This is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers. Up with wages. Up with fair trade. Up with creating millions of good paying jobs, rebuilding our bridges, ports and water systems. Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment.
Up with health care for all. Up with education for all. Up with home ownership. Up with guaranteed retirement benefits. Up with peace. Up with prosperity. Up with the Democratic Party. Up with Obama-Biden.
Wake up, America. Wake up, America. Wake up, America.
Maggie Knowles,
Extremely colorfully and challengingly well-said!
Are the dems headed for another train wreck repeating what happened to Stevenson, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry?
Obama is getting defined as elitist, aloof and generally unable to identify with regular folks not to mention being seriously inexperienced. Far too often dems choose a candidate susceptible to this kind of attack and fall just short. It’s almost like there’s some kind of self-destructive dynamic that frequently creates this situation. It’s looking more and more like Obama may be added to this list unless something fairly quickly changes. I wonder if billary is secretly smiling.
Frank:
I had read the Brooks article and as always it was interesting. I do, however, always take Brooks advice with a grain of salt for I am never quite sure where objectivity ends and political bent begins.
I too, have stated that Obama can't take the low road because it belies his message. My point was all along that in order to be an effective president you must win the election to become president and the vagaries of our political system are such that truly nice guys generally finish last.
I do believe that Biden will step down from Obama's high road and issue some vicious attacks. If so it will be incongruous with Obama's concept but sorely necessary and that is often the role of VP candidates.
So far the attacks on Obama from McCain and other Reps have been relatively mild. I believe this is generally due to the polls showing it a close race with some reflecting McCain gaining the upperhand. Should the polls turn strongly in favor of Obama or should they go into late October in a virtual tie, movement conservative will revert to Atwater/Rovian tactics with a plethora of innuendos, if not flat out lies. Coming late in the cycle they will be difficult to overcome and they can have a huge last minute impact.
Even if Obama wins and with Biden running interference for him in Congress, overcoming the existing bipartisanship will be a large undertaking. The Reps will not accept defeat easily and will set their sights on the 2010 Congressional elections to pull off another "Contract with America" moment. (That's all it was merely a moment) In the interim they will use all the means available to stop or hold up intiatives from Obama. Some will get through but chances are the significant ones will languish.
Obama will continue to suffer during the election campaign from his novice status. Even though he is not much more of a novice than Kennedy the world is far more perilous today than in 1960.
I abhor the idea of a President John McCain and don't believe he will function in the office nearly as well as Obama would but he and the Reps can play this inexperience card for a long time without its losing mileage. Throw in the Ayers questions ( seemingly not much fire but a lot of smoke), Michelle's "proud of my country" statement, Biden's and other's statements about Obama's inexperience and the road looks fraught with peril. Best case it will force Obama into a constant defensive posture.
Looming out there is the possible Lieberman for VP choice for McCain. I doubt he can pull it off with his constituency but his selection would require Lieberman to change caucuses in the Senate and give majority control back to the Reps which will allow them to bring up a whole raft of bills to embarass Dems. Nothing will actually be accomplished but issues favored by conservatives will be highlighted, forcing Dems to filibuster and block only intensifying the mood of the conservative base.
We are still basically a 50-50 country, especially among voters, and we are all well aware of what havoc an energized conservative base can do in elections.
We are all in for a rough ride no matter what your party affiliation.
Frank:
A little confusing:
Total US Personal Income from all sources has grown on the average 7.8% annually under Democratic administrations since Carter compared to 6.3% under Republican administrations since Reagan.
Does the "since Carter" commence at the beginning of Carter's term or the end? Makes a big difference in your stated numbers.
notsofast:
Good point about the elitist, aloof bit. I tend to ignore it since I prefer someone as President who is a couple of cuts above the average joe but we do seem to be stuck with this mold and it hasn't played out well for us recently.
Art A Layman said...
"I had read the Brooks article and as always it was interesting. I do, however, always take Brooks advice with a grain of salt for I am never quite sure where objectivity ends and political bent begins."
ha that's a good one. brooks fools no one with his genteel, polite and mild-mannered presentation. the underlying conservative philosophy that he pushes hurts many people despite his happy-face presentation. very similar to the elitist edmund burke who had a comparable paternalistic style back in the day.
Matt, Art,
Personal Income Data begins with Carter and therefore includes him. However, I have also shown averages excluding Carter.
Data is in Nominal Dollars
(unadjusted for inflation) as it´s very, very difficult to get good historical inflation adjusted Personal Income figures. Regrettably, I haven´t got time to convert Table 23 information accurately to Real figures.
Roughly viewed, the conclusions in Table 23 might change somewhat (but not dramatically) more favorably for Republicans excluding Johnson, Nixon and Ford. This is due to much lower annual inflation rate during Reagan´s terms compared to abnormally high rate during Carter´s term.
In contrast, average annual inflation rates were close during Clinton and Bush Jr.´s Presidencies ... while Clinton´s administration had a markedly stronger average rate of growth in Personal Income (5.8%) vs. Bush Jr.´s administration (4.9%). These results when inflation adjusted certainly wouldn´t change much and might even become more favorable for Clinton´s terms.
-----------------------------------
AVE.ANNUAL INFLATION RATES:
Johnson...................2.4%
Nixon.....................5.0%
Ford......................8.7%
Carter....................9.7%
Reagan....................4.7%
Bush Sr...................4.4%
Clinton...................2.6%
Bush Jr. Est..............3.0%
Note: Bush Jr. June.......4.2%
-----------------------------------
SUMMARY:AVE. ANNUAL INFLATION RATES
Democrats Incl. Johnson...4.1%
Democrats Incl. Carter....5.0%
Democrats Clinton.........2.6%
Republicans Incl.Johnson..4.7%
Republicans Incl.Reagan...4.0%
Republicans Bush Jr.......3.0%
-----------------------------------
Statisticians use some elaborate math in arriving at quarterly Deflator rates that will likely lead to other inflation adjustment rates than the annual average figures I show above. Wish I had time to go into this.
Most government officially published data (e.g., White Office Office of Management and Budget) is based on Nominal (current dollars)and thus does not separate inflation changes from real changes in financial data.
But, more importantly, I don´t think the general conclusion I draw from Table 23 is in question, namely: the rate of total US Personal Income growth does not vary significantly under either Democratic or Republican administrations... with somewhat stronger growth rates under Democratic administrations.
What does vary significantly is Disposable Income After Taxes. The growth rates here the past 20 years have been clearly far greater for the top 20% and 10% household groups compared to the bottom 80%... and the Gap has been accelerating in recent years.
notsofast:
Are the Democrats headed for a...
I'd like to see the end of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party as long as the world does not go belly up for humankind.
I hope they kill eachother, the dems and repubs. We could start anew.
Thanks. I heard the release on the radio. However, I almost never believe any numbers that come from the Bush administration.
The Intellectual God of the Human Species (Sbvor) writes:
"Aly K,
In the unlikely event that you [Aly K] actually care about the facts regarding the non-issue of Cindy McCain’s homes, you can find those facts here."
Our dear philosopher is right: I couldn't care less about how many houses McCain has. I was merely pointing out the sheer stupidity of a Presidential Candidate not being able to answer how many houses he has during a HOUSING CRISIS - one that has triggered a financial catastrophe that may be the severest since WW2.
This matter aside, I'm waiting for Mr. Sbvor to offer us insight into one mystery. We live in the 'information age', an era in which artificial intelligence is in its birth stages, cloning is a few years old, and human affairs becomes more complex by the day. Given this, I would like Sbvor to explain why McCain can't use email and a computer? And don't forget about my previous inquiry (Colbert's question).... Bush - greatest president, or THE greatest? I'm patiently awaiting answers.
On another note...
Bill Clinton gave a beautiful speech, and Biden looked like a leader. For those of you who have think the Dem. convention hasn't been perfect or strong enough, Obama's speech is gonna rock your world tonight, with "it's the economy stupid, Mr. Bush-McCain", being the implicit phrase that should win this thing.
Aly K
What escapes many Americans is the the catastrophic lack of respect that many industrialized countries came to feel towards the US during the last years. Which is frightening if you consider the massive sympathy that poured into the country after the 9/11 attacks. Let me remind you that the headline in the leftist French paper Le MOnde was "Today we are all Americans."
How on earth did we manage to denigrate ourselves from being leaders to becoming bullies?
Probably the average American does not see his country through the eyes of others and probably could not care less. Too bad. International respect is a must for development and peace if you want to succeed in an interconnected world. And Obama has unequivocally succeeded in that. Amassing a massive wave of respect for a new America, that stands against unfair wars, that projects itself as a meritocracy, as a champion of human rights and as the only country that can break psychological/social/historic barriers and nominate a competent black man for the presidency.
No other society has allowed competent minority members to reach the highest level of the government. We are the first. And all, should be proud for that historic nomination.
I have said it before that western countries have the mechanisms embedded inside the fabric of their societies to overcome the evils they themselves may create. Europe for example enforced the cruelest form of colonialism but it was also Europe that produced the thinking and the philosophy that eliminated and outlawed that despicable practice. The same here. It is the internal mechanisms of our society overwhelmingly supporting meriticracy and human rights that have allowed a competent black man to reach for the highest office and becoming the most powerful man on earth.
Some people said to me that he attracted 200,000 people in Berlin because he is a rock star. Bull! He attracted those crowds because he projects a new competence and a new idealism, that inspires people to work harder for themselves and their country.
And this is the most sacred form of patriotism.
Well, Bill Clinton in a mere 20 minutes last night provided a blueprint on how dems can get a candidate elected president. Problem is he’s not the candidate; Obama appears absolutely wimpy compared to Clinton. I believe Clinton is a mild sociopath, a phony on policy issues and my 3 daughters believe he’s a sexual pervert who exploits women, but he does have a high political IQ. He completely overshadowed billary’s speech given the night before and framed Biden as a clownish amateur. All significant dems appear profoundly inadequate when measured against the Bill.
Tonight Obama is going to electrify his crowd but reinforce the image promoted by the right that he’s a charismatic celebrity divorced from reality. Filling a football stadium with screaming fans has a tendency to do this. Obama feeds into this himself. He did look like a rock star last night with his appearance following Biden and not like a politician willing and able to solve the mundane problems people face. McCain seems to be winning that particular battle despite an overwhelmingly favorable climate for the dems. Look at the polls that show McCain getting trounced by a generic dem and the polls that show a statistical tie between him and Obama. This shows that people strongly favor dem policies this time around but are resistant to Obama.
What can be done? Start by shredding McCain’s character and persona. Some of this has already begun but needs to pick up in intensity. We’re heavily influenced by emotions when voting. The gop exploited this masterfully with their appeals to existential fear in 00/04. This would be a perfect time for dems to exploit economic fears as a poor economy dominates our attention.
The Obama campaign says that their message is one of hope and not fear and it’s time to return civility to politics. Get elected first and then try that. lol
When McCain is asked a difficult question like how many homes he has, he tends to recall his POW days and talk about that instead.
I've had a few relatives that suffered from dementia. They did the same exact thing. When asked a difficult question like, "Where is your purse?", they became uncomfortable and would try to switch the topic to some important or meaningful even that happened in the distant past.
On the income, debt etc...
A quick calculation from Debt to the Penny, show's our debt to be growing at 7.25%.
So it will double in less than ten years. By this time next year, it will break $10 trillion. By 2018 it will be nearly $19 trillion.
The banking bailouts are likely to accelerate the growth rate of our debt. Shortening the doubling rate. This will cause increasing economic hardship, likely causing a feedback loop to increase the rate.
With incomes declining while the debt magnifies, I believe we have a runaway situation here.
Many years ago, when people were saying that our interest payments on our debt, require all the taxes collected East of the Mississippi. I did some numbers modeling to see how the progression worked out.
And it was disturbing to see what happened. And the process is simple. The growth of debt accelerates faster, when taxes can no longer cover interest payments.
Once the government has to borrow, to make interest payments on the debt, the debt passes a critical point and reaches escape velocity. After this, I believe that it is impossible to ever balance the budget again.
Each year that passes, the debt continues to increase at a higher, uncontrollable rate that is self reinforcing.
As the interest owed is more than the government's income, and is constantly growing, it's rate of growth actually increases over time, as taxes cover a shrinking portion of the payment.
This may be a contributing factor to the rapid increase in the debt growth rate under Bush. there are plenty of other reasons, but over time, this out of control interest growth rate, could be, a behind the scenes driver, in ever worsening debt based crisis.
Athena,
Well said in every way.
Notsovast,
Your worn out message Obama must become a mean machine to win is getting goddamn trite. He is much stronger and brighter than you give him credit for. Obama is no wimpy or he would not have come this far. Give me his character and moral values over Clinton anyday. He may not appeal to your old school opinion that anything goes to win in politics, but my generation wants better---as do millions of other young voters inspired by him. I find your comments clownish. You will no doubt be faced to understand this tonight when Obama delivers in his own steely, focused manner a genuinely pragmatic and down-to-earth speech. He'll hit a home run with grace, while you are sitting in the dugout mumbling and grumbling about wimpiness and rock stars. Wake up man. It is the 21st century. Character and competence are in.
Aly K,
If you had read the article, you would know that the correct answer to how many homes John McCain owns is zero!
But, what would have been the result if John had offered that correct response to this “journalistic” ambush?
John’s wife Cindy and her children by a previous marriage own all the property. It is none of John’s affairs. Cindy is quite a capable business woman. She manages these affairs on her own. The perfect response to this silly ambush would have been:
“I don’t own any homes. If you want to know how many homes Cindy owns, ask her.”
But, when “journalists” ambush, few come up with the perfect response at the moment. The second best response was exactly the one John offered (check with Cindy and respond later).
As for your economic hyperbole; next time, you might want to check in on the economic news of the day (8/28/08) before foolishly pimping on behalf of your mythological economic disaster.
Anonymous said...
"Wake up man. It is the 21st century. Character and competence are in."
This from a guy who idolizes Edmund Burke and David Brooks? Speaking of vast holes in character. lol
Click here for the fully cited and substantiated rebuttal to the unsubstantiated assertions from Mr. Reich.
“Meanwhile, the rate of employer-based insurance coverage continued its 7-year decline.”
IF true, THANK GOODNESS!
Employer purchased health insurance was the beginning of the end in losing control over healthcare costs. This started with FDR’s wage and price controls. FDR made it illegal for employers to raise wages, so they offered health insurance instead. The consumer of healthcare was utterly divorced from those who paid the bills (or so it appeared, on the surface). That is a recipe for fraud, waste and spiraling prices.
How many people have you known who felt trapped in a lousy job simply because they developed a costly illness during their employment with an employer who paid their health insurance? Try changing jobs under those circumstances! At best, your new insurance will decline to cover your illness for LIFE! And, PLEASE don’t tell me the answer is MORE government intervention in private markets (though I’m sure you will).
Employer paid health insurance is a classic example of the disastrous perversions which ALWAYS result from government meddling in private markets!
Notsovast,
What does Edmund Burke and David Brooks have to do with Obama? I'm a die hard, loyal fan of his. Will not accept untruthful exaggerations about him.
Let's see...James Carville and Bill Clinton equals a dem President. The wimps in the party need to learn this lesson...otherwise you'll be scratching your heads again in January wondering what went wrong. Repeating the same mistake over and over again might be principled but won't get you elected. Go to the fight armed with more than a butter knife.
sbvor:
Ever the genius. Now let's see....FDR froze wages so the business world commenced to offer medical insurance as an employment inducement. Then a medical insurance industry evolved, hiring scads of people and making scads of profits and with greed continued to make more and more profits by exerting more control over what and how much they would pay. This whole multi-billon dollar industry was FDR's fault.
One can only guess that you have huge problems with God.
One would have thought with your brief respite your reasoning processes might have improved. Alas!
BTW, you might want to get up to date on medical insurance laws. If you have continuing medical coverage the "new" employer's insurance company cannot deny you coverage at normal group rates for that employer, no matter what your health. Benefits may be better or worse with your "new" employer but you will have coverage.
You are suggesting that with a serious illness everyone would be better off with a private policy?
Art and everyone
I have come to the conclusion that Sbvor is a terribly impaired fellow, so I believe you should lay off.
Would you start an "intelligent" conversation with a retard? Why are you doing this here?
anonymous:
Your argument might be more compelling if sbvor were the only idiot posting here.
It's the Obama method. "Kill em with kindness".
Recent polls show that women represent nearly 60% of the democratic party. Could it be that this creates some general passivity and an unwillingness to jump in the gutter and brawl?
Anonymous and Notsofast
Anonymous – you’re right, it’s often useless to start an ‘intelligent’ conversation with a retard. And though I am guilty of this in the case of Sbvor, it’s important to reject retarded statements. It may save other vulnerable people from falling prey to them, though your point is well taken.
Notsofast – Someone wrote to you that "Wake up man. It is the 21st century. Character and competence are in." I admire the person’s attitude, and don’t blame the individual for being so optimistic. Regretfully, if there were a shred of truth in the statement, a Presidential candidate who didn’t know how to use a computer/email, spoke of “victory” in Iraq, and supported Bush all these years, would be a laughing stock of an entire country (And I remind our fellow democrats to consider the real reason Jimmy Carter didn’t speak at the convention).
But it terms of raw strategy, should the dems get tough? Hmmm… If they can create a Bush-McCain image, and give the “it’s the economy stupid” message, I think they can take the election without resorting to harsh tactics. So while I agree with you that Clinton’s speech was a work of art last night, and personally see nothing wrong in fighting fire with fire (pulling out the guns on the unethical republican machine) I think the democrats will prevail. We shouldn’t underestimate David Axlerod. He was the genius who beat Clinton, a mastermind in the timing during the primaries (im jealous of the man’s talent), and I’ll be watching with great enthusiasm how he plays the next few months... I hope all of you enjoy the historic speech tonight :P
aly k
aly said...
"We shouldn’t underestimate David Axlerod. He was the genius who beat Clinton"
Amen. Well-said. I'm sure that Obama outsmarted the Clintons is way up there on the list of why they've been so miffed. Even the best of them get beat---passing of the torch.
The typical argument with a Dem:
Anti-Dem: Fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact.
Dem: You’re an idiot!
How can one possibly argue with "genius" such as that?
sbvor:
You're absolutely right and I hope, since you see the error of your ways, you will desist from arguing with us and will be on your way.
We will miss you terribly but we'll get over it.
In the meantime, do me a favor, actually all of us, and learn the meaning of "fact". You seem to equate it with Disneyworld.
aly and notsofast:
Axelrod did a magnificent job but my take is that Hillary lost the primaries Obama didn't win them.
art & notsofast
art, interesting take regarding hil..
what did you two think about the obama speech? aggressive enough, or too soft?
aly k
Dr. Reich, cc: Art Layman
What an amazing speech by Obama!
I've always admired his eclectic intelligence, energy and sharp grasp of our problens, and his
potential to bring our country to a new balanced policy and action course in the interests of Mainstream as well as Upstream America.
Now watch how the distortive personal attacks and lies by Republican conservatives will be raised and repeated another nasty notch: Obama's a Novice- never held a real job for very long; Obama's not qualified to be Commander in Chief; the Democrats are weak on National Security; the Democrats are bringing more of their traditional philosophy of Sharing Wealth at the expense of those who work hard for it; Obama wants to raise taxes demonstrating again the Democratic Party is the party of Higher Taxes, Big Spending, Big Government, Anti-Business, etc., etc.
Propaganda the conservatives have heaped onto American society with consistent skill the last 25 years ... to the extent our two-party system has been utterly polarized and dysfunctional in solving creatively and practically critical problems affecting the lives of all of us, particularly future generations.
This is why I have been trying to do my bit by devoting so much time on bringing forth in 23 TABLES documenting on this blog the real FACTS to Joe Doe about our government's historical financial performance since President Lyndon Johnson ... data that disproves most of the conservative political propaganda with a reality check,e.g., a reality FACT: over 75% of our accumulated national DEFICIT since 1950 of $9.7 Trillion has been generated by Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
We have become intimidated by the Republican "Trickle Down" skulduggery that has concentrated over 71% of all Household Wealth in 10% of households and that has made the working class American a third class participant in our society subject to the "Survival of the Fittest" Market First norms and values.
The war on taking our country back for all Americans is not finished by any means. But, in my eyes, Obama has won the battle of proving his qualifications to be President of the US and in calling upon our better instincts as a nation of innovative problem solvers.
I'm proud to be an American at this time in our history. The Ship has not sunk yet, but it's in desperate need of a Major Overhaul. Obama laid the correct basis for discussion of who should be trusted to do the repair job.
NOTE:
(Art, quelque mots pour vous: merci beaucoup pour votre souvent profond discussion, "vous ne le lui a pas envoyè dire" --- souvent exact, quelquefois obtus, toujours provocant. Tu est un bon homme. Merci beaucoup pour notre debate, votre commentaire a imbecile comme Sbvor. Je voudrais Email vous? Quel pensez-vous de ca?)
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
souvent
Loved that acceptance speech. "McCain wants to follow bin Laden to the gates of h!!! but won't follow him to the cave he calls his home."
Roger Ailes wishes he'd written that line. Shows McCain is nuts. Shows Bush has failed to capture bin Laden. Echoes McCain's gaffe about not knowing how many houses he has. Excellent. I cannot wait to see Obama debate McCain, who is almost twice his age and is supposedly getting tired of the riggers of campaigning.
Obama has a big fight ahead. Last night a well off guy showed me a email that is sort of spam ( the Wachovia exec has been talked to by his bosses ) that is quite damaging, I think, because many people will beleive the email. I told him it's total lies but this guy said it had to be true because it was written by a high level Wachivia bank exec. Many people choose how they will vote based on this kind of crap. Here it is:
This is something you should be
aware of so you don't get blind-sided.
This is really going to catch a lot
of families off guard. It should
make you worry.
Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000
per home (couples) McCain does not
propose any change in existing
home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you
will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
If you are heading toward retirement
and would like to down-size your
home or move into a retirement
community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This
proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income
from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15%(no change)
OBAMA 39.6%
How will this affect you?
If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds,
college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays
or reinvests dividends, you will now
be paying nearly 40% of the money
earned on taxes if Obama become president.
The experts predict that 'higher
tax rates on dividends and capital gains
would crash the stock market yet
do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama your taxes will
more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanation
needed. This is pretty
straight forward.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0%(No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families
have lost businesses,
farms and ranches, and homes
that have
been in their families
for generations because they could not
afford the inheritance tax.
Those willing their assets to loved
ones will not only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
* New government taxes proposed on
homes that are more than
2400 square feet
* New gasoline taxes (as if
gas weren't high enough already)
* New taxes on natural resources
consumption (heating
gas, water, electricity)
* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least....
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine
so we can receive the same
level of medical care as other
third-world countries!!!
Thank You
Robert D. Jenkins
Vice President - Investments
Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor
Wachovia Securities, LLC
Dr. Reich,
One of the first Republican one- liner reactions is out on Larry King's show: "THIS IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO EXPERIENCE."
We've had twelve Presidents with modest experience in government, including Abraham Lincoln.
My reaction is: "THIS IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO WHO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRUSTS AS THE MOST ABLE TO CORRECT SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INEQUITIES AND MASSIVELY COMPLEX PROBLEMS FACING US.
It's going to come down to a battle of new age brains with a global life experience versus military knowledge with a life-long government experience promoting right-wing (Bush) principles benefiting the Few ... who will now belatedly present himself as a converted Father Teresa promising (as did Bush) Compassion for all those falling between the cracks in our social-economic system.
Dr. Reich,
Just got the message McCain has selected Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his VP choice. Got to compliment McCain for his political boldness and shrewdness, but not sure this representative of vast Inexperience and member of the NRA makes me feel very comfortable for our country's future (McCain is not unprone to senior illnesses) for reasons others can better address.
Who is Palin?
Jesus.... Suppose McCain gets elected and God forbid something happens to him... the former runner up in the MIss Alaska contest and former mayor of Wasilla something is going to be the most powerful person on earth?
McCaine does not get it, does he?
God help his party!
I found a picture of hers using a PC. So she knows at least about email and stuff...
Dr. Reich,
Do you think unhappy women Democrats will jump to McCain because of his female VP? If they do, how clever of McCain to play cynically on people's good judgement. The feminist movement is being degraded at the most high levels. How sad for our country.
aly:
Re: Obama speech
Exceptional for its historical significance; first black man nominated presidential candidate by one of the two mainstream parties. Very unlike any of his other speeches that I’ve heard; much sharper attacks on McCain with an implicit promise that more is on the way.
His long list of empty promises indulging middle-class voters was obligatory conventional politics. Absent from his speech was a similar concern for the poor and inarticulate. From a socialist view, it was a disappointing (policy) speech; it would have been nice to hear how he was going to get food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless and a level of services that would give these folks a decent and dignified life.
But he’s preferable to the very dangerous John McCain.
Re: Sarah Palin Yikes!!!! a female Dick Cheney !!!! lol
I love the way Obama talks.
But I worry over his voting record.
He's sided with the Republicans on every constitutional issue is voted on this year.
His vote for Telecom immunity bill, after he told us he'd filibuster it, is especially troubling to me.
I'm leery of people who tell me they are my friend, then screw me over, then explain again how they are on my side.
I don't want either Obama or McCain to be our next president. Based on their voting records, I can't support either one, no matter how eloquent their speeches are.
But McCain does scare me more than Obama. I think it's very clear that he is suffering from Alzheimer's, and that he is getting worse. He is not the same man he was in 2000. I believe he'll be much sicker in 2004.
His lack of knowledge in current events, didn't first concern me, until I noticed his patter of changing the subject to ancient history whenever he was asked about something that he can't remember.
When recently asked how many homes he has, he looked confused for a moment. Then he said, "Look I was a POW...", then went on about not having a chair or a table.
I've seen that confused look before, and the expected change of subject when talking to older relatives that had Alzheimer's.
Most of us I'm sure have seen it. For instance, the conversation might go like this.
Daughter - "Where's your purse?"
Grandma - Confused look. Fearful. Recovery. "Oh, my mom gave me the cutest golden purse when I was in grade school. It little sequins and a heart shaped latch."
McCain should be retiring, not running for president.
aly k:
Thought the speech was great! Not too soft. Aggressive enough without destroying his change personna. Thought he subtly established that he is no wimp but the concern is whether those on the fence understand subtlety.
Am furious that McCain is speaking today at my alma mater.
Frank:
Appreciate the kind remarks but my high school French is very rusty. In fact it was rusty when I took it. Could decipher some of the common words but will have to look up others.
On Palin: Looks like pandering to me. Spurs his base but clearly points out that the welfare of the country is not at the top of his list. She appears to be a very accomplished lady but I have worked with a lot of bright, aggressive young execs, male and female, who were far from ready to be CEOs.
Have no problem if McCain wants to roll the dice with his life but prefer that he gives my life, and ours, a little more consideration.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my first accounting boss. He held a great deal of knowledge about his clients in his head with no way for the staff to get to it if something happened to him. One day I asked him, "What if something happens to you, how will we be able to help the clients?" His response: "If something happens to me I won't care".
Art,
Thanks for your conversation. Used French for some confidentiality. So, call your French acquaintence and respond equally crytically.
Art,
error: cryptically (sorry, I write too fast)
McCain campaign logic re: Palin pick seems to go like this:
1. Polls show change to be the #1 thing voters want in Washington.
2. McCain has previous reputation of being a maverick/change agent.
3. Palin has same reputation as maverick/change agent.
4. They double down on this maverick image by selecting Palin hoping to to snag independents.
5. She fires up the base being more conservative than McCain.
To Notsovast,
You logic is right on. Would add McCain is going after disenchanted women who favor Hillary and respnding to research that 60% of all voters are women. (Don't know if this is correct). But what does this say about McCain's judgement?
The lady will attract zero feminist votes.
ZERO. NADA.
A true feminist feels her stomach turn inside out at the mention of beauty contests that do nothing else but promote sexism
A true feminist wants a qualified and competent woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Not ANY woman.
A true feminist, regardless of her feelings towards abortion, is a pragmatist and does not desire that her sisters end up going in the year 2008 to the back alley butchers.
Art,
I have to disagree with your statement that the world is far more perilous today than in 1960. In 1960 we faced all out nuclear war, far more dangerous than today's landscape in my opinion. Other than that, as always, you brought alot of interesting knowledge for me to think about - thanks.
Here's EPI's take on the income #'s in abstract:
Compared to 1990s, middle-class working families lose ground in the 2000s
by Jared Bernstein
The economy expanded over the 2000s, and working families were highly productive, as output per hour rose 18% from 2000 to 2007. But despite their contributions to the economy's growth, middle-income, working-age households—those headed by someone less than 65—lost ground over these years. Their median income, after adjusting for inflation, fell $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, from about $58,500 to $56,500 (2007 dollars).
The trend was very different in the 1990s. After declining in the recession (and the jobless recovery that followed), the median income of working-age households reversed course and rose consistently up through 2000. In fact, over the 1990s (1989-2000) median income was up almost 10%, or about $5,200. Had this 10% growth rate prevailed in the 2000s, the median income of working-age households would have gone up $3,600 instead of falling $2,000.
Excellent table in the link-
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20080827
One has to wonder what would happen to personal income if the US government stopped borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year to pump it into the economy ? Of the nine trillion dollars added to the National debt, none of it was used wisely to repair infastructure, educate a few millions more scientists and engineers, invent better renewable energy,or increase the productive capacity of the country. It was all used to finance continual consumption ( and to win votes ). The recent 100 billion stimulus package pales in comparison to the near half trillion deficit Washington will run up next year. Reduce this year's 380 billion shortfall and next years 480 Federal "credit card " borrowing from the rest of the world and see what happens to our economy. Recession would be too weak a word to use. Ambitious politicians have changed our modern economy into a non workable agglomeration best described as "Free Market Socialism ". Since the current system no longer seems to effectively spread the growing wealth to the vast majority of citizens, thereby posing a real threat to the consumer based economy, it will continue to be the responsibility of Washington to ensure an ever increasing flow of borrowed wealth to the rank and file of American consuming voters. Of course eventually the National Debt will reach insane levels, but that will be the next generations' problems to confront. In the meantime all we powerless folks can do is enjoy the good times and vote for the guys that will give us more and more goodies that we don't have to pay for.
I never thought I'd get the vp nod. I had the Pat Benatar look back in the day
pb
lol
McCain's Veep choice: last night after Nancy Pelosi banged the gavel my thought was John McSame has to pic a Veep candidate who will obliterate and amnesiate George W Bush and Dick Cheney from people's minds.
McCain failed miserably. Featherweight just won't do it for distancing the Republican party from George W Bush. I mean, the RNC has scheduled Bush to speak on a night when they hope no one is watching. However, a featherweight does give Dick Cheney a chance to continue his shadow presidency.
Plus I want to see all evangelical women express their concern for the number of hours Sarah P. is logging as a hands on mother for a Downs Syndrome baby plus her the daughter. Time spent on task as a mother is the key measure for Sarah, not a hand-off, same as home schooling. We don't need another set of Republican women like Elizabeth Dole and Elaine Chao
notsofast and art,
couldn’t agree more regarding the historical importance of the speech, as well as pulling the guns out on the republican machine, while maintaining his (obama’s) character.
regarding the vp pick, I sincerely hope she isn’t the “female dick cheney” haha . though I saw a clip of her shooting a machine gun, and those nightmares that I have of cheney raping darkvader haunt me as I write this…
And even though (from what I’ve heard) VP nominees have had a minimal effect on voting decisions, it’s a truly pathetic pick in terms of substance. She does seem accomplished, as you say, Art. But I can only echo your concern of McCain rolling the dice with our lives (I’m not even American, but what you guys do affects Canada profoundly). And what more is it than gambling when you appoint a lady who believes that IT SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL (ie. illegal) for a girl/woman to have an abortion, EVEN when the girl is pregnant as a result of rape!! This is religious fundamentalism!!!!!!!
She has also stated, “I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq”… Her complete ignorance of foreign policy has made many republicans outraged: why isn’t this talented beauty queen the Presidential nominee, they ask?
aly k
ps. Sbvor - Should a Presidential candidate be allowed to run if he can't use a computer and email?
sbvor - how would you react if a democratic vice president shot his friend in the face?
sbvor - if you were my professor, and asked me to define 'tribal sovereignty', what grade would i deserve if i gave the following answer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw
sbvor - i think its an outrage that Professor Reich and Obama ignore teh economic prosperity that the comedian-industry has experienced these past eight years
ty_010:
Not a problem, people disagree with me all the time and it never bothers them that I'm right and they're wrong.
Seriously, I considered that, especially since I lived through the "dive under the desk" school exercises of the 50s. Maybe it's a creeping apathy for the horrors of the past (a harbinger of senior moments?) but in hindsight, though a perilous time, the probability of nuclear worldwide destruction, then, was conceivably a little overblown.
In those days the Soviet Union was the only "enemy state" that possessed nuclear weapons. Today we have many states with nuclear arsenals, most are friends, some are clearly enemies, and others exist in that vast wilderness of friends today and possibly enemies tomorrow. The resurrection of Russia to the world power games of post WWII should not be taken lightly.
Besides the countries with nuclear options and the others seeking same, we also have the problem of nuclear materials existing around the world with very poor controls and protections, raising the constant concern of terrorists getting their hands on them. We have had, and probably will see again, individuals willing to risk a catastrophe by selling their knowledge of or nuclear materials to the highest bidders.
We have seen that, as much as we try, we are somewhat inept at protecting our borders and keeping those who would cause us harm out of our country. The Soviet Union, as feared an enemy as it was, was not suicidal. Not so today's enemies.
I will give you that a Hiroshima or Nagasaki is much less likely today than in 1960 but acts of similar severity can be achieved with less material and much less logistical effort today than in 1960.
Add to the concerns for terrorist activities, nuclear or otherwise, the state of our economy and its dependence on global partners. Much of our imported oil comes from countries we'd be hard pressed to call staunch allies. Our recent foreign policy has left us with many who are "allies" simply because we are a voracious consumption machine.
Terrorists, unable to "pierce the corporate veil" of US boundaries, will gladly inflict pain on our real allies, where they can, further driving wedges.
Our insane quest for financial gain has some of our best and brightest creating financial schemes (mortgage backed securities?) that are bringing many of our partners and creditors to their knees. In other instances these schemes are moving trillions into the pockets of an ever growing group of billionaires.
Our government debt is escalating to the point that the debt service will eat up a huge chunk of our budget. Those who have mismanaged their personal finances are well aware (I have specific expertise in this area as a participant not an advisor) that eventually you can't even afford the debt service let alone reduce the debt.
Global warming, whether manmade or natural, whether you believe in it or not, appears to be wreaking havoc around the world. Attempts to fix that, if even possible, will cost huge out of pocket sums that will tend to dampen economic growth. There can be some offset by creating jobs in renewable energy ventures and certainly reducing, not only our dependence on, but the amount of fossil fuels consumed can create multiplier effects but in the near term tackling these issues will be a net negative cashflow adventure.
I could go on and on - Of course I'm not given to doing that - but all in all; give me the tranquility of 1960 as opposed to the perilous rollercoaster ride we are currently on.
Dr. Reich,
Please accept my apologies for this off-theme long post. But I felt a deep need to respond to a surprisingly rediculous piece of writing in the NY Times by David Brooks.
DAVID BROOKS AT HIS WORST
I have written a great deal since last November about our economy and the candidate campaigns for President. I´ve also read extensively the writings of other esteemed experts and columnists, including David Brooks.
Although I don´t always agree with Mr. Brooks, I have treasured his stylistic prose, use of language rich in neologisms, allusions, and informed critical content. As an Independent politically, I´ve generally found David Brooks´ writings quite interesting ... but definitely not his latest poison pen essay entitled, `A Speech to the Delegates.´
I´ve watched Mr. Brooks go back and forth praising, then acidly attacking Obama. I didn´t take this as a two-faced characteristic but an effort to objectively dissect Obama´s mysterious self. Gradually, I saw Mr. Brooks get some balanced control of his elitist, conservative judgmental self-rightousness as he began to show a grudging respect and even admiration for Obama´s unique qualities. Recently in an essay, he was even advising Obama to get tougher, show more steel in his persona.
Obama´s acceptance speech Thursday was specific, lofty, and confrontational in a steely dignified manner as he pointedly addressed the Bush administration´s failures, McCain´s weaknesses and contrived attacks on his patriotism and ability to lead. Obama´s remarks mirrored much in Brooks´past writings about the damage done to working middle-class Americans, and to the poisoning of our society over last 25-30 years by growing divisions between Haves and Have Nots.
But, surprise, surprise! What does archetype, thoughtful conservative David Brooks now say about Obama after his acceptance speech? Suddenly, he comes up with a 180 degree reversal of his earlier balanced and even praiseworthy opinions about Obama.
Now in yesterdays´ NY Times, he gives us a pretentiously cunning piece of caricature TRIPE, a hypocritical stab-in-the-back slamming of a gifted man speaking from the depths of his heart and eclectic life experience to over 38million Americans who was also heard with enthusiasm by more millions around the globe ... a man who can lasso people with his voice, his ideas, his convictions, a man who can persuade people he´s worth listening to -- such a rare quality in these cynical times.
Mr. Brooks suddenly in a harsh essay presented satirically, gives Obama ZERO ranks in all aspects of his brilliant and inspiring speech. Like a slithering snake waiting in the brush ready for the right moment to devour his victim, Brooks´ stylistic use of the English idiom -- this time utterly devoid of meaningful content -- transforms into a cascade of denigrating critique. Ironically, it´s critique of a man standing up forcefully for what´s wrong in America and how he specifically wants to repair the complex Mess we are in ... which was exactly what Brooks had urged him to do in earlier writings. What cowardly hyprocrisy, Mr. Brooks!
Mr. Brooks, if there´s an ounce of integrity left in your conservative opportunistic bones, suggest you go back and examine your writings about Obama in past few months, restudy Obama´s encompassing, measured speech and his call that middle class America has HAD ENOUGH of destructive, polarizing, selfish Capitalism and Government. Compare what you find upon deeper reflection with the CRAP you just wrote under the guise of your deserved reputation for intelligent, responsible writing.
For you have hit a new below-the-belt LOW in a bit of two-faced writing about a decent, open, bright, globally-in-touch man whose story leaps off the page of reality in living idiom ... in sharp contrast to typical quasi-ultra-right DIVISIVE and FEAR MONGERING language sadly and surprisingly employed by you in a sly content-empty, humorless diatribe.
Thought you were above the Limbaughs, Hennessy, Coulters, Cunnigham brand of narcissistic millionaire media hardliners. Guess I was wrong.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Frank:
Well said!!!!
My only thought can be, as often: "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
I guess one must always remember that most op-ed pundits do so as a primary source of income. Krugman and a few others have day jobs but even they can be guilty of just getting words on paper to meet the deadline and collect a check on occasion. To Dr. Reich's credit he does it through a blog which I doubt increases his coffers.
It is fun to read the various pundits and look for instances where they seem to be less than honest in their compositions. My take on George Will is that when he is serious about his subject du jour you never need a dictionary near by to understand his words. When being a little more fanciful he can bury you with words that you have never run across in an entire lifetime.
Brooks, while perhaps not the linquist of Will, nevertheless writes meaningless blather from time to time and I can only assume it was more deadline related than heartfelt. As I have said before though, I always look askance at Brooks articles even as I sometimes find them informative and objective. Ever the cynic I am often worried there is an embedded code somewhere in his writings.
Actually I found his article humourous. I do agree it was incongruous with other recent writings about Obama but my thoughts were that he was taking the process to task more than the individual participants.
For instance: He presented a glowing rationale the other day for choosing Biden as VP but as good as Biden's acceptance speech was it was clear that it wasn't vintage Biden. My understanding is that the Obama camp provided him a new speech writer, likely to eliminate gaffes and keep his speech in line with Obama's message and their desire to orchestrate the dialogue. It was clear to me, I have followed Biden for years, that his words and delivery were not Joe Biden as I have come to know him. The whole "That's not change, it's more of the same" exchange failed miserably. He was halfway through it before I realized it was supposed to be a trite sound bite.
I really do think this was the object of Brooks derision. That and perhaps he felt Obama took the gloves off more than you and I did, possibly denigrating, in his mind, that which he believes Obama stands for.
My guess would still be that Brooks, being of the old school of political punditry, and like many of his brethren, was truly upset about the tightly managed, orchestrated convention. We all understand why this is done in today's world but to the purists, those who have covered and loved this process for decades, it does turn the whole event into a well-scripted TV presentation devoid of the excitement of the ad lib, the unexpected event or speech; suffice it to say, the human element.
Talk about worrying about blood pressure. ;)
Art,
Yes, but when 80,000 people show up from as far away as Texas and 200,000 in Berlin, I would say the Human Element is alive and well! Brooks diffuses this dynamic completely. It's just rock star nonsense for the
cynics.
The smaller group debates coming up between Obama and McCain will become very human oriented with the gun toting Sarah Palin, Governor of a state the size of Austin, Texas and former mayor of a town of 8000. Curious how Mr. Brooks will immortalize this newly discovered Executive wonder woman?
Art,
French message had a reason as I asked you something. See your translator and give me your cryptic answer Non ou Oui? I will not be hurt by a refusal.
Art,
No, recently Brooks explicitly wrote in so many terms that Obama should take the gloves off.
His contradictory remarks yesterday by my northern Maine upbringing is "wishy washy," i.e., duplicitous, not genuine.
Art,
Senile grammar error:
...upbringing are "wishy washy"...
Frank:
Merci, mais oui.
Frank:
I do agree I thought his remarks were not genuine. I think he was ranting against the process, not Obama personally, as well as perhaps striving to meet a deadline.
Our process, notwithstanding Obama's desire to change it, is a Kabuki Dance, better yet, a Peacock mating dance.
Art Layman:
The address for FT contact is aatra@lycos.nl
Business is closed after 5:00PM
NY time.
Maggie Mahar did a very good (and very depressing) piece on the fallacy of declining uninsured.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org:80/2008/08/poverty-health.html
Art Layman,
Envoyez moi un Email, s'il vous plaît.
anonymous:
Un message a été envoyé.
From www.drhousingbubble.com
There is a side by side comparison of McCane's and Obama's tax proposals followed by this:
Things are rarely so clear cut. When you have many of the hedge fund managers and heads of financial institutions making $10 million a year providing products that have harmed our economy, there is something seriously wrong.
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信,徵信網,徵信社,徵信社,感情挽回,婚姻挽回,挽回婚姻,挽回感情,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信,捉姦,徵信公司,通姦,通姦罪,抓姦,抓猴,捉猴,捉姦,監聽,調查跟蹤,反跟蹤,外遇問題,徵信,捉姦,女人徵信,女子徵信,外遇問題,女子徵信, 外遇,徵信公司,徵信網,外遇蒐證,抓姦,抓猴,捉猴, 調查跟蹤,反跟蹤,感情挽回,挽回感情,婚姻挽回,挽回婚姻,外遇沖開,抓姦, 女子徵信,外遇蒐證,外遇,通姦,通姦罪,贍養費,徵信,徵信社,抓姦,徵信,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信公司,女人徵信,
徵信,徵信網,徵信社, 徵信網,外遇,徵信,徵信社,抓姦,徵信,女人徵信,徵信社,女人徵信社,外遇,抓姦,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,女人徵信社,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,女子徵信社,女子徵信社,女子徵信社,女子徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信,外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信,外遇, 抓姦
徵徵徵徵徵徵徵信徵徵徵徵徵徵外遇抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信尋人大陸抓姦法律諮詢家暴徵徵徵徵婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵
徵徵徵徵徵婚姻挽回徵徵徵徵徵大陸抓姦徵徵徵尋人徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵
徵徵徵徵徵徵大陸抓姦徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵,徵信,徵信社
اسلوب
منتديات اسلوب
مدونة اسلوب
دليل اسلوب
منتديات عامة
فضاء واسع
منتديات اسلامية
اخبار
Language Forum
سياحة وسفر
صحة وتغذية
وسع صدرك
عالم حواء
ازياء واناقة
عطور و اكسسوار
مكياج و تسريحات
عناية بالبشرة
عناية بالشعر
مطبخ حواء
ركن العروس
فوتوشوب
ادوات فوتوشوب
دروس فوتوشوب
صور 2009
دروس تصوير
صور
منتديات ادبية
شعر وقصايد
خواطر
قصص
رياضة
رياضة سعودية
رياضة عالمية
سيارات
رياضات اخرى
تطوير مواقع تطوير منتديات
تطوير مواقع
تطوير منتديات
منتديات تقنية
برامج
برامج جوال - برامج نوكيا
توبيكات - برامج مسنجر - مسنجر - MSN
العاب - العاب فلاش - العاب بي سي - Games - Pc Games
ترافيان - منتديات ترافيان
تساهيل - منتديات تساهيل - فوتوشوب
زفات
منتديات دريم - زفات دريم
دريم
اغاني
Post a Comment
<< Home