Democrats & Liberals: Archives

This is one of the best posts I;ve seen here Paul. I can’t easily think of anything to add, criticize or comment on. I’m just waiting for one of the right-wing posters to misuse some statistics (e.g. “average income has gone up”), so we can get the discussion going.
Steve

It is not often called the “Hoover Depression,” BTW. And the causes are very complex. We had the agricultural collapse, the debt problems of the Treaty of Versailles, reparations, the Hawley Smoot Tariff. Only simpletons would blame Hoover. It is unlikely that anything Hoover did provoked it and nothing Franklin Roosevelt did got us out of it. As JK Galbraith said, we have to credit Hitler and the war with ending the Great Depression.

Sorry to bother you all with “right wing statistics†but you are really reaching on this one. The economy has been growing well since 2002. Unemployment is holding at about 5%. The median family income according to the Census Bureau is $65,093. Let me emphasis MEDIAN not average, so it would not make any difference to this statistic if the top 10% got much richer.

My father told me about the Great Depression. I remember double-digit unemployment in the late 1970s and early 1980s along with double-digit inflation. I tried hard to find a job for months and finally had to take the night shift stuffing papers. Today firms are begging for workers and very few are getting paid only minimum. The Arby’s down the street hired my 16-year-old inexperienced son for $7 an hour. If what we have now is a depression, I sure hope we never recover. It is okay if you want to name this after Bush. He deserves some of the credit I suppose.

It is really absurd to compare these times to the 1930s. It is almost like a Monty Python skit.

You are obviously not an economist. How many poor people give others jobs? 0

There is a direct relation between tax cuts and more jobs. It happend when JFK did it, Reagan and Bush. People with money make more money, then they have to hire more people, so they can make more money.

It doesn’t help that the Bush administration has escalated our national debt into the stratosphere. This chart is quite scary.

Jack,

why do all your “right wing” statistics always fail to mention the deficit. Its amazing that the economy has been steadily growing since since 2002 when the deficit has exponentially grown since 2001. Its simple economics, if you spend more than you take in, you have debt. I realize that this is a lefties dream talking point but if we pass the latest round of tax cuts, we will again have to borrow from foreign countries to pay for it.

Nothing else matters if we are crushed under the weight of our own debt. This is definitely conspiracy theory but out of the ashes of economic ruin, rises fascism. We need to tighten our belt buckles, do the right thing and pay off (not down) the deficit.

We may not be in the Dubya Depression yet but we sure are living under the watch of the first credit card president.

And please don’t stick your head in the sand like all other righties and pretend that the deficit doesn’t matter.

The deficit matters - but as a % of GNP. I am worried about it. But this won’t be an issue for you all. Revenues surged over the last couple of months. It was in all the papers. It surprised most analysts. We have to slow spending. That is a big challenge.

Consider why we ran a surplus in the late 1990s. We had a revenue surge caused by the stock bubble. We enjoyed the peace dividend (which we had to repay after 9/11) and energy prices were low because of slower growth in Asia.

One more thing. It is neither good to run a large deficit nor is it good to run a surplus at all. Ideally, we should balance. The problem is that whenever anyone leaves any money around Washington, somebody spends it. Both parties (all politicans worldwide and throughout history) are guilty of this. Eternal vigilance is the price of both liberty and solvency.

reed:

I am disappointted in you!!! Don’t you know that these tax cuts are vital to Republican Core Constituents? They are guaranteed to maximize Campaign Contributions forever!!!

Jack wrote:
The economy has been growing well since 2002. Unemployment is holding at about 5%. The median family income according to the Census Bureau is $65,093. Let me emphasis MEDIAN not average

economies always grow; sure unemployment has been holding steady for a few years, but it was down close to 3% when Bush became president, so I don’t see that as anything to brag about. As for median family income (I’m used to reading household), how does that compare to 2000 in constant dollars?

The game wrote:There is a direct relation between tax cuts and more jobs. It happend when JFK did it, Reagan and Bush. Show us the stats. Plus, I sure don’t see the jobs from Bush tax cuts. Like I said above, unemployment was lower before the BUsh tax cuts. Plus, Clinton raised taxes, and there followed the longest economic expansion in US history.

Steve

Jack wrote:
The deficit matters - but as a % of GNP. I am worried about it. But this won’t be an issue for you all. Revenues surged over the last couple of months.

Finally, something we agree on! debt as a % of GDP is the number to look at. And under Bush it keeps going up, up, up. Under Clinton it kept going down, down, down. And the Clinton approach is what we need because soon Social Security benefits would have sent it back up. From a purely economic standpoint, the US economy was headed in the right direction regarding debt-to-GDP, and Bush just screwed that up with his tax cuts for the rich.

And finally, I wouldn’t look at 2 months worth of data as an indicator to rely on.

We’re screwed

Jack Wrote:
The median family income according to the Census Bureau is $65,093. Let me emphasis MEDIAN not average, so it would not make any difference to this statistic if the top 10% got much richer.

Does this take into account that most families have two incomes compared to just 15-20 years ago? People are working harder and getting less for that family that you speak of. Conservatives are always speaking of family values, but apply themselves less to what would make a family stronger, namely a permanent at home parent. Worry less about gay couples more about straight ones.

Jack,

I am no economist but please tell me why a surplus is a bad thing. You say that somebody would just spend it. That’s a straw man argument if I ever heard one.

How about this, we run the country with a surplus and we do the loaning to other countries and make a significant return on our investment. Just think if banks or any business for that matter ran their businesses that way, they wouldn’t be in business. The only way for a country to deal with increased debt is to 1) print more money (which drives inflation), 2) pass it on to future generations (the Dubya way) or 3) actually reduce spending and/or take in more revenue.

Which of those three suits you the best. Like I said, nothing else matters.

thanks Aldous, I glad I made an impression.

Steve
You are right about the two months of data. I hope you understand the general lag time in economies.

I give credit for what he did, as you know if you read other things I have written. But economics does not work on the presidential timeline. 2000 was a bubble year. You can’t use that as a basis. Besides, it was in MARCH of 2000 that stocks started to decline signaling the end of the bubble. In other words, the course started to move down almost a full year before Bush took office and at least two years before any of his policies could have had time for an effect on the economy.

The 1990s were an unusually benign period. The economic boom of the 1990s began, BTW in MARCH 1991 - almost a year before Bill Clinton took office. The key to economics and business is lag time. Almost nothing a president does has an immediate effect. The deficit reduction of the 1990s was based on revenue growth, not tax increase. The tax increases were not enough to balance the budget and the tax cuts were not enough to cause a deficit. And if you remember the surplus surprised everyone. It is only now that people claim to have predicted it. Those who made fortunes in stocks and bonds and then understood the economy well enough to sell in 2000, I will give the benefit of the doubt. Anyone else is just talking.

So it was a revenue surge in the late 1990s based on general prosperity that actually started in 1982 with a brief recession in 1990-1. What caused the prosperity of the 1990s that led to revenue surges? A lot of it had to do with restructuring of the late 1980s. Some of it had to do with the end of the Cold War and the vastly reduced expenditures. And then whole parts of the world that had been under benighted Communism joined the free world and began not only to pull their own weight, but also add to wealth. Oil prices hit a low in 1998 as investments came on line and demand in Asia dropped. There is real lag time in things like this. Also, as I have written before, I think Clinton did a decent job as economic steward, but he was also really lucky.

Things changed in 2001. Many things happened besides the tax cuts. The stock market decline (again starting in MARCH 2000) greatly reduced revenues. Many of us had personal experience. In 2000 I paid capital gains taxes. In 2001 I took loses, so not only didn’t I pay, I actually deducted money. This was a general experience. Bush’s policies did not have time to make this happen. The economy doesn’t have an on/off switch.

But the most important thing was 9/11. That cost us trillions of dollars outright, but it also contributed to inefficiency. When you go to the airport, you have to expect hours of delay because of security. Say you make $50 an hour. It costs you (or your firm) about $100 for you to sit in the airport lounge. How many people are sitting there with you? Or think about all the customs inspections etc. All this costs money, but we don’t usually see it.

And whether you believe it or not, we are at war with terrorists. We have actually been at war with them since at least 1993, but we didn’t know it. Wars cost money.

Anyway, the president doesn’t make the economy. He is just one player even in the U.S. economy. And he is an increasing smaller player in the world economy. The idea that the government runs the economy is pernicious and wrong. I am glad they don’t. Government is a facilitator. Clinton did a good job in the middle years (1994-8) His first years sucked and his last years he was occupied with other things. It didn’t hurt that he faced a Republican congress in 1994.

John,
What Jack is not saying is that a family of four with a mediam income of $45,000.00 is considered Low-Income. With the price of oil pushing the cost of living up that number will only go up as more and more Americans buy less causing more unemployment.

Jack,
You say the economy has been growing since 2002. Now does that take into consideration that we have faced a 20% devaluing of the Dollar earlier this year? What about the fact that most consumer spending has been done by borrowing money against their home? And unemployeement has been raising if you take the real numbers instead of the deferred numbes used by the government.

Yes, the economy has been growing at roughly 3-3.5% a year; however, the Republican party has been shipping out of country about 5-6% of the growth a year by their policies. How easy is that to prove? Check the Dow, for 2 plus years it has remained at around 10,000 points. If just a 3% growth without inflation of consumers energy and food, the Dow should of rose to about 11,500 points.

Given Katrina and Rita’s impact on the economy and the lack of imagination of President Bush to come up with a “Vision” for the Reconstruction of The 21st Century South, the Bulls are going to eat the Bears alive. The only problem is no consumer is going to have the money to buy anything but the stuff made in China. And somehow that is good for the American Econmy? How?

Reed

If we have a surplus, we will be tempted to spend it, but let’s assume all our politicians are honest and prudent and they save it. What happens when the government saves? The money supply drops. The USG has no place to invest its money. It is the creator of money. It writes checks to itself and nobody wants the USG owning their assets. Our economy and our government is just too big.

Okay, let’s assume the counter factual – the government CAN save and invest. Why should it do that? All the money the government has comes from the people of the U.S. Do we assume that government bureaucrats can invest better than American citizens?

Ideally, the government would run a manageable debt. That was Alexander Hamilton’s big idea and it is one reason the U.S. became successful. I am not saying this to support a large deficit. Our deficit is too big and we should work on reducing it. But I would not want to eliminate the debt even if I could. Ideally, we should reduce it by about to about 1% of GNP. Ideally, we should reduce this percentage by economic growth, not increased tax rates (but that part is my ideology.)

Henry

The market bubbled in the late 1990s. Price were excessively exuberant or frothy, as Alan Greenspan said. In the long run, prices make sense, but there are plenty of short-term anomolies.

You make an interesting point about $45k being low income. That is why we can never eliminate poverty. We raise the standards.

The economy has been growing well. Unemployment is low. You don’t have to believe the statistics. My personal experience is that it is hard to find good people to hire. There is a labor shortage. Fast food places in my area are paying kids $7-8 and they can’t keep them. If people are that poor, they sure don’t behave like poor people used to.

Jack said:

If we have a surplus, we will be tempted to spend it, but let’s assume all our politicians are honest and prudent and they save it. What happens when the government saves? The money supply drops.

First, Jack, if we had a surplus, we might very well spend it and damn sure should either through lower taxes or national needs.

Second, when the gov’t saves? The Government has never saved for any protracted period of time. That is not the purpose of the government, saving is individuals and other entities needing a hedge against the unforeseen.

Third, if the gov’t did save, however, yes, the money supply would drop, but, the value of the dollar and what it could buy would soar. That would be great for elevating the working poor out of poverty.

Lastly, if we had a near zero national debt, our government would be 1) far more agile in meeting unforeseen events like Katrina or War, 2) the threat to future generations earnings would be vastly reduced, and 3) investments in America would have far less competition overseas as the risk of investing in America would be greatly reduced. Yes, treauries would not compete as the return rate would be extremely low due to low risk, but, the investments in American industry and capital stock markets would become very competitively appealing to overseas investors, who are now having to think twice as our national debt threatens long term economic viability of American consumer markets.

Jack,
Sorry to inform you, but if the economy has been growing oh so well why is it that the $45,000.00 for low-income has been that way for atleast the last 20 years? Real Money verses Paper Money and while the price of goods have gone down over the last 10 plus years the Spendable Cash in most Americans pockets haven’t kept up.

As far as a labor shortage in America and McD having to pay people $7-8.00/hr, did you ever think that their are just some jobs people don’t want to do for a paycheck? Besides, finding a good emloyee is not any harder today than it was 20 years ago. The question is why should I make you money when I’m the one risking life and limb?

On the economic stats, both Bears and Bulls pull which ones that fit their argument, yet look at the “Spendable Cash” each family has left at the end of the month. Has the number rose or fell over the last five years for the average family? Because that is the number that matters to those who want to make Real Money. It does me no good if you have to borrow the money from me so you can pay me now does it? The old saying “In God we trust all others pay cash” is the mark that shows the growth of the dollar. Borrow a dollar to spend a dollar so that I can only make a 4% interst on it if I’m lucky don’t do me no good exspecially if you can’t pay it.

Paul:

Nice article. Here are some economic facts for you.

1. Government spending on Education and Medicare has gone up in the Bush depression. It was Clinton who cut Welfare.

2. Home ownership is at an all time high.

3. Unemployment is lower than the average of the nineties.

4. Percapita American wealth is at an all time high. (Because of home appreciation.

5. Earnings divided by share price of American stocks are a great buy compared to bond yields. The fed’s own gage of stock prices shows the stock market to be about 30% below where it should be. (Irrational pessimism).

6. Interest rates are lower now than in the nineties.

7. The poverty rate is increasing. (Interesting debate to see who gets the blame for this, Clinton or Bush). Remember to include welfare reform in your response.

8. Achievement test scores in our schools are rising.

9. The economy is in it’s fourth year of expansion and should continue through 2006.

Pretty nice depression,

Craig

Jack said:

But the most important thing was 9/11. That cost us trillions of dollars outright, but it also contributed to inefficiency. When you go to the airport, you have to expect hours of delay because of security. Say you make $50 an hour. It costs you (or your firm) about $100 for you to sit in the airport lounge. How many people are sitting there with you? Or think about all the customs inspections etc. All this costs money, but we don’t usually see it.

Jack,

You’re measuring a flood with thimbles. How about an unnecessary 200 billion dollar war? Have you factored in the pittance that our soldiers are making to your median household income? Where is the money from the war coming from? All from borrowing, or are we cutting the fat on such things as the Army Core of Engineers? Is it possible that there were not enough National Guard quickly on the scene in New Orleans because they were busy fighting Bush’s war for oil? Is it possible that there were not enough first responders because they help make up the national guard reserves who are currently in Iraq fighting for Halliburton profits? If you’re a fiscal conservative, as you appear to be, you should appreciate that Bush has been pillaging our economy by spending at record rates, borrowing at record rates and reducing revenues by cutting taxes.

It’s pretty easy to talk statistics and medians but not quite so easy to face reality. How fortunate for the son of the neo con who is earning $7 per hour… about $14000 per year. Kick him out of the house and tell him he’s got to feed, clothe, and house himself on $280 a week. Now wait until the power in his studio apartment is shut off and he gets sick and can’t afford aspirin much less a doctor’s visit even IF his employer offered health insurance because he can’t afford the premiums much less the co payments. Is it so hard to imagine that in less than a year, neo con’s son will be living in a cardboard box, having abandoned his job as hopelessly getting him nowhere, stealing and begging food?

Of course neo con would never let that happen to his own son, but doesn’t think twice that this is the existance for 200,000 American men WHO SERVED THEIR COUNTRY IN THE US MILITARY, and at least another 400,000 men, women and children. Neo con can only conclude that they have chosen this existance.

Neo con doesn’t care as long as his stats are spun to match up to Clinton’s… that’s the how neo con’s are supposed to talk to liberals (what? did you think only neo cons read Ann Coulter?) So unemployment is ‘only’ 5%… well, the guy who’s out of work, he’s 100% unemployed.

Why are we so surprised that when disaster hits, THAT poor guy suddenly has a job… entering abandoned businesses and homes and helping himself to whatever he wants?

David, d.a.n., et al,
You frequently rail about the exploding deficit.

The government owns the printing presses and can therefore pay off debt without limit. Are the cataclysmic consequences something that will happen all at once at a tipping point?

I share the concerns but the fact is, the public has been hearing this for years yet they never see the oft described ill consequences. Don’t talk about a little inflation - people expect that and even want that. We talk about our children paying the debt but we dont, so why would they?

The case that the concern is as serious as presented in these blogs is for the most part unproven. Even the Vice Prez is on record saying that deficits dont matter. Are we all supposed to be smarter than our VP?

If the deficit had actual ramifications, there likely would be an immediate push to dump this administration. That’s what happened in California with the Governor - why? - because a State can’t print it’s own money.

Thom

I am afraid that in a real world not everything can be the way you want it. I would not want to have to live on $7 an hour, but I lived on a lot less for several years. I know what it is like not to have money, although I don’t know what it is like to be poor, which is (this should make liberal mad) more a state of mind than a state of money.

The economy is dynamic. Many of us have gone through times of poverty. The SS folks send an earnings history each year. I always smile at how little I made about seven years. But I went through it. The key is “went through”. It is our job to figure out ways to learn new skills and do better. Even the worst jobs have opportunities. Fast foods have managers and usually these managers come up from the bottom. Wal-Mart almost always trains its managers from its associates and these guys make more than 100K a year.

Given any large group, some will be better off than others. Our definition of poverty will rise with the general welfare. Most of Americans in poverty own a car. Many own a home. Almost all have televisions sets and DVD players. If you translate what an American in poverty can buy with the money he gets, he is richer than most people in the world, even than the average in many European countries. He is also richer - in what he can buy - than most Americans of a generation ago. Poverty is always relative, so there will be poor always.

BTW - I have never read any of Ann Coulter’s books. I bet she sells more books to liberals, who can be properly outraged. She is like the Michael Moore of conservatives. She doesn’t speak for me, just as I hope Moore doesn’t speak for you.

Henry

I know there are some jobs that people just don’t want for a paycheck, but I have no sympathy for those who won’t take them and then complain. I worked at McDonalds. I didn’t like it and I got a different job as fast as I could, but it was better than doing nothing. Once again, you have shown how rich we have become when someone won’t work for $7-8 an hour because he finds the job too unpleasant.

And there are very few jobs left where you risk life and limb. When I worked at McDonalds the only dangerous thing I recall was pushing the garbage into the trash compactor. You were supposed to use a stick but many of us foolishly just pushed it in with our hands. Despite the elevated risk, I never heard of any injuries.

The most dangerous job I know of is forestry, which I do for profits I might make thirty years from now and because I love my trees. Interestingly enough, people are eager to do this job and I get unsolicited calls from people who want to do my work for me. You meet a better class of people in rural piney areas, I guess.

LOL! Jack, I can’t believe you’re using fast-food jobs as an indicator of economic health. :)

1. Government spending on Education and Medicare has gone up in the Bush depression. It was Clinton who cut Welfare.

Craig, these are the kind of stats that are just meaningless. Education spending has gone up — but not enough to cover the new expenses mandated by the NCLB law. Medicare spending went up — and big pharma raised prices on senior’s medicines.

President Clinton made welfare more efficient and effective at getting people back in the workforce through retraining and childcare provisions. That’s the kind of fiscally responsible, pro-growth governing we’re not getting from President Bush.

It’s not enough to just spend money, you need to get results. I mean, President Bush spends more money on homeland security, but the borders are still as porous as on 9/10/01.

Excellent article, Paul. I was looking at the economy today, myself, and ran across an interesting article about runaway corporate profits and stagnant wages at the Center for American Progress:

It wasn’t always this way. Economic growth used to benefit all families. In the decades after World War II up until 1973, family income grew at about the same pace for families across the income distribution. The bottom fifth of families saw their income rise by an average of 2.6 percent per year, as did the top fifth of families.

What’s changed? The disconnect between economic growth and incomes is the result of a shift in the balance of power away from workers towards CEOs and corporate profitability. While wages have been falling, after-tax profits have grown by 18.2 percent in 2004 and 14.3 percent in 2003.

There are no longer countervailing forces to prevent the wealthy from appropriating all the gains from growth. Labor is no longer a strong force to be reckoned with and government is not protecting worker’s paychecks.

Talk of worker solidarity and class warfare are frowned upon nowadays. Maybe it’s time to reintroduce them into the national lexicon. As Jack points out, Wall Street is doing fine — but the good times aren’t trickling down.

Craig,

Good stuff, but this will go in one ear and out the other. Dont you understand that the sky is falling? Bush is Satan. He is all powerfull. Able to create quagmires in Iraq. Starve black people in New Orleans. And destroy the US economy with evil tax cuts.

Jack,
Actually crab fishing in Alaska is the most dangerous job in the world. Why we haven’t figured out how to use a sub to drop and pick up the cages is beyond my pay grade, but besides NSA reasons that would be a good thing for the Dept. of Labor to fund.

No, working for a livable wage has become a national security issue thanks to President Bush telling Americans to “Go Shopping” in defense of our country after 9/11. Thus, by the Democrats and Republicans not pushing our societal tools (i.e. Corporations)to freely raise wages to that standard, they are acting against the national security interest of America. Even those businesses that say that they are patriotic lose the argument if they do not support paying all American Workers a livable wage. Than if a citizen does not want to work, they can be shamed and IMO should be publicly.

Paul,

Excellent article. You can feel the deepening depression of the American people daily under the reign of Bush. The Hoover depression and the Dubya depression are a direct result of greed. Corporations are only alive to make money, they have no other agenda. It was the same today as it was in the 1920’s.

Reviewing world history and the rise and fall of cultures, when a society focuses on greed devestation occurs. This is a very dangerous time for America because there are many people who do not want to see the reality of the corporate greed machine and the Dubya depression. I just read an article that said 3 out of 10 Americans have “NO” faith in our government. And 8 out of 10 Amercians believe that the federal government is “OUT OF TOUCH” with the average citizen. The fog of change is starting to get thicker with the masses.

Steve,

I challenge you to take 3 or 4 hours on your next day off and go to the largest city in your area. Take a look at the houses, the jobs, the factores, streets, cars, people. Go sit at a bus or sub station and listen to the people. Then go to your average suburb and do the same thing. YOU WILL BE AMAZED! I think you are out of touch with lower income people and families. Your articles above are arrogant and ignorant to the struggles and hardship of poor Americans. Working at McDonalds as a teenager or in your 20’s when going to school is totally different than working there full time in your 40’s because the 2 factories in your town closed and went over seas. How do you provide for your wife and 2 kids now? How do you adjust your life from a good paying unionized factory job making $50,000 a year to fast food at $28,000? You can’t and this is the problem our country is facing. Remember there are more poor people than rich and the number is growing.

The divide between rich and poor is growing at an alarming level. This is how revolutions happen, just take a look at history.

JT wrote:
Steve, I challenge you to take 3 or 4 hours on your next day off and go to the largest city in your area.

I hope you wrote this for someone else, because I agree with what you wrote, and I thought my posts support that.

Steve

Would everyone please stop tossing around the 5% unemployment rate. I was unemployed and underemployed for 2 yrs and did not once file for unemployment benefits. I still considered myself unemployed as I shuffled bill payments (building interest), deferred college loans (building interest), got further into debt (building interest). I still bought groceries on borrowed money. I hated that, am still underemployed, and don’t want my goverment to have to borrow money to pay the bills. 5% is not the unemployment rate, it is the rate of people on unemployment.

John

I understand your point, but we have to use the statistic consistently. Presumably when unemployment is at 3% or 10% the same considerations apply.

5% unemployment is about as good as we can expect from the economy. It has been higher most of the working lives of anyone writing here. As with any statistic, it doesn’t apply to any particular individuals.

Jack,

I disagree with you that we have to take the statics as if they remain consistent. Again going back to your statistic on the median income, Things change. part of the reason that I was able to be unemployed and underemployed was that my gf, now wife is underemployed as well. together you might say, well good enough. The fact of the matter is that 15-20 yrs ago, there was only one income, generally speaking. so your statics aren’t static. People take 5% as only 5% of the nation is unemployed and that’s how people try to employ that statistic, not true.

i meant statistics, sorry. unfortunate for the verbal pun i was going for.

AP:

It’s not enough to just spend money, you need to get results.

Like this?

SAT math scores hit record high By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Average math scores for the SAT college entrance exam hit a record high this year, but verbal scores remained flat, according to a report released Tuesday. The College Board report, which is based on tests taken by this year’s high school graduates, also found that math scores have been steadily increasing in recent years toward the 2005 high of 520 out of 800 possible points.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-08-30-sat-scores_x.htm

Are SAT scores hitting record highs a good thing or a bad thing? Or is that Bush’s fault as well.

Craig

AP:

I read the article you quote above. I agree with much of her sentiment. I disagree with this being much related to politics.

Supply and demand has a bunch to do with it. Unfortunately, the Internet has opened up India and China to nonskilled workers that can work for 20% of our lowskilled workforce. Walmart is a big beneficiary of this. There is a national interest in the Walmarts. When they pay substandard wages so that a good percentage of their employees are on medical assistance, that is a form of corporate welfare.

The answers to the bottom 20% are complex. George Will has a good article recently where he says that you can eliminate much of poverty if only we could stop teen pregnancy, teen marriage and make sure kids graduate from High School. He claims these are the top three reasons for the lower 20% staying poor.

New Orleans showed us these poor, which is a good thing. I agree with you that writing a $200 Billion dollar check will not change intrenched poverty. I think George Will is partially right. It needs to be a combination of changing of values, and teaching job skills.

Craig

Ms Schwamp, printing money deflates its value, and increases inflation. The direct consequence of Reagan’s debt laden years were another decade following of inflationary pressures, brought under control only at the end of Clinton’s administration in light of what appeared to be the end of national debt growth. Short lived as it was by the election of GW Bush.

S. America has a long history of the ills of just printing money. Google inflation and Brazil, or Venezuela for reams about the ills of national debt and printing money to cover it.

John

We just don’t have anything else to go on. And there is no particular reason to believe this statistic is less accurate now than it was before. People argue both ways. you make a good point about two incomes, but there are others. Is a person who is making money on E-Bay employed or not, for example? Some of the “unemployed” have decent incomes.

We have trouble with individuals, as I mentioned. There are lots of people who call themselves actors who actually are waiters or cab drivers. They would say they are underemployed, but all that really means is that they are not employed in the job they really want. Who is?

I have never been paid what I am worth. I bet almost everyone feels that way.

David

You must remember that inflation was in double digits in the late 1970s. It dropped under Reagan and dropped fast. The dollar was also very strong during most of the Reagan period. Inflation has remained low ever since. It has been slightly lower under Bush than under Clinton. We can discuss the causes (most likely it was Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan) but inflation is not something we can associate with either Reagan or Bush.

David:

Ms Schwamp, printing money deflates its value, and increases inflation. The direct consequence of Reagan’s debt laden years were another decade following of inflationary pressures, brought under control only at the end of Clinton’s administration in light of what appeared to be the end of national debt growth. Short lived as it was by the election of GW Bush.

The highest inflation in the last thirty years were as follows:

1979 13.29%
1980 12.52%
1978 9.02%
1981 8.92%

The lowest CPI numbers in the last thirty years are:

1986 1.10%
2001 1.55%
1998 1.61%
1997 1.70%
2003 1.89%

The highest Clinton CPI

1996 3.32%
2000 3.39%

The highest Bush CPI

2004 3.25%

Average CPI since 1913 3.29%

Average Carter CPI 10.43%

Average Reagen CPI 4.22%

Average Bush I CPI 4.17%

Average Clinton CPI 2.60%

Average Bush II CPI 2.40%

Both during Bush II and Clinton I (g), we have experienced remarkably contained inflation that is below our nations averge.

Craig

David:

Ms Schwamp, printing money deflates its value, and increases inflation. The direct consequence of Reagan’s debt laden years were another decade following of inflationary pressures, brought under control only at the end of Clinton’s administration in light of what appeared to be the end of national debt growth. Short lived as it was by the election of GW Bush.

The highest inflation in the last thirty years were as follows:

1979 13.29%
1980 12.52%
1978 9.02%
1981 8.92%

The lowest CPI numbers in the last thirty years are:

1986 1.10%
2001 1.55%
1998 1.61%
1997 1.70%
2003 1.89%

The highest Clinton CPI

1996 3.32%
2000 3.39%

The highest Bush CPI

2004 3.25%

Average CPI since 1913 3.29%

Average Carter CPI 10.43%

Average Reagen CPI 4.22%

Average Bush I CPI 4.17%

Average Clinton CPI 2.60%

Average Bush II CPI 2.40%

Both during Bush II and Clinton I (g), we have experienced remarkably contained inflation that is below our nation’s average.

Craig

David:

One more point. Inflation has been trending generally downward since 1979.

Craig

you can eliminate much of poverty if only we could stop teen pregnancy, teen marriage and make sure kids graduate from High School.

Craig, I don’t know how true that is, but it’s something we should do nonetheless. I take it that means you’ll ask your Senators to support Boxer and Clinton’s Family Planning Services Act (S.844) aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies.

It is not often called the “Hoover Depression,†BTW

Sure it is, Jack. And the shanty towns full of unemployed men and their families were called “Hoovervilles”, and newspapers were called “Hoover blankets”, and an empty pants pocket pulled inside out was called a “Hoover flag”.

That was Alexander Hamilton’s big idea

I though Hamilton’s big idea was a government run by the monied elite. He was a monarchist, after all, and totally opposed to democracy, as put forth in the US Constitution. He was the most vocal proponent of a President-for-life with broad, arbitrary powers.

It’s really no wonder Republicans admire Hamilton. He was the first champion of the idle investor class. I personally prefer the agrarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, who vowed to eradicate “every fibre of ancient and future aristocracy.”