Democrats & Liberals Archives

Economic Growth

The American budget deficit for the current fiscal year, which had been estimated by the administration to be about $421 billion, is now being estimated to be about $296 billion. Bush is making speeches and jumping with joy about the great economy. He is boasting that his tax cuts are responsible for the tremendous economic growth. They have brought extra riches and thus extra taxes collected.

First of all, a $300 billion deficit is nothing to boast about. Then, you must realize that the administration earlier purposely predicted an unlikely-high deficit in order to now be able to boast that the deficit is much lower. One of the games the administration plays with us, because it thinks we, the people, are stupid.

As to the status of the economy, David Gergen says, yes, indeed, the economy is great for the rich:

"This is a great economy in terms of growth. The productivity has been up, the economy has been growing over 3 percent for more than 10 quarters, it`s gotten up to the 4 to 5 percent range. By any normal standard, inflation still pretty low, that`s a great economy."

Then he details how ordinary Americans don't see this growth. Wages are stagnant and the future of wage earners does not look good.

Why the discrepancy? It lies in what we measure. All measurements are related to what's called economic growth, but actually measures business growth. We measure GDP, essentially how much business is done. We measure productivity, a measure of how much labor can be replaced with machines. (At least, this is how productivity is used).

And what does the Dow measure? Have you watched how the Dow fluctuates? Each time there is a suggestion of a wage increase the Dow falls. Conversely, when it looks like wages could be kept low, the Dow rises. Of course, the Fed does not talk about wages; it talks about controlling inflation. It says that, unfortunately, when wages go up so does inflation.

Our economic system is designed to increase business growth and this is what we measure. Business is growing apace. But the great majority of Americans are wage earners and there has been no wage growth for decades. Globalization will reduce the earnings of American wage earners further. Here is the second part of what David Gergen said:

"The problem is this issue of globalization. The globalization in my judgment has been the primary force in suppressing higher wages, higher income for people at the bottom half of the—of America, and that`s the reason why you have this great divergence between people who say, 'Hey, look, the economy'—if you look at the numbers on the growth side, it looks great, but in terms of my actual life, most people find that their incomes are stagnant and they cannot afford the higher cost of health care and many other—and gasoline and many other things that are coming their way, and that`s why they`re very unhappy."

Bush and Republicans: Stop boasting about the economy. Start modifying the system so that the wages of average Americans grow.

Economic growth should mean business growth AND wage growth.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 12, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #166891

But Paul:

“Economic growth should mean business growth AND wage growth.”

You just said yourself that wage growth equals inflation, and with the dollar being worth less, all the lending institutions and banks get back money that they lent thats worth less. Now thats a serious problem.

*sigh* The economy would run so much smoother if it weren’t for these damn workers, bitching and moaning about livable wages and job security and health care and pensions.

We need more machines—the human kind and the machine kind. It’s harder and harder to run a business with all these damn people.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 12, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #166892

If wages go up with inflation, then there really isnt any gain right?

So if production is up, inflation is steady and the economy is making gains…

There could be worse news no?

Posted by: b0mbay at July 12, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #166898

Does anyone remember the “misery index”, a term coined in the 70’s by a Chicago economist? It was used very effectively by President Reagan in describing the effect of the Carter administration on the economy.
The lowest misery index was recorded in July 1953 at 2.97%. The high point was in June 1980 when it hit 21.98%.
The most current index I could find was for May 2006 at 8.77%.
The misery index = Umemployment (4.6%) and Inflation (4.17%)
Now, I suggest that both unemployment and inflation hit the working person the hardest and consequently the current index bodes well for hard working Americans.
I find it interesting to note that the 21.98% during the democratic administration of Carter is preceeded by the lowest during the Republican administration of Eisenhower and started coming down dramatically during the Reagan administration. What say you? Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at July 12, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #166901

What’s wrong with this picture?
The gap grows worse every year, as the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
A tiny 5% of the U.S. population has 60% of all wealth, and the gap continues to grow with so many tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, a supply of low-wage illegal aliens (an under-paid subclass), and a government that continues to grow to nightmare proportions.

Not to mention our other pressing problems.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #166904


the problem with the Misery index is the same problem that follows the unemployment number everytime it is used to gauge anything more than a trend, and that is people only stay on unemployment for 6 months, at which time they are no longer counted.

A better index would be inflation minus wage growth. That would track the working man’s ability to either stay level, get ahead or fall behind under current conditions. Wage growth numbers take unemployment into consideration, as well as underemployment, which is more of a problem in the manufacturing-to-service transition we are now seeing.

Posted by: David S at July 12, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #166910

Thank you David S. for your comments and suggestion. I will give you the assignment to produce such an index and we’ll all take a look at it to see what historical trends it reveals. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at July 12, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #166911

Wage growth does NOT follow inflation in this environment where illegal immigrants underbid the labor rate, and exporting of jobs which would be rising in wages is taking place.

Let’s dispell that myth right here and now.

Also, when one uses the word inflation, which definition of inflation is being used. There are several, exluding volatile sectors being one commonly used by the Fed.

And wages are not an accurate guage of real dollar purchasing power. The real dollar purchasing power of wages has been falling steadily since the early 1960’s, when a blue collar worker with a family of seven could earn a middle class wage. Today, it takes two such blue collar workers to stay in the middle class.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #166915

I am no economist but even I can tell you,if you spend more than you earn,borrow relentlessly,have friends who are willing to lend you money to support your bad habits (like oil addiction),give away money to 1% of your best friends,constantly fight with some dude that who lives in a neighbourhod where you have to take a cab to get there everytime you are in the mood for fisticuffs,are always ignoring foreseen disasters that might hit you at any minute and then brag about it, sooner or later you are going to be hit with the reality that you are not infallible no matter how much you want to believe it.

Posted by: john doe at July 12, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #166919

—d.a.n.- You have a good graph here, I would like to see a graph six years newer to compare the two.
I would think there would be a slight change.

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #166922

I dont get it - there isnt a finite amout of capital (money) is there? So what is stopping the bottom whatever-percent from trying to accumulate wealth?

Has anyone here read Thomas Hobbes or Adam Smith???

Or is it the big opressive thumb of the rich/republicans/bush…etc holding down everyone else?

I dont know about you guys, but I am doing better financially today than I was during the early part of the recession and right after sept 11th.

Posted by: b0mbay at July 12, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #166924


This is embarrassing to Dems. The income and wealth percentage held by the wealthiest 1% peaked under Clinton and dropped under Bush.

This actually had little to do with the policies of either man and more to do with the stock market, but it does certainly take away a big part of the liberal case against Bush on this subject.

Posted by: Jack at July 12, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #166931

—bOmbay—You are doing better, that being noted, we still need a graph showing the past seven years. That way we can compare the present to the past six or seven years for everyone.

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #166933

“I dont know about you guys, but I am doing better financially today than I was during the early part of the recession and right after sept 11th.”

As a democrat and a compassionate person, I’m not ONLY worried about “I”, but “we”. I guess that’s the difference.
Yes, “I” am doing better. I wish sometimes I could not care about the “we”. But I do.

Posted by: Observer at July 12, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #166935

This current government administration
needs to stick everything up it’s
arrogant ass thus far since
election 2000!

Washington DC (District of Criminals)

Posted by: Hang em' high at July 12, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #166937

I’m a construction worker and HELL NO I’m not making more than I was five years ago and neither is any other tradesperson that I know of. Not only are we making the same or less but it’s costing us more for health insurance, more to get to work, more to just live. I can not believe the inflation rate is as low as they say it is. Cost of materials to build a home or hospital or office building are way up but wages are stagnant at best in this part of the country(Michigan).

Posted by: mark at July 12, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #166946

As a democrat and a compassionate person, I’m not ONLY worried about “I”, but “we”.

Just because I care about myself and my family does not mean that I dont care about anyone else (or that im not compassionate)…

I think about it this way - Im in sales, so if my customers werent doing better (and their customers, and their customers…) I wouldnt be getting any business. So maybe WE ARE doing better…

Posted by: b0mbay at July 12, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #166955

The problem with the “rich getting richer” shtick is that the evil 1% keep changing. Buffet or Gates aren’t keeping us down. Their money is pretty much “new” money.

The people move freely up and down the income scale.

So it is hard to play this class war game unless we can identify who THEY are.

Posted by: JimmyRay at July 12, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #166959

—mark— Figures don’t lie but liars figure.

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #166961


That is one of the most useless charts with the least actual data I’ve ever seen. Not surprising since it came from Heritage, so, please explain it.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 12, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #166971


Here is the link but as you say it comes from heritage so discount if you must.

My point is that 59% of the poorest didn’t stay in that quintile and 61% of the richest (top) didn’t stay in that quintile.

So how can we throw around terms like rich and poor when the make up of these groups are always changing? And changing a great deal…

Is it the rich for right now? or tomorrow? or yesterday?

I like the endnotes titles on that heritage article.

1. Daniel P. McMurrer and Isabel V. Sawhill, “How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?” Urban Institute, Opportunity in America No. 3, November 1996. This report reviewed seven income mobility studies published from 1992 to 1996.

2. Income Mobility and the U.S. Economy: Open Society or Caste System? Joint Economic Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess., January 1992. Quintiles are calculated by dividing the number of families or people into five groups of equal size and classified by income.

3. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “By Our Own Bootstraps: Economic Opportunity and the Dynamics of Income Distribution,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 1995 Annual Report, pp. 2-23.

4. McMurrer and Sawhill, “How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?”

5. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Moving Up and Down the Income Ladder, No. P70-65, July 1998.

6. Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, State of Working America: 2000-01 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), p. 77.

Posted by: JimmyRay at July 13, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #166976

—jimmyRay— A little straight forward look!
Since 1997
President Bush 100 % increase
CEO 73 % increase
Congress 24 % increase next year due $3.300
raise due
Hourly worker 0 % increase $5.15 per Hr.
Union workers Pay cuts Benefits Cut
is this plane enough for you?

Posted by: DAVID at July 13, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #166978

—Buy the way, if you consider $3.00 Gal. Gas compared to $1.75 heat bills about 30 % higher an any thing else a person might need like food prices
increased. Are we better off today or seven or eight years ago.

Posted by: DAVID at July 13, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #166985


I don’t know what you are talking about, but there definitely is a finite amount of money. I guess in your world if I got a nickel every time a conservative said something stupid I’d be an infinity-aire!

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #167000

Global Insight projected that the average annual wage of $43,629 in the top ten sectors that lost jobs during the 2001–03 period, would not be matched by the average wage of $35,855 in those sectors adding jobs through 2005. Job gains would come in those sectors where wages average only 82 per cent of those in the sectors hit hardest by the recession. This projected 18 per cent gap reflected, in part, the higher-than-average wages paid in the declining manufacturing sectors. Many of those manufacturing jobs and others lost in the information sector, had been sent overseas due to outsourcing, or were lost due to firm and plant closings because of oversupply as demand waned. Indeed, the measured wage gap given the composition of actual job gains in 2004 and 2005 is substantially higher than earlier projection. The average wage, measured in 2003, of those added jobs in the leading expanding sectors has been just $34,378, 4.1 per cent lower than anticipated in the recovery. The wage gap between jobs lost and jobs gained is 21 per cent.

This to put things into perspective. And by the way, the economy isn’t adding nearly as many jobs as was promised by Bushco. That’s like a double surplus on the negative side right?

Posted by: Josh Grant at July 13, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #167001

Oh, and when using a realistic (not imaginary such as CPI) inflation gauge to compute annual true cost of living increases real aggregate personal income was negative during the last 36 years because prices rose faster than wages.

The CPI-basket used to compute official inflation has even been altered significantly through the years to understate inflation. Hey we wouldn’t want to cause panic amongs the people/businesses/financial markets right? Just search for hedonic pricing/hedonic regression and CPI component changes.

Posted by: Josh Grant at July 13, 2006 4:04 AM
Comment #167010

jimmy ray, it is not about who is rich and poor in a given snap shot in time. It is about fiscal responsibility and the economic train wreck ahead of us with the baby boom retirement, which if not responsibly dealt with immediately, is going to result in human degradation and poverty and abuses of seniors unparalleled in American history.

It is about the U.S. government having entered into a contract with the American people and the people have paid in and kept up their end of the contract and the Bush administration and Republican Congress abdicating and renegging on that contract by issuing tax cuts, 51% of which goes to the top 1% of the wealthiest at a time when the worst thing for the baby boom crisis to happen is to increase national debt, forcing the government to abdicate on its contract with seniors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2006 7:08 AM
Comment #167012

So what is stopping the bottom whatever-percent from trying to accumulate wealth?
I do believe that if you were to check with the bottom whateve-percent, aka working class, they are trying to accumulate wealth. Many of them are working 2 jobs or more, 50+ hrs a week just to make ends meet. It just keeps getting harder & harder with the cost of living going up faster than wages.
Now, just something to think about. Lets say that everybody did have and equal oportunity in our country, which would mean that everybody could get the best education, and everybody did go to collage and grad school and get their masters, doctorates etc. The white collar job force would be flooded with qualified applicants. Instead of a small number of people qualified to be CEO’s presidents managers etc, suddenly there are many, willing to do it for less and less. The upper class no longer has their power. There are not enough people to do the meanial work for next to nothing becaus they now have an education……. It could get very ugly for the upper upper class. They would not have as many backs to step on. That is why not everybody has an equal oportunity for higher education.

Posted by: Lyle Nussbaum at July 13, 2006 7:23 AM
Comment #167035


I will review your links when I have time (it will be too late for this thread) But:
If 59% left the lowest Quintile and 23% entered, then where are the 36%?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 13, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #167043
This is embarrassing to Dems. The income and wealth percentage held by the wealthiest 1% peaked under Clinton and dropped under Bush.

tell us the wealth percentage held by the wealthiest 1% peaked under Clinton and dropped under Bush… AND THEN SHOW US A GRAPH OF INCOME. Have conservatives made lying so second nature that they don’t even realize when they are doing it? Or do you just assume that liberals are stupid?

Posted by: Thom Houts at July 13, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #167061

—bOmbay— If you happen to be in the Food, Oil, or the Motel Business, I would expect to see you do well, not all Democrats are poor or as a mater of fact even the poor Republicans think they are doing
just fine, because their Government says so, and their church makes them believe thing will get better.

Posted by: DAVID at July 13, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #167089

The definition of a liberal: One who has contempt for the state of poverty and pity towards the poor and hatred towards the wealthy but love for their wealth.

here is a solution that should satisfy everyone. liberals, go to your rich liberal friends; the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Corzines, the Soros’ and any other rich liberal. you then take their wealth and turn around and hand it out to those “liberal” poor. but leave the conservatives, both rich and poor, alone.

in other words liberals, take care of your own as you see fit and allow the conservatives to take care of their own as they see fit. this should make everyone happy.

Posted by: The Griper at July 13, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #167107

Only In America can the worlds greatest economic conditions be blasted on a daily basis.And only in America are those who blast taken serious.

Posted by: sitandwatch at July 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #167116

—Griper—I am afraid the conservatives or the Republicans have taken this Country on the most extravagant ride in our history, even the Robber Barons do not compare to the theft from Americans, that the Republicans have accomplished!

Posted by: DAVID at July 13, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #167127


i don’t know whether to feel amused or sad about your response to mine. so, given the choice i’ll choose to feel amused.

i was only attempting to present a solution for a problem between liberals and conservatives. it just seemed to me that if everyone took care of their own everyone would be happy but guess i am wrong again, as usual. i have a bad habit of that, being wrong all the time.

Posted by: The Griper at July 13, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #167130

The most inflationary thing a nation can do is war/military spending. I will not argue here that it is not necessary,just that it is highly inflationary. For you supply siders,the reason is because it places enormous demand on an economy without putting any supply back into it. The goods produced are not available for sale in the market place. That is why in all past major conflicts attempts ,some successful some not, have been made by the federal government to tightly control the economy during war time.
Raising energy prices are also highly inflationary for obvious reasons. I am fearful of a perfect storm brewing. The federal reserve can control inflation to an extent by putting downward pressure on wages but this is temporary.I must confess this baffles me. It is like burning your house down in an effort to fix your car. Raising prices are the cause of inflation by definition,not wages.
So what to do? A real hardnosed look at the defense budget is a good start. Expenditures not related to our current conflict should be curtailed or postponed. stop keeping slimly justified programs alive because they happen to be in a congressional district someone needs support from. That amounts to a jobs progam. Can we afford that? Is not that contrary to the aims of the federal reserve to control employment efforts? Any arguement with this BomBay?
Secondly, immediate and intense effort to to reduce fossil fuel use ,even rationing if needed as well as incentivizing and investing in alternates on a large scale. Anyone think so little of the American people that you believe we would sacrifice our sons and daughters and not be willing to give up that road trip to help out?Or that we are not ingenious enough to find other ways and sources to obtain energy?
Again,sadly ,we can not expect the kind of leadership from the current regime that we need. Believe me,I would love to be proven wrong on this point but I fear we shall inherit a whirlwind that we may or may not recover from.

Posted by: BillS at July 13, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #167143

Griper:Definition of a liberal,American Heritage Dictionary:”a. Apolitical theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,government by law with the consent of the governed,and protection from arbitrary authority.”
Your inane “definition” is an example of the straw dog arguements often used by the right when they have nothing else to say. I assume you post here for some sort of dialog. You are not a “troll”. Please try to be more intellectually honest. Unless of course you feel like attacking the dictionary as part of the liberal media.

Posted by: BillS at July 13, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #167171


first of all, i never said that my definition was a dictionary definition. it was just a definition based on the impression i get when i read comments from liberals in regards to the two classes.

second of all, definition of a liberal, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established way or forms.

so i guess i must be a liberal since i was not strict or did not conform to the orthodox or established way of defining a word.

as for my intellectual honesty i have no problem with it in this regards. how much more honest can one get when he describes his impressions that he has from reading the words of others? you did it of me in your post. are you being intellectually dishonest?

Posted by: The Griper at July 13, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #167175

“The definition of a liberal: One who has contempt for the state of poverty and pity towards the poor and hatred towards the wealthy but love for their wealth”

Why is this an “inane” definition?
I do not know one liberal who does not hate poverty.
I do not know one liberal who does not feel sorry for the poor.
I’m sure you don’t disagree with that do you BillS?

So it must be the part how liberals love their wealth that got to you. Not sure why, its pretty clear.
You see, a wealthy liberal is a hypocrite or else he wouldn’t be wealthy. He would use every spare cent he didn’t need to survive, to help those who he “says” he cares about.
But thats not how it works now is it. Rather than use his own money to support what he “says” he cares about, the liberal demands that the govt force everybody else to pay for what he “says” he cares about.
That way, the liberal can sit back, eat take-out, drink wine and talk with his friends about how nobody cares about the poor in this country.

Posted by: kctim at July 13, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #167221


“You see, a wealthy liberal is a hypocrite or else he wouldn’t be wealthy.”

But the Republicans aren’t hypocritical because they don’t mention the underclass in this country until election time—by insisting it’s not the job of government to enable everyone to “pursue life, liberty and happiness.” If the stups can’t bob and weave and roll with the punches when we inflict economic Dariwinism on them, then there’s always private NGOs that will paper over the class war we’ve perpetrated for 30 years. Just don’t make us pay for our greed we inflict on the bastards that don’t have their shit together.

Blessed are the meek—they have stock portfolios to weather the Republican-induced storm a comin’.

Conservatism is the height of immorality, and justice is a one-way street that always goes in their direction.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #167222


better duck, amigo. lol i think we hit a very sensitive nerve here. Some libs don’t like being defined as they are. they demand they be defined as the dictionary defines them regardless of what they are. i believe that psycology calls this being in a state of denial.

Posted by: The Griper at July 13, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #167223

Denial—thy name is conservatism.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #167235

The dictionary definition sounds nicer and scams more votes.

Posted by: kctim at July 13, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #167253


you know, and don’t laugh, i have always been curious of something. if a liberal was given the power and authority of a dictator for one day only what specific five changes he would make that he knew would be of a permament nature?

any libs here willing to take my challenge?

Posted by: The Griper at July 13, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #167295

Griper: What you stated was an opinion,not a definition. If that is confusing look it up. While you are at it look up inane.

As to your challenge. I would nationalize the oil companies in a heartbeat given the chance.

kctm: So now the dictionary is suspect. Must be liberal,all those big words and all.Pardon me,now you have me doing it.Stereotyping does not help dialog.

Posted by: BillS at July 13, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #167304

The New York Times did a series of articles on class in the United States about a year back and included in that series was a piece on mobility between classes. Their article showed that mobility was decreasing under the President slumpy.

Also, unfortunately slumpy, stopped a lot of reports being produced by the Commence Dept we he got into office. So it’s hard to produce recent data like tax burden paid by various classes.

Posted by: Dan at July 13, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #167328

It is not “pity” for the poor, it is the desire to help them, to see that that have the tools and the resources for a better life. That is love, not pity.

Posted by: mark at July 13, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #167341

—Griper—If when as you say presenting a solution to the Liberals, your first sentence contained the words, contempt, pity, hatred, wrong, bad habit. I
generally will not respond. I feel you like discussion
but think you must talk tough. Many people will communicate with you when you are polite, not always, sometimes you must be determined, an sometimes gruff. That is my response, I do not enjoy being critical, Just try a better approach you might like your self better besides.

Posted by: DAVID at July 13, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #167346

That was some great advice for Griper and I hope he takes it to heart, although with a “name” like Griper I think perhaps he(or she) likes to be negative. Some people seem to thrive on it.

Posted by: mark at July 13, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #167355

Mark— I have been in Forensic Psychiatry for many years an had to play mind games with some of the
best. I see many troubled folks on different sites,
an would love to help them, but legally I can’t an most would not like what I had to say anyway.
Thanks for the post

Posted by: DAVID at July 13, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #167389


“Have conservatives made lying so second nature that they don’t even realize when they are doing it? Or do you just assume that liberals are stupid?”

If I may speak for Jack, I think he thinks liberals are stupid.

(Conservatives don’t lie—they prevaricate.)

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #167445


Some advice given and advice accepted.

As for not liking being critical that is fine i appreciate criticism. in fact i welcome and invite it on anything i might have to say by you or anyone that reads me. it does not bother me to be criticized. it is what it is, a criticism which is to be accepted, analyzed in a critical and as objectively as possible. then a conclusion of the validity is drawn and acted on by myself.

as for the feelings of contempt, hate and pity, if you be a psychiatrist you know they be common feelings. but if you don’t like how i used them in context, fine.

you have a brain, you are capable of thinking and you have an imagination. if you do not like how i used the word “contempt” in context of my definition, change it. replace it with a word that you feel is more appropriate to our own thoughts in that context. i invite you to. do the same with the words “hate” and “pity”. create your own very personal definition of a liberal. it has no effect on the solution i offered.

yes, the solution as offered was connected to the definition but not dependent upon the feelings within that defintion.

as for being a solution to liberals, look again. you’ll see that it is a solution for both liberals and conservatives. i grant you that by connecting it to the definition the solution appears slanted towards liberals but there was a reason for it. this is a liberal forum. if it had been a conservative forum i would have slanted towards conservatives, not liberals. i would have used the same formula for definition of a conservative and solution given reflecting a conservative way.

so, advice accepted and conclusion offered and given.

Posted by: The Griper at July 14, 2006 6:40 AM
Comment #167493

Griper,kctm and all:
Now that we are done playing,are there any serious critiqes of the main peice and what I hope was a thoughtful post by myself?

Posted by: BillS at July 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #167517

Sure BillS
The main piece is just more of the left crap vs. right crap.
Paul wants to do his part in making people think everything is all doom and gloom because Bush, a Republican, is in charge.
Any and all positives must be ignored or downplayed, to get those votes.

Re: your post.
You make some good points, but I think you are missing the big picture. Take this quote from your post:

—we can not expect the kind of leadership from the current regime that we need—-

As long as people keep believing it is the “current regime” that is only to blame, NOTHING will ever change.

Us vs. them should not mean left vs. right.
It should mean the people vs. the govt.

Posted by: kctim at July 14, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #167574

— Paul Siegel—
Had I seem your post seven years ago I could have added my two cents worth. The problem is most of the rules of fair play an some integrity, have all but disappeared. Individuals an small businesses have to use more expensive ad visors an kiss the right arss just to make a little profit. There is so much corruption around every thing we do, an the Bush Administration seems to give them his Blessings. When was the last time you saw the Taft Hartley Law implemented, or any other controls used to control prices, even a little?

Posted by: DAVID at July 14, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #167588

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
but not their own facts.”D.P.M.”
Not limited to or by established, traditional,
Orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or
dogmas; Free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new
ideas for programs, and tolerant of the ideas and
behavior of others, broad-minded!

Favoring traditional views and values
Tending to oppose change!
Traditional or restrained in style
Conservative use of Natural Resources
Supporter of other political conservatism
Conservative with estimates or cautious in general.

Posted by: DAVID at July 14, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #167589

——The post above contains my words an are not my ideas! DAVID

Posted by: DAVID at July 14, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #168731

Jim Martin challenged David S. to create another MISERY INDEX comprised of the difference between the growth in wages and the rate of inflation. Maybe David was busy or did not have the time to work up the numbers but it sounded like an interesting idea. I had a few minutes to spare so I worked up one by subtracting the percentage growth in the CPI from the percentage of growth in the average hourly earnings of production workers for each administration.
The data for wages go back to 1964 (BLS Report CES0500000006).

Johnson (Wage growth 24.80% minus CPI growth of 15.21%) SCORE = 9.59

Nixon/Ford (Wage growth 68.27% minus CPI growth of 64.33%) SCORE = 3.94

Carter (Wage growth 36.76% minus CPI growth of 48.72%) SCORE = (-11.96)

Reagan (Wage growth 34.26% minus CPI growth of 39.20%) SCORE = (- 4.93)

Bush (41) (Wage growth 13.28% minus CPI growth of 17.75%) SCORE = (- 4.48)

Clinton (Wage growth 30.77% minus CPI growth of 22.79%) SCORE = 7.98

Bush (43) (Wage growth 14.85% minus CPI growth of 13.25%) SCORE = 1.60 (Thru Jan 06)

During the last 42 years a Democrat was President for 17 years and a Republican was President for 25 years.

While a Democrat was President the average wage grew at an annualized rate of 4.84% (Over a 25 year span $100 would grow to $325.67)

While a Republican was President the average wage grew at an annualized rate of 4.47% (Over a 25 year span $100 would grow to $293.91)

Looking at another report generated by the BLS (CES0500000051) which give the average weekly earnings in 1982 dollars:

While a Democrat was President the average weekly earnings increased by 4.47%

While a Republican was President the average weekly earnings DECREASED by 10.95%

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at July 18, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #168803

Americans had better pull their head out and start thinking about the potential for an economic melt-down.

It is not far fetched.

Things take a long time.
Progress is 2 steps forward, and 1.999 steps backward.
The consequences of fiscal policies several decades ago may be about to wreak havoc in the decades to follow.

With $22 trillion of government debt ($8.4T National debt, $12.8 Social Security debt, $450 billion PBGC, etc.), who can jump for joy about the economy?
How long can it last with what is in the pipeline?
There are thousands of 77 million baby boomers retiring daily, and they will make less, earn less, spend less, pay less taxes, and expect to draw from troubled Social Security and Medicare systems.

We been crappin’ in our own nest for so long, the sagging branch it rests on is about to snap.

That is, we’re in deep [explicative].

I suppose we could just print some more money.
Sure, why not.
That’s what they have been doing anyway.
That’s why inflation is climbing.
And, we’ve been brainwashed to think some inflation is OK.

Before 1950, inflation was almost non-existent.
Now look at it …

There is something drastically wrong with this picture. Inflation is destabilizing.

In the 1980’s, government chose to print more money and the resulting double digit inflation, rather than run up debt.

Now, government is running up huge debt, rather than double-digit inflation.

However, there is just one big problem with the approach. While it is simple to quit printing money, it is not so easy to get rid of massve debt. Especially not $22 trillion. Not when annual tax revenues are already 20% ($2 trillion) of GDP ($11 trillion).

It seems unavoidable that we are destined for both massive debt, and double-digit inflation, because there will be no other way to keep up with the $1 billion per day of interest (alone) on $8.4 trillion of debt.
And that does not even include the $12.8 trillion of debt in the Social Security system, which baby boomers will be soon demanding. Who will make good on the worthless I.O.U.s in the Social Security lock box? Print more money? The Federal Reserve is a ponzi-scheme, because they keep printing and loaning more money. It’s like charging your monthing VISA bill to the same VISA card. That can’t last. There will be consequences.

It will start to become much clearer in the next 10 to 15 years. Too many baby boomers are not ready for retirement, and to make it worse, entitlements will have to be drastically slashed. This will create resentments (a generational storm). The younger generation is not going to like their taxes being hiked to pay for the massive debt. Massive cuts will be required in lots of areas. This will cause pain and misery. All the while, half (or more) of every tax dollar will be to pay the interest on the debt (to those that have invested in the national debt). Government will start to do what many irresponsible governments have done. It will start to print more money. Then the deterioration will accelerate.

If it is not unavoidable, I’d certainly like someone to explain how it is all going to work itself out and be OK. So far, there are no credible takers.

What does that tell you?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 19, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #168806

The root of the problem is irresponsible government, and voters that keep re-electing them, lazily pulling the straight-party-ticket voting lever, keep wallowing in the petty partisan warfare.

No reforms are possible until the root cause of our problems is addressed.

The human factor is being ignored.
Systems, organizations, governments, and societies have to understand the human factor (the root cause). So, education is the first step. But, that’s a chicken and egg thing. So, unfortunately, the educator becomes pain and misery .
Unfortunately, we too often have to learn the hard way (repeatedly). Two steps forward, and 1.999 steps backward. We have a choice. We can be lazy and selfish, or enterprising and productive. But, in this era of greed, selfishness, fiscal, and moral bankruptcy, there are too many cheaters. Laws have been perverted (e.g. eminent domain abuses, spying, no Habeus Corpus, unfair taxation, unnecessary war, etc.) to do the very things they were supposed to prevent.

With education in this nation on the decline, the likelihood of a more educated electorate is unlikely anytime soon.

Corruption = Power - Education - Transparency - Accountability

Responsibility = Power + Education + Transparency + Accountability

Pain and misery is a good educator too.
Eventually, we’ll learn, even if it is the hard way.

Too bad it has to be the hard way so often.

  • Posted by: d.a.n at July 19, 2006 11:37 AM
    Post a comment