November 01, 2006
The Bad Economy Myth
No matter what fad third party du jour raises its flag calling for the disillusioned protest votes of the masses, when this year’s midterm elections are boiled down to basics, it is still a two-horse race. Admittedly, the two horses are both slightly beaten up and wounded. Yet there are still considerable differences between the rotting equine carcass of the formerly proud Democratic Party of Kennedy, and the limping, but still functioning, trotter of the “Contract with America” Republican Party.
The most breathtaking part of voter disillusionment with Republicans is this disjointed logic proclaimed by many who plan on sitting this election out — or even worse — voting for the Democrats this November. Much of this logic hovers around the liberal media’s establishment and maintenance of the continual myth of a "bad economy." It's a myth so powerful, it manages to propagate itself regardless of what the actual numbers indicate. So pervasive is the "bad economy" myth that record low unemployment averages, real wage gains, historically below-average deficits and a booming private sector (as indicated by Dow Jones record highs), are swept under the liberal lie of growing misery and poverty.
Republicans do deserve some of the blame for the pestilent existence of this myth. GOP shame and blame emanates from a striking failure to take credit for sizable economic gains and create political capital from them. Obviously the liberal press will never aid an incumbent Republican party in achieving said credit, but that alone does not serve as an excuse for failing to bring the message to the grassroots. If there was a real understanding of the true strength of this current economy, these midterm elections could not possibly track as close as they have been.
Numbers are benevolent do-gooders, as numbers cannot lie. The current unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, as per the September 2006 numbers. This puts the unemployment rate for the current decade at 5.1 percent. Remember the glory days of the ’90s under Clinton, where the economy was booming and the good times would never end? The unemployment average for the ’90s was 5.75 percent, more than half a percentage point higher than the current decade's average. In fact, the current decade's average unemployment rate is lower than the averages of the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s.
"Well," the opposition slyly remarks, "that's fine about the job numbers, but let’s talk deficits." Okay, let's. No true conservative will argue that Bush and the current Republican Congress have been good on spending (from a traditional conservative viewpoint). That said, the liberal lens of the political press pool has distortedly reported the budget deficits. The opposition would have one believe that the current budget deficits are a Bush-related phenomenon. However, this is again another complex distortion in the bad economy myth.
Since 1960, the United States of America has run a budget deficit in 41 of 47 years; that is 87 percent of the time. Furthermore, the average percentage of gross domestic product that the budget deficit makes up has been lower since 2000 than it was during the 1980s and ’90s. Since 2000, the budget deficits have made up an average of 1.07 percent of the GDP. Contrast that number to the greatly proclaimed booms of the 1980s and ’90s, decades where the budget deficit made up 3.93 and 2.16 percent of the GDP, respectively. The proclamation of crisis-level deficits under Bush, as another symptom of a reportedly bad economy, is an added, overt distortion in the continued sustenance of the bad economy myth.
And what about the youth vote? How is it possible that students can sit in their political science classes and hear their college-level classmates complaining about the myth of the bad economy? While the national jobless rate hovers at a very low 4.6 percent, the unemployment rate for college graduates puts that relatively low number to shame.
The unemployment rate among college graduates is at 1.8 percent, the lowest in five years and the foremost indication of the continuing market demand for a college education in the workforce. Mike Walden, an economist at North Carolina State, points out that "half of the new jobs filled this year by people over age 25 were filled by people with a college degree, even though folks with a college degree make up only one third of the workforce."
It is crunch time for these 2006 midterm elections. Republicans can and will pick up votes by running on the issues, not by indulging themselves in Democrat-style October surprises. Mystifyingly absent from the campaigns to date is any mention of the currently booming economy. If the Republicans cannot find a way to shine light on the myth of the bad economy, they may find themselves waking up on November 8 and seeing a Speaker Pelosi nameplate. Let us hope this is not the case, as I, for one, like the current drapes on Capitol Hill.
Posted by Benjamin Hackett at November 1, 2006 03:36 PMthe “Contract with America‎ Republican Party !!??!??
When’s the last time you heard a Republican say the words “term limits” or “balanced budget”?
Posted by: William Cohen at November 1, 2006 02:22 PMWilliam,
You beat me to it. What a joke! It’s become the Contract ON America.
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 1, 2006 02:29 PMI measure the economy by the quality of jobs that are available, by the number of “Fast Cash” outlets (Just think about the financial status of people who need cash RIGHT now and are willing to pay triple digit interest to get it), and by the number of people who are so strapped for money that they have done nothing to prepare for their retirement. What % of Americans will depend on SS for their largest source of income at retirement?
The truth is, that in order for a republican economy to be good they have to borrow like hell (Reagan, bush Sr. Bush jr.) and the hell with the future!!
Figures are useful. What’s interesting is the figures you did not supply. (d.a.n., that’s your cue.) It’s not as simple as you want us to think, of course.
At any rate, the Congressional elections do not hinge on the economy, so why are we talking about this now? You guys have made the War on Terror and the Iraq War the lynchpins of this administration; why suddenly do we find no posts on these issues?
Funny, here in Tennessee, the Republican campaign ads I get in the mail no longer mention the word “Republican.” I wonder why.
Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 02:35 PMBenjamin Hackett,
“Numbers are benevolent do-gooders, as numbers cannot lie. The current unemployment rate is 4.6 percent.”
Yes but with wages stagnant and cost of living increases ex. Healthcare, Education, Insurance premiums, Taxes and the slashing of funding that helps the poor and middle class, very few people are feeling the warm and fuzzies from a strong market.
“The opposition would have one believe that the current budget deficits are a Bush-related phenomenon. However, this is again another complex distortion in the bad economy myth.”
We believe that the deficits are due in part to the Iraq war(No oil rev.yet), waste, corruption, greed and mismanagement of tax dollars that went to friends, special interests, the wealthiest 25% of Americans, corporate welfare and GOP pork projects that were supposed to guarentee GOP wins in 06. I guess a bridge to knowhere pales in comparison to thousands of U.S. and Iraqi deaths.
What about the money owed to China and India?
What about the trade gap that continues to grow under this current administration?
Why is wealth disparity increased more rapidly?
Why do programs that benefit the poor and elderly get cut to suppliment estate taxes?
Why is the cost of higher education rising while middle class wages remain idle.
Why are energy costs skyrocketing to the point that the poor and middle class have to make wholesale lifestyle changes every winter to make ends meet?
Why are gas prices through the roof until election time?
Save the trickle down economics. Most Americans know what’s trickling down on them and their families. It’s not economics.
I loved these sentences:
The most breathtaking part of voter disillusionment with Republicans is this disjointed logic proclaimed by many who plan on sitting this election out — or even worse — voting for the Democrats this November. Much of this logic hovers around the liberal media’s establishment and maintenance of the continual myth of a “bad economy.”
First, the sentiment that it’s better not to vote than to vote Democratic. Nice! So much for encouraging greater voter participation. Second, that voters are disillusioned with the Republicans because not because of the Iraq War but because of the liberal media’s lies about the economy.
What lies? Be specific! Give us some examples from the mainstream media. You made a specific charge, so be specific in your answer. I’m sure if you dig you can find an error or two; show how the liberal media as a whole has lied about verifiable facts.
A factual, non-partisan discussion about the economy would be interesting and useful. But that’s not your goal, is it?
Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 02:45 PMThe middle class in this country has gotten a good old-fashioned screwing over the last six years. If Americans vote to keep these crooks and incompetents in power in ‘06 and ‘08 then I truly give up, I really do.
Posted by: charles Ross at November 1, 2006 02:53 PMBenjamin,
Yes, it is a mystery. Why will Republicans not run on the economy? With a Republican president & a Congressional majority, there has been nothing to stop Republicans from enacting their agenda.
Could it be that real non-supervisory wages, which applies to 80% of all workers, are flat after six years?
Could it be that the stock market (DJIA) has increased only @13% in six years?
Could it be because the current recovery has been the weakest for job creation in 40 years? That the Bush administration policies have resulted in @ 3 million non-farm payroll jobs added in six years (with most of those in Health Care & government)? After all, even Jimmy Carter created over 10 million jobs in just four years.
The next unemployment number comes out this Friday. Remember, just keeping up with population growth means the economy should be adding 150,000 - 175,000 jobs per month.
GDP declined to 1.6% this past go around. Without some auto inventory oddities, it would have been .9%
The yield curve is deeply inverted, a reliable indicator of impending recession. Housing prices took their biggest drop since 1970.
Core CPI inflation last month was .6% which is huge. Another reading like that, an annualized number of 7%, and we are well and truly screwed.
The Fed cannot drop rates because of the core CPI- in fact, I think they will be forced to resume increases after the election. We are already falling into recession. Hold onto your hat.
Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2006 02:57 PMThis article, from the “mainstream media”, should open a few eyes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt
Posted by: mem beth at November 1, 2006 02:58 PMWondering how much effect families where both parents work has on the unemployment numbers?
Anybody know?
How about the folks still unemployed who have fallen off the rolls?
How about the folks who are underemployed because it’s all they can get?
Posted by: womanmarine at November 1, 2006 03:29 PMWhere are the Conservative replies? Cat got your tounge boys?
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 1, 2006 04:00 PMI’m loathing both parties right now but you Dems have NO solutions.
Raising taxes, raising teriffs, increased regulation of industry…
These are recipes for a lot of things and economic prosperity is not one of them.
The more you regulate and the more you try to “flatten out” the system artificially, the more socialist you get. Show me a socialist economy that is working like ours and I’ll listen to you.
If you say China, you don’t get to blog anymore.
As long as you’re talking about debt, talk about the foreign aid budget and look at the humanitarian work we do that is never repaid.
Posted by: Nate at November 1, 2006 04:02 PMDave1,
Used to be Red Column posters were all over it, full of comments about the greatness of the Republican program & Bush. Now, crickets. Their policies are indefensible- a few lame talking points which fall apart when investigated. It is not a coincidence that the Republicans are going negative. Democrats have no choice to strike back, so the whole thing is a wash- and a wash, or a mud slinging contest, is far better for Republicans than trying to defend failed policies and foreign policy debacles.
Nate,
Lame. But at least you are trying. House Democrats have already stated they will re-institute pay-as-you-go, and today Pelosi announced lobbyist gifts, funding of travel, & use of corporate jets will be banned under a Democratic Congress. Democrats will increase the minimum wage from its current level, which is the lowest (after adjusting for inflation) in 50 years. This will stimulate consumption. It is exactly the kind of action which needs to be taken. Tax cut repeals will not affect most Americans. Just as Clinton & the Democratic Congress enacted the tax bill in 1994 which resulted in over 22 million in jobs & a screaming bull market, the current Democrats will probably raise taxes on the top 1% of wage earners. These actions, along with many others, will bring the budget deficits back into line.
phx8 -
“After all, even Jimmy Carter created over 10 million jobs in just four years.”
As I remember Jimmy Carter years…we had a dismal job market with moderately high unemployment. Unemployment never went above 7.8 percent under Carter, and it was as low as 5.6, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web page. With that many unemployed its easier to get workers to work if there are jobs. It is much harder to find 10M workers when you are working with a lower unemployment rate.
Posted by: Don at November 1, 2006 04:15 PMThe article Mem-beth posted is very telling, and I would guess, hard for the right to dispute.
Posted by: womanmarine at November 1, 2006 04:15 PMThere is only one economic issue I care about. The AMT. Please index it. I’m getting closer and closer to having to pay it. If republicans care about the middle class, they will fix the AMT. I don’t care about the tax rate for the rich. Let them pay it. Better yet let them also pay social security on their entire income, not just the first $76,000. This is a tax break for the rich. If I’m going to pay the AMT like the rich, how about I pay social security like the rich. Take only %1 percent of my income and then I’ll by 6% on that(.06%). I bet all responces will be about how horrible it is to tax, but nothing of substance on the AMT or $76,000 income ceiling.
Posted by: SassyA at November 1, 2006 04:19 PMAh, nice essay Benjamin. I would change the title to “Cherry Picking Numbers 101” though. First you cherry-picked the 4.6% rate from last month, and compared it to the average for the 90s, very neatly selecting some numbers for “the decade.” These of course contain the less than stellar results under Bush I as well as W’s recession. Let’s go to the data and see if we see any trend shall we, especially in light of your “numbers are benevolent do-gooders, as numbers cannot lie” position.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, annual percentage unemployment rates:
1988 5.5%
1989 5.3 GHWBush - lower than previous year
1990 5.6 higher than previous year
1991 6.8 higher than previous year
1992 7.5 higher than previous year
1993 6.9 Clinton takes office - lower than previous year
1994 6.1 lower than previous year
1995 5.6 lower than previous year
1996 5.4 lower than previous year
1997 4.9 lower than previous year
1998 4.5 lower than previous year
1999 4.2 lower than previous year
2000 4.0 lower than previous year
2001 4.7 Cinton leaves, GWBush takes office -higher than previous year
2002 5.8 higher than previous year
2003 6.0 higher than previous year
2004 5.5 lower than previous year
2005 5.1 lower than previous year
YTD2006 4.7 lower than previous year
Hmmm, do we see anything interesting there regarding how Clinton performed versus the Bush boys?
Nice try though Benjamin. It’s obvious it took you some time to piece together your selected statistics. Too bad a ten minute google search and the facts blew it all out of the water. Also too bad for those benevolent little do-gooders. Facts, damn!
Posted by: Boomer at November 1, 2006 04:20 PMphx8 -
“Could it be that the stock market (DJIA) has increased only @13% in six years?”
Not unusual for the DJIA. During Johnson’s Presidency (a Dem from Texas) the DJIA grew by a whopping 6.8% in 6 years.
Posted by: Don at November 1, 2006 04:29 PMSassyA,
Yes, the AMT bites. It is supposed to be adjusted upward to fulfill its original purpose.
Don,
Good point, except that the Labor Pool Participation Rate is about where it was 15 years ago, a little under 70%. The population of the US has increased @ 13 million since Bush took office, yet only 3 million non-farm payroll jobs have been added. Something is seriously out of whack.
The problem is that the unemployment rate only measures people laid off within the last six months who are actively looking. Too many unemployed do not meet this criteria. In addition, I suspect a lot of people are under the radar, off the charts, part of a black market. Unfortunately, it is hard to get a read on that.
LBJ dealt with Vietnam & the Cold War, and simultaneously attempted to institute the Great Society program and end poverty. Nice thought, with some great achievements in the effort, especially in reduction of poverty; but in terms of economics, impractical. Vietnam was a disaster in many ways. Also, tax rates were much higher, and it is interesting that the DJIA still increased.
Source for statistic? I am not questioning its validity, I just like that kind of thing.
Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2006 04:49 PMBoomer et al
LAG time. Business decisions take time to be effective. The economy started to decline in 2000 - a year before Bush took office. The Federal fiscal year runs from October to October, so as late as OCTOBER 2001, we still had many Clinton priorities. Bush policies could reasonably have an effect around 2003.
The same goes at the start of the period, BTW. The recovery began in March 1991, more than a year before Clinton took office. Clinton did a decent job as president, but he inherited an economy that was going up and he left an economy that was going down. Bush inherited an economy on the way down and so far has one on the way up.
No liberals should be allowed to drive cars, since they obviously do not understand the concept of momentum. If they are driving their cars at 70 MPH, they evidently figure they can stop immediately and/or go from zero to 70 in zero seconds.
Even if you look at the stats given. 2006 unemployment is as low 2000 and lower than all but three of the years in the past 20. You also understand the unemployment never gets to zero. Anything less than 5% is just around full employment.
The fact is if Kerry had been elected in 2004 and we had exactly these same numbers, Dems would hail them as a great turn around. If Dems are elected this year, they still might find the silver linings.
Presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy anyway. But to say that this economy is anything but one of the best in our lifetimes is just wrong.
Jack
It’s okay. You can just come right out and say it’s Clinton’s fault. We expect it. And if by some miracle the Dems win and are able to turn it around, you will credit Bush. It’s in your genes. You can’t help it. Your filters only let you see things in that way. Tsk.
Posted by: mental wimp at November 1, 2006 05:18 PMJack,
You never comment on non-farm payroll numbers, even though you know perfectly well that economists use that number, NOT the unemployment rate. Is low unemployment good? Yes! Is it a useful measurement when discussing employment statistics? Not really. But it sure helps avoid addressing non-farm payroll, does it not?
Lag time? Depends on the number of course, but six months is a more realistic number for most measurements.
When housing falls, as it started to do two months ago, the lag time before the onset of recession is up to a year. An inverted yield curve is also a reliable indicator of a flowing market, and it has been inverted for 10 months.
I suspect we are entering a recession right now, in the technical sense of the word. Republican policies have been tremendously beneficial to large corporations, so earnings look great. Republican policies for tax cuts on dividends & capital gains are also very helpful to the wealthy. Too bad, good times for large corporations & the wealthiest 1% do not translate into anything most Americans make sacrifices to support.
Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2006 05:18 PMPhx8
“Democrats will increase the minimum wage from its current level, which is the lowest (after adjusting for inflation) in 50 years. This will stimulate consumption”
I never reply to “economic” posts for obvious reasons. So I would like to ask a question please:
If employers are forced to give pay increases, why won’t they just raise prices to make up for the lose of revenue?
I know I would.
Benjamin, true enough for the moment. But, watching the some of the debates, the Independents are procuring much higher caliber candidates than ever in the past, and many, many more of them.
I believe the Independent/Third Party candidates are growing in prominence in our political landscape as ever greater numbers of voters leave the Republocrat parties for Independent voter status. Swing vote margins in the polls appear larger this election cycle too! Another warning of what is coming for the Republocrat parties.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2006 05:26 PMKctim,
By that reasoning:
If we brought back slavery, employers would be much more profitable.
If employers paid workers only $1 per hour, they would be more profitable.
If we did away with weekends and vacations, employers would be more profitable.
What kind of country do you want to live in?
Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2006 05:28 PMJack Had a Thread A while Ago That Showed All The Recoverys From Jfk to Bush 2 Were By Republicans Except The One Recovery By JFK. Mr Carter Did Create Ten Million Jobs But Due to all the Baby Boomers Hitting the Job Market it was not near enough Jobs hence the Almost 8% unemployment Rate He Had ,I Remember those days the lines were very long at the unemployment Office! And God Awful Interest Rates at 19% So I Joined the Army. Yes there are more people today than in 1980, but They Are A much Older And Much Younger Group of people that are not in the job Market. I agree Clinton Did A great Job With The Economy.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at November 1, 2006 05:31 PMPhx8
Please don’t use extremes. I feel its a legit question and its not political in any way.
While my economic knowledge is limited, I do know that when overhead goes up, you raise prices to make up the difference.
How would an increased min wage be any different?
Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2006 05:47 PMYou raise prices if you can. Competition could make you keep them the same. Also, higher wages can attract more skilled and efficient labor. In the long run, it’s not necessarily true that increasing the minimum wage increases prices.
Also, working people tend to spend the money they earn, not invest it in paper. This can stimulate the economy through the small businesses that depend upon these consumers. This may make up for a small decrease in their margin by increasing volume and eventually recapturing the margin through economies of scale. For example, you may pay your clerk in your store a little bit more, but if everyone else is paid more, you may see more people spending more money in your store. Thus the 8 hours the clerk is spending in your store results in higher productivity, off-setting the increased pay.
Posted by: mental wimp at November 1, 2006 06:05 PMHonestly, you can pull up a ton of economic data to support either Point of View, I’ll stake my MBA and PhD on that. What I think is true, and this is just casual observations, Anyone making over 80K a year with 1 child is doing OK. Anyone below that is scraping by for the most part.
How many of you literally have a few days each month where you just have to put the breaks on everything and wait for payday?
I make over 100k+, wife, 2 kids and we have it every month. The dollar just doesn’t go as far as it use to anymore.
Plus the current inflation stats are a joke since the discount fuel costs. That’s pretty much what drives our economy’s base costs.
Posted by: special_ed at November 1, 2006 06:26 PMMental
Presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy. Clinton did a good job, but you cannot credit him with the upturn and you have to admit that the economy started going down while he was still president.
Phx8
The non-farm payroll doesn’t capture all the people who might be self employed or people who just are not looking. We used the unemployment rate happily before and you will use it happily if/when Dems take over.
I do not say this is the best economy ever, but it is very good. As I said above, I think presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy, but you certainly should not BLAME Bush for a good result.
Unemployment lags more than six months. It takes weeks or months to make even simple personnel decisions. Besides the downturn started before Bush and when do you start the count. A president does not have the power effectively to change policies the day he is sworn in. Budgets for various Federal agencies go from October to October. It is just silly to blame Bush.
BTW - even if we take your unrealistic six month scenario, six months from January 22, 2001 takes you almost to July. Take a look at this article and notice the date and the period it is describing. Does this sound like good news to you or the start of something going down?
Special_ed
Yeah people have trouble making ends meet. We live on earth, not in heaven.
Many people have too much money, but nobody has enough.
special_ed-
You are right about inflation stats being a joke. Not accounting for food and oil…what’s really left?
I do not subscribe to the theory of economics that directly links statistics on economic growth and recession solely to who hapenned to occupy the oval office at the time. That report must have been written by the same person who linked Saddam with Al Quiada. I’m afraid reality is slightly more complex.
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 07:02 PMJack,
Re: LAG time. Certainly there is a lag time for economic performance. But if you choose to apply a lag, then do it fairly. I don’t care if you choose six months, one year, four years, whatever.
Benjamin is making his point of an economic “boom” partially on the basis of the unemployment rate. I simply pointed out the numbers don’t support his premise. If you decide he’s right by looking at W’s performance 5 1/2+ years into his Presidency when when he selects his October number, then doesn’t this mean that we can look at Clinton’s performance from 5 1/2+ years and after? Is the “lag” from GHW Bush done then? Go ahead. My point still stands, just look at the
numbers. Or was Clinton’s continued good performance still a lag from the great GHW Bush? Did that go on for eight years? Then Clinton’s lag for the downturn on W’s watch is only two years until W turned it around? His poor performance lag time is two, not eight. Hmmm, doesn’t sound like apples to apples now does it?
I prefer “the buck stops here” logic. But, if I were in the GOP I guess I’d have a problem with that one too.
The problem with the “lag time” logic is unfortunately time is a constant. You’re choosing to make time a variable to fit your premise. See, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t give credit for the steady decline in the unemployment rate during Clinton’s times to GHW Bush, and then blame Clinton for W’s poor record on the subject.
Better worded, you can take all the credit for GHW Bush and give all the blame to Clinton, that’s the universal GOP answer. It’s just not intellectually honest (and I’ll point out the flaws in your argument).
Posted by: Boomer at November 1, 2006 07:33 PMThis so-called “good” or “very good” economy is an illusion financed with massive debt, borrowing, rampant spending, and money-printing.
We have a large economy ($12.5 trillion GDP).
So, things take years to transpire, which fools most people.
Federal tax revenues are $2.2 trillion annually.
Total current federal debt is $22 trillion ($8.6 trillion National Debt, $12.8 trillion Social Security debt, $450 billion Pension Benefit Guaranty debt, etc.).
That’s like you having an income of $100K per year, and being $1 million in debt.
There will be consequences for so much fiscal and moral irresponsibility.
Some of the consequences will already be unavoidable.
People, do the math.
This economy is being financed with massive debt for political reasons, and it is threatening the future and security of the nation.
For only the $8.6 trillion National Debt, it would take 143 years to pay down. The interest on that debt only is over $1 billion per day !
The total $22 trillion of federal debt is 176% of GDP. That’s a recipe for disaster. If you include all federal debt, it has never been worse. Not even in WWII.
Your irresponsible incumbent politicians are bankrupting the nation and future generations, but voters keep re-electing them.
Well, those voters will learn the smart way (stop re-electing irresponsible incubment politicians), or the painful way (keep re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians).
Posted by: d.a.n at November 1, 2006 07:36 PMBoomer
Try to understand. Presidents are very important, but they do not control the economy. Economic cycles do not match presidential terms.
The economy started UP in March 1991. It started down in March 2000. If you think of your car, you start rolling down the hill in March 1991. But it takes a little while to get going. You start going up a hill in March 2000, but it takes a while to slow.
Who was president in March 1992? Who was president in March 2000?
Clinton did a good job with the economy. I am one of the only people around who can praise both Bush and Clinton because I understand that they came at different conditions.
If you insist on comparing Bush and Clinton, you have to look at their relative places in the economy. In Clinton’s case, the economy turned up roughly in spring 1991. In Bush’s case it was in winter 2003. If you must compare years, 2006 is like 1994. Of course, this comparison is not very good either, but it is better than what you are proposing.
Dems should just get over this bad economy thing. It makes them look silly.
Like Monty Python, “she turned me into a newt … I got better”
Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 08:04 PMBenjamin,
The Bad Economy Myth?
This is what David M. Walker, head of the GAO, says: “The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.” link.
Care to comment?
Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 08:06 PMJack,
Dems should just get over this bad economy thing. It makes them look silly.
Really? Check out the link I posted above then tell me if you still feel the same way.
Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 08:10 PMSince 1960, the United States of America has run a budget deficit in 41 of 47 years; that is 87 percent of the time. Furthermore, the average percentage of gross domestic product that the budget deficit makes up has been lower since 2000 than it was during the 1980s and ’90s.
You are in the rose-colored zone.
Nice spin. It’s interesting how they always forget to include the other federal debt. When you consider all federal debt, it has NEVER been worse. A number of things have never been worse than the they were during the Great Depression.
Here’s the stats for only the $8.6 trillion National Debt (now 69% of the the $12.5 trillion GDP).
Now, if you include the other (cleverly omitted) debt, such as the $12.8 trillion Social Security debt, and $450 billion PBGC debt, it’s even worse than many think. Now, add $20 billion of personal nation-wide debt, and that’s about $42 trillion of nation-wide debt.
All this fiscal and moral irresponsibility (massive debt, borrowring, spending, and money-printnig) reads like a strategy for “How a Nation Can Commit Suicide”.
Read it and weep.
Who’s responsible?
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
What’s it being spent on?
http://www.deviantart.com/view/9410862/
GAO warns: national debt could reach $46 trillion.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt
What’s your family share? (dynamic clock!)
http://www.uwsa.com/uwsa-usdebt.html
Jack,
Most intelligent response I have seen. I remember most vividly in 1999 and 2000 Bush being accused of “talking down the economy” by President Clinton and the democratic party. But economic indicators were already painting a recession in the near future. The attacks on 9/11 only made things worse. I found an article in the Free Republic from March of 2001 that basically supports this.
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab2b77020fe.htm
Posted by: ed at November 1, 2006 08:17 PMjrb
We are moving here to a different debate. The predicted economy is a danger. You can say that the economy is good now, but I fear the future will be worse. My comments are about what is and what was. What will be I am less certain about.
I have written on many occasions the we face a crisis of entitlements and that we are spending too much. The problem with this (for the Dems) is THEY have to do something about it too. It is fun to blame Bush, but if you are looking forward we will need to cut Federal spending and address entitlements. Dems are unenthusiastic about these things. The future is scary. That is why Dems prefer to make obviously false statments about the present and the past. Our biggest problem is the ticking demographic time bomb. That bomb was planted in 1962 or maybe even 1935. Now that is a lag time. The Dem plan is to raise taxes to address it. Republicans want to try some innovations such as helping people save for their own retirement. We will end up with a combination of both.
Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 08:21 PMJack,
No problem if you wish to change the analysis. And despite your sardonic tone, I do understand that “Presidents are very important, but they do not control the economy.”
But let’s review. It was Benjamin’s premise that the economy is booming, and based in part on the unemployment rate. When I showed if we looked at all of the data, not just his cherry-picked data, his comparison to Clinton didn’t hold up. Note, his comparison, not me insisting as you propose.
As a rebuttal to my facts getting in the way of his good spin, you educated us all that there is a lag. I didn’t disagree with the lag, just that you can’t cherry-pick the lag times either.
Now it’s all about economic cycles. They just happened to run just before and just after Clinton’s presidency. Of course.
But, in the end, I agree with your original premise, the Presidents don’t control the economy. I guess we agree on that point, so that would trump any of Benjamin’s original spins. Checkmate.
Posted by: Boomer at November 1, 2006 08:22 PMJack,
Why do you believe this reflects a crisis of entitlements? There is actually a possibility entitlements can help [I know, it sounds counter-intuitive].
Regardless, the article suggests we have been heading in the wrong direction for a while now. Not, as you are suggesting, that everything is dandy.
Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 08:30 PMBoomer
I do not think it is valid to make a close comparison Clinton to Bush. If you do make that comparison, Bush does okay (2006=1994 in the cycle). I think that the article is just trying to point to the good economic news and he is bringing up Clinton only to show that today’s economy is very similar to the one Dems hailed a few years back as nearly perfect. They cannot validly criticize this economy if they want to praise any others besides maybe bubble years of 1998-9.
jrb
I do not know how entitlements can help. The working population supports the non-working population. As the ratio of workers to non-workers shinks, each worker has to pay more or each non-worker has to get less.
The economy is always running toward the cliff, but it rarely actually runs off. We will address entitlements when the pain gets great enough. Until that time it will be politically impossible. There will be more pain because of our wait, but that is how politics (both parties) works.
Politics makes bad economic choices, but we are stuck with it. I do not agree with DAN that we need to bring in inexperienced amateurs every two years. Even Dems might be better. It is hard to make tough choices in a democracy until everybody is convinced and that takes a long time.
Re today’s economy, it is good. We cannot make good decisions if we pretend (or really do) believe in false realities. We will have a much harder time addressing the problems of the future if we continue to claim life is so hard for us now. You can imagine the political calculation. “Life is too hard here and now to do something about the future.”
There was a really good WP article recently on this subject:
White House officials hailed the improving short-term budget picture as a vindication of President Bush’s tax-cutting agenda, though the long-term prospects are considerably bleaker, given the escalating costs of health-care and retirement programs and, in the view of many economists, the red ink produced by tax cuts.Posted by: American Pundit at November 1, 2006 09:05 PM
Great post. Unfortunatley, in a time when Joe Blow on the street can’t name his congressional representative or the VP of the US, getting people to vote out incumbents who are deemed as fiscally irresponsible seems impossible. Especially when they represent both parties. Only in America, where you get a free education, where you are free to be whatever you want, would something this stupid be happening. Everyone wants free healthcare, but are unwilling to be responsible for their day to day health. No one is responsible for anything anymore. From the top on down. I’m afraid we are doomed.
Posted by: ed at November 1, 2006 09:08 PMphx8 -
“Source for statistic?”
Sorry, was away for while. Just picked a beginning date out of the air (no attempt to find any down or up day) for near beginning of LBJ term and checked same date for 6 years later.
Posted by: Don at November 1, 2006 09:14 PM“Why do programs that benefit the poor and elderly get cut to suppliment estate taxes?”
Andre:
Can you back this up, or are you just blowing hot air?
Jack,
When speaking of entitlements I was thinking you meant things like a national healthcare program.
National healthcare could actually decrease costs—through elimination of, among other things, our poorly structured medicare program [annual negotiating costs, adminisrative costs, etc… would disappear or be reduced].
It could increase tax revenue [by decreasing the expenses of corporations—like GM who spends more per vehicle it produces on heathcare for employees, retirees, and family members than it does on the steel that goes into the car—it will not only make them more globally competitive but also increase their bottom line and thus tax liability]. It will free money available to business for R&D. It will also increase productivity as more healthy workers tend to be more productive.
The same benefits would be felt by small business owners. If the medical cost burden is lifted from employers, they will also feel less pinch from an increase in the minimum wage. This allows the working poor to not only make more, but have healthcare too—without the burden on our business community.
Additionally, a national healthcare program would hedge some of the risk involved in entrepreneurship [can you afford to go without healthcare for your family while you quit your job and attempt to start this new venture].
Bottom line, there are a host of economic benefits to an entitlement program like this.
Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 09:24 PMI experienced socialized medicine in Scandinavia.
If you can get Americans to accept the kinds of care they get in Europe, I am for it. What would happen is that we would just get the high cost U.S. system paid for by the government making costs rise.
I think we could subsidize things like dental care and vaccinations, since not many people would abuse those things.
Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 09:33 PMHey Max !,
I really like this Comment Numbering!
More like the MAXINATOR !
Good points, graphs, and links.
In an voting nation, education is paramount.
Good work !
There ARE reasons to be concerned.
But, the rose-colored, blind loyalists don’t want to address your points.
They prefer to spin their rosy spin.
The economy now is good. People are working. It’s not the best of times, but it is quite far from the worst of times. Next year might be downright horrible, or not. Last year wasn’t better or worse (by much). That’s two good years. I’ll take that over two bad years, wouldn’t you?
People whine that they are so much worse off than they were before, but I don’t see it (and I live in Michigan with the highest unemployment in the nation). My service-related company still made more profit this year than last. People here are not in soup lines, or trying to sell their furniture, etc. Get real! This economy is very good and has been for most of the last 6 years.
Posted by: Don at November 1, 2006 09:39 PMJack,
Government in healthcare is a mistake, which is what you are saying? I agree.
The best healthcare system is the way it used to be. Without any middlemen (government and insurance companies). For example.
Don wrote: The economy now is good. People are working. It’s not the best of times …Don, You are overlooking important factors. This so-called rosy economy is being funded by MASSIVE government borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing, and there will be long, long lasting consequences for so much fiscal irresponsibility. Posted by: d.a.n at November 1, 2006 09:45 PM
Jack,
Actually, I disagree. Check out this link and tell me what you think.
Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 09:47 PMD.A.N. -
Nothing new in what you say. Same thing has been happening for 40 years or longer (maybe not as much, but still the same thing).
I worried about the same things you complain about back in 1976. There was even talk back then that Social Security wouldn’t be there for us when we retired. I knew this 30 years ago. For 30 years the Dems and the Reps did nothing much to solve the problems.
Charts and graphs have done nothing to change the facts. Politicians have done nothing significant to change the facts. The trade imbalance, the deficit, the SS issue, the Medicare issue… not one of those issues has been dealt with effectively in the last 30 years I’ve been watching.
Your solution is to fire the career politicians (except that you are also against anyone with an R behind their name who isn’t a career politician). So your solution is to elect inexperienced Dems and Independents? Good luck! Nothing else has worked.
Posted by: Don at November 1, 2006 11:55 PMNate said,
as long as you’re talking about debt, talk about the foreign aid budget and look at the humanitarian work we do that is never repaid.
How these two are significantly related I have no idea but I’l try. Which is more pathetic, having the Chinese holding our debt over our head or the pittance of GDP we spend in foreign aid?
Posted by: chris2x at November 2, 2006 12:20 AMI have an honest question. By honest I’m not trying to score any political points etc, I’m just genuinely puzzled. I keep hearing about the “cost” of the Bush tax cuts. My question is this; how is there a cost if tax revenues increase? Is the current revenue less than what was projected under the old tax rates? I can see how if the economy cools down a lower tax rate could reduce revenues, but everything I’ve seen shows that revenues increased since the tax rates were lowered. Can someone clarify this?
Ok, now that I’ve got that out of the way, time to try for political points again. Since we’re debating the economy, the real measure of how good or bad it is will show based on how long it takes the Democrats to change their tune and say all is well with the economy if they get the House. My bet is they’ll have the decency/sense to wait about a month, maybe then some idiots will believe it.
Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 06:32 AM1LT B,
I’m not an economist, and I’m certain someone with more experience will jump in (and lots of ppl trying to make political points, as well, but that’s life).
As I understand it, some tax cuts might lead to increased tax revenues, though, again as I understand it, once you factor in the normal flow and ebb of the economy, they are usually overstated. The cost is that if these tax cuts increase the deficit, which Bush’s did (no dispute there, I think), then that money has to be paid back with interest that is greater than the extra revenue generated. Those deficits just contributed to the mindboggling national debt. Right now 20 percent of the federal budget goes to service that debt. Anyway, without doing any last-second research, that’s my understanding.
When tax rates are very high, then cutting taxes has a greater return in revenue. Our tax rates are relatively low compared to much of the world’s, so tax cuts get less bang for the buck.
Another consideration: different types of tax cuts stimulate the economy to different degrees. Some, I think, don’t do much at all in those terms.
Perhaps someone with more expertise will post a relatively objective answer with factual support.
Your last point. You’re probably right — that’s the nature of politics.
Posted by: Trent at November 2, 2006 06:51 AMI find these discussions amusing, and occasionally I respond to a few posting that I think have merit. The first mistake I think all of us make here is to try to compare one administration with the other. Second, one forgets that the Dems, Reps, Ind are all a part of this adminstration and all play a role. I have noted that the party not in the lead seams to think that they are not part of this Administration. Wrong Answer! I have not looked at the numbers; however, I would be willing to bet, that the Dems/Ind are just as guilty as the Reps for the current state of our economy. Well maybe 15 more house members and 6 more senators have generated more pork than the Dems/Ind. Reguardless, as I have stated previously here, a simple majority in the Senate is insufficent to pass the so called run-a-way spending of this Administration. What roll did our Dems play in this? All legislation in any administration is based upon compromize. So to blame one party or the other is somewhat jaded. As for the economy, I personnaly see it as growing, I read a recent article that the mean wage for hourly workers is approximately $17.70 per hour and just yesterday, there was an article that stated that wages grew at 2.1%. Now I no that there are those of you that will find fault with this and claim all those unemployed that fell off the rolls were not counted and that real income is loseing ground. I would offer the following: Save more spend less as indivuals, thus lower the national debt. Personal responsibility starts with the indivual. Require our elected officials to be more conservitive with our money. After all, we have a say every two and six years respectively to require them to answer to us. So if our economy is so bad, is it the Presidents fault? Or, the fault of the Congress who appropriates and spends the taxpayers money. It is easy to look to the top and lay blame the head man/woman for all of our woes; however, by doing this, we can forget about our own responsiblity. If you think the economy is bad, save more, buy American, support good politicians (if there are any) and vote for those that are responsible to you the voter not to a party.
Posted by: Lacy at November 2, 2006 07:46 AMUnemployment stats in the USA are so bogus. Have you ever studied who IS NOT counted as “Unemployed” in the USA:
1) Those who leave their job willingly
2) Those who did not work full time
3) Those who worked free-lance
4) Those who hadn’t worked in the past 2 years ( now that would include students, mothers coming back to work after pregnancy, etc.)
5) Those who job didn’t pay into state unemployment insurance
Net, net. The real number, those who want a job and cannot find it would put unemployment rate in the USA at nearly 12 to 15%! No kidding.
Just as the BLS has “fixed” the CPI to keep reported inflation at an artificial low, the same goes for a true account of the umemployed. And I didn’t even include those who are working 2 or 3 part-time jobs because they can’t find full time work.
I certainly agree about tax rates. But let’s be clear what is hurting most Americans in this coming election: not Federal income taxes, but Real Estate taxes and Sales Taxes. On an average, local RE taxes are rising 10 to 20% a year.
If your wages are stagnant (as they have been under Bush), and your living costs are going up 3 to 5% a year, just imagine the crunch you feel after six years. Now that’s the pain. And God help you if you get sick. THen get ready to declare bankruptcy. Remember, in 2004 75% of personal bankruptcies in the USA were due to medical bills!
Posted by: Acetracy at November 2, 2006 07:55 AMd.a.n.
uhmmm, dude the worlds changed since the 50’s okay.
Gross Domestic PRODUCT??
Wake up. Let’s try including SERVICES muchacho - then rerun your stats. Oh, and if you include us exporting ideas and services our trade imbalance would look a lot different to.
You don’t see people driving around in Studebakers anymore - so its time the “end of the world” crowd update their lame stats using out of date irrelevant factoids.
gotta go - my leisure suit needs some ironing.
If the economy was so good, the Republicans would be running on it. They’re not. All they try to do is raise the specter of tax increases and gay marriage. After all, they arrived in power with a budget SURPLUS. It is now gone, replaced with a huge deficit and what, exactly, do we have to show for it? A record Dow? Wheeeeeee! THAT’LL help salvage some of those ARM’s that are about to ratchet up like crazy.
The economy is not an issue they can use, so it receives little actual discussion - other than vague references to how Democrats would make it worse…
It. Is. To. Laugh.
Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 08:39 AMEverything I’ve seen shows that revenues increased since the tax rates were lowered.
Another point to consider. If you borrow trillions of dollars and give them to companies like Haliburton, they will generate more tax revenue. But all of this is propped up on loans. I am NOT saying this is the only reason for greater tax revenues, but it is a contributing factor.
Posted by: Max at November 2, 2006 08:52 AMThe “economy” may be good, but personal economics is very bad (wages, taxes, food prices, gas prices [until it got close to the election…funny how that worked out], tuition…
People judge by what they see…most people don’t have a clue as to what the DOW is, nor do they care…they care about feeding and housing and educating their families…and that is becoming harder and harder to do.
Negative savings rate for the U.S. … and massive and record budget deficit (which doesn’t, by the way, include Iraq war costs!) and the record trade deficit. People will lose again when it comes time to bring the deficit down…things will get much, much worse for families before it gets better, unfortunately!
Corporate welfare will come once again before helping the poor, the sick, the handicapped…20% of our children live in poverty. 80% of children without health insurance have working parents.
Life is good at the top 1%, but the rest are going down the tubes….
Posted by: Lynne at November 2, 2006 09:27 AMTrent, Max,
Thanks for the informed responses. I had indeed heard that the military spending in Iraq was a contributing factor to growth in tax revenues. Just a point to consider; Dems have consistently said that the Bush tax cuts screw the middle and lower classes to the benefit of the wealthy. However, the reports I’ve read state that most of the growth in tax revenues came from the wealthiest Americans taking advantage of lowered taxes to take capital gains windfalls etc. A question I have is why would Democrats, knowing thta the wealthy have ways upon ways to hide or conceal thier money, try to increase taxes, the old rates which appear to have been a contributing factor to the wealthy hiding their wealth in the first place? Isn’t a smaller cut of large declared amount of income better than noting from a concealed income?
Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 09:29 AMjrb,
I liked the article on Universal Healthcare you posted. This is the first proposal that I have seen that has made me even want to consider it.
I think that it is worthy of a post on its own, so that we could all pick it apart and see how it would stand up to the test of debate.
Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Rob at November 2, 2006 10:07 AMHowever, the reports I’ve read state that most of the growth in tax revenues came from the wealthiest Americans taking advantage of lowered taxes to take capital gains windfalls etc. A question I have is why would Democrats, knowing thta the wealthy have ways upon ways to hide or conceal thier money, try to increase taxes, the old rates which appear to have been a contributing factor to the wealthy hiding their wealth in the first place? Isn’t a smaller cut of large declared amount of income better than noting from a concealed income?
Making stuff up as you go along is not the basis for sound economic policy. Taxes were increased during the previous administration and it lead to a balanced budget. Bush lowered taxes and look where the deficit is now…
Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 10:09 AM4 top stories from Reuters today:
Retailers post disappointing October sales
Productivity growth stalls
Jobless claims rise 18,000 in latest week
Apparel retailers suffer through dreary October
Yup…the economy is humming.
Jeff Seltzer,
How does increasing revenue lead to more deficits? The problem we have is not revenue generation, its overspending and both parties are guilty. I wouldn’t even mind the deficit so much, its natural to run a deficit in a time of war, but the continued pork barrel spending in the middle of a war is what offends me. Its also worth noting that the previous adminstration, along with not having a war to deal with, also saved a large amount of money by drastically cutting the size of the military, the same military that Dems now say is overextended.
Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 11:16 AMHow does increasing revenue lead to more deficits?
Nice non-sequitir. When the Clinton administration increased tax rates on those with higher levels of income, they also had the precience to REDUCE the size of government.
The problem we have is not revenue generation, its overspending and both parties are guilty.
In what way are the Democratic members of Congress “guilty” of this? It seems that YOUR party is in charge. The Democrats can’t get bills debated on the floor, can’t get bills through committee, can’t table amendments, etc. Your guys are in charge. It would be pleasing (and anger a lot less people) if your party had the grace to accept responsibility. (After all, they are SUPPOSED to be the party of personal responsibility.
I wouldn’t even mind the deficit so much, its natural to run a deficit in a time of war
more excuses…
but the continued pork barrel spending in the middle of a war is what offends me. Its also worth noting that the previous adminstration, along with not having a war to deal with, also saved a large amount of money by drastically cutting the size of the military, the same military that Dems now say is overextended.
Please provide details on how much was “cut” from the military under Clinton and how this contributed to the enormous surplus that Bush inherited. (I’ll give you a hint, it doesn’t cover 10% of it…)
Oh, and you don’t think the military is overextended? And, I thought the oil revenues were going to pay for reconstruction in this stupid war… whatever happened to that?
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT YOU WANTED. COnservatives are always going on and on about responsibility and accountability… SUCK IT UP.
Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 11:53 AMJrb
I just trust my fellow Americans to figure our entrepreneurial ways to get more. I think we maybe should go to a program such as the one offered currently to Federal workers. It allows choice, but has a overarching plan. The difference is Feds pay their premiums. It is subsidized but still not free.
Trent
I understand that the general cuts are not much use, but that the cuts on capital gains etc increased revenue.
Acetracy
It is always hard to know if statistics are measuring what we want. However, I have never heard anybody say that the CPI understates inflation. In fact the opposite seems to be the case.
RE unemployment some people claim to be looking for work or they would take “the right job” but they really are not serious. Not many people, BTW, are working at their ideal job. That is why they call it work and not play.
Max
If you think Halliburton is getting so much money, why don’t you invest in it? It is publicly trade (HAL). You can give the proceeds to charity if that makes you feel better. Talk is cheap and sometimes free. Very few people actually act on their convictions. Maybe that is because they know what their advice is worth.
Jeff
Revenues are at an all time high this year. The reason we have a deficit is increased spending. You can blame the republican congress (with some justification) for that, the make sure you look at the right problem.
BTW - the rich are paying more. IN fact the top half of the income groups pay almost all the Federal taxes. The lowest 20% actually gets back more in credits than they pay.
Posted by: Jack at November 2, 2006 12:07 PM1LT B,
To be fair, nearly all Republicans were in favor of cutting the military at that time as well. Anyhow, cuts that were made were cuts of spending on old technology in favor of newer programs. Allegations of Clinton “gutting ” the military were often attempts by congress members to maintain pork that benefited their districts.
Additionally, our military is overextended not because of reductions in spending. Rather, IMO, it is due to our leadership’s persuit of a war of chioce, leading to a lengthy occupation, in which our military is forced to function as police—not soldiers. Our military is not designed to be a police force.
Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 12:09 PMJack,
First, did you actually read the link?
as well I want to take issue with your comment above:
BTW - the rich are paying more. IN fact the top half of the income groups pay almost all the Federal taxes. The lowest 20% actually gets back more in credits than they pay.
I am not sure if I fall in that lowest 20% or not, but 24,000/yr in California is not much. After my mortgage interest and property tax deductions are coupled with education credits, I still pay more than I get back. I would like some documentation for your statement if you are willing to provide any.
Also, if I am not mistaken … while you are techincally correct that the rich do pay more as measured in dollars, the percentage of their income paid is often times lower than less well off, middle class workers.
Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 12:22 PMThere is no way this is a GOOD Economy. Many Americans are heading on the edge by barely a thread, the next few months some will fall over, Us included i presume. Sad, this country is in such a cloud, and the President cant see it, but then again our President sees nothing but what he wants to see. Even if Clinton didnt care about us, I always felt he did
Posted by: Diane at November 2, 2006 12:27 PMJack-
Causation is your number one enemy. You are great at making correlations, but I see nothing of real value in your statements linking revenues to capital gains rates. Are you claiming that the economy would not be as good if the rate was higher? Pretty far fetched…maybe a smidgen of actual truth. A gross oversimplification though.
But I do understand your distaste for details, so I don’e expect much of a response.
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 12:31 PMI’m certainly not a genius on the economy as I have trouble balancing my checkbook every month.
This discussion is good and people cite all kinds of articles and stats and the like and that is good, but something smells when common sense is just ignored for the sake of statistics. Give me common sense every time.
Reminds me of all these political adds on both sides where both parties look at the same numbers and interpret and use them different. It is very confusing. Some guy will say so and so voted for something that did some horrible thing and the other other says he didn’t. Seems black an white, but what they don’t say is that many times votes on multiple issue bills are made for reasons totally unrelated to the point they are trying to make. Happens all the time.
Anyway, revenues from the Bush tax cuts have increased by about 14% over pre tax revenues and the projected deficit is lower than what was originally planned so it is progress at least.
Let me see, if I get a 15% raise and then my total debt still goes up albeit at a slower rate, is it a revenue problem or is it a spending problem? I have to think about that for awhile. I’ll get back to you.
It seems to me that the common sense approach to tax policy is that it is not the government’s money to start with!!! They should tax no more than is required to run the basic needs of the government and what is out of control is the excessive spending that has accumlated over the years. (Social security, welfare, pork barrel spending, defense, etc, etc.)
It seems this fairness policy that prevades the left’s thinking that basically says we should all make the same amount and if you make more than me than it should be taxed since it obviously is the government’s role to redistribute the wealth of the country as it sees fit.
mef,
the projected deficit is lower than what was originally planned so it is progress at least
This was achieved through manipulation. For example: This month you spend $100. Next month you predict your spending will have to increase to $1,000. When it only increases to %750 you say you are “cutting” spending—as the prediction you made was higher than the $750 you did spend. It is all a game.
Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 01:09 PMJack-
“If you think Halliburton is getting so much money, why don�€™t you invest in it? It is publicly trade (HAL).”
Because the most likely scenario is that the profits are re-invested in the company to facilitate more of the same. Unless they decide to stop growing and give high dividends. Then the stock price goes up and a correction takes place, which is not what officers or directors of the company want.
Once again, your overly simplistic approach is fatally flawed. What does that make your “advice” worth?
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 01:31 PMDon, echop8triot,
You offer nothing but your own conclusions.
Don, just because you’ve been saying something since 1976 doesn’t mean it can never happen.
The total federal debt is $22 trillion.
That is 176% of GDP.
If you take real gross production, the percentage is worse, because GDP includes things that are not really productive (like divorce).
You offer conclusions with no data of your own.
So you are OK with $8.6 trillion National Debt?
So you are OK with $12.8 trillion Social Security Debt ?
So you are OK with $450 billion PBGC debt?
And the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Medicaid?
And the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghahistan?
And the trade deficits?
And the nation-wide personal debt of $20 trillion?
Do you have any idea how long it would take to pay down that debt?
Did you know 20% of every tax dollar is currently going to just pay interest on the $8.6 trillion National Debt alone? That does not ever include the future cost of the $12.8 trillion Social Security debt and the $450 billion PGBC debt.
The government is essentially borrowing $1.63 billion per day!
And you think that’s OK?
Can a country commit suicide?
Keep borrowing, growing debt, spending, and printing money like we are NOW, and I can guarantee you that there WILL be an economic meltdown, and a lot of unhappy people wondering what happened to their Rosy economy.
That much debt would take 200 years to pay down (even if we ever had the discipline and growth needed to do it):
There are many pressing problems that can not be ignored for much longer.
Many are worse now, and have never been worse ever, and some have never been worse since the Great Depression. For instance, the 1% of the U.S. population with 40% (and growing) of all wealth and the remaining 99% of the U.S. population has never been worse since the Great Depression. The total $22 trillion of federal debt (adjusted for inflation) has NEVER been worse than now. Not even in WWII.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible?
What a laugh?
The National Debt has grown by $3 trillion since 2000.
The massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing is the only thing keeping this illusion of a “good” economy going.
How long do you think that can last?
With some jobs going overseas still, and median incomes falling since 1999, can GDP grow enough to offset the massive debt? And, how is immigrating the impoverished and uneducated by the tens of millions going to improve the debt? And increasing global competition isn’t helping either (along with corporations making us train our own replacements, and then firing us because they can get cheaper labor overseas). We are essentially training our competition. It’s good for those countries, for a while (there’s always cheaper labor somewhere else). And the nationwide personal debt of about $20 trillion is not helping matters. The nation is swimming in debt. This does not bode well for the next recession (or depression). Foreclosures have already been climing fast for two years. People have been cashing out the equity in their homes. This is a bad situation. The middle class is being squeezed. That’s a dumb thing to do to the economy and the future of the nation.
There will be consequences for this $22 trillion of total federal debt and massive fiscal and moral bankruptcy by government, and the voters that keep re-electing them.
Those that think this economy is “good” or “very good” are in denial (just like a good many Republicans that are in denial about the highly probable loss of the majority in the 2006 and 2008 elections), and refuse to admit this illusion of a “great”, “good”, and/or “very good” economy is being funded with massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing.
Please tell us how that debt will be offset?
Currently, it is growing by $1.63 billion per day.
Over $1 billion of it is interest alone on only the $8.6 trillion National Debt.
What about probably shortfalls in Social Security and the fact that Social Security surpluses are STILL being plundered?
Then, there is the ever present inflation.
Well, that’s likely to get worse, because when it starts becoming harder and harder to meet the interest and all unfunded liabilities (such as those in the Medicare, Medicaid, and shortfalls in Social Security), they will only have one choice left: print more money. Then people will better understand the pitfalls of a fiat-funny-money-system.
jrb
Point well taken. But the projected deficit is based on projected spending versus projected revenues. I don’t think (I could be wrong of course) that they deliberately jack up the projected deficit just to be able to say that when it comes in under that number that “we are cutting the deficit” A deficit is a deficit and it means you are spending more than you are taking in.
It is the same trick that they use when they say Clinton had a budget surplus. Because of the way Social Security is accounted for and using the revenues from that source to use in the budget calculations. Virtually putting IOUs in the SS “lock box” which one day will have to be paid back. We have never, never actually balanced the budget. It is a Ponzi scheme of huge proportions and the pols just keep on putting this one over on us. Unless we tackle entitlements (SS in particular) we will never have a balanced budget. Won’t happen until the whole thing collaspes as it is a political hand grenade that neither party will tackle.
However, I am still stuck on the fact that I increase my revenues with a tax cut and so this is some kind of a trick or manipulation, but the fact that the deficits go up with these increased revenues isn’t answered by the fact that spending is out of control….not revenue intake.
Sure the War is a big part of this and maybe one could argue for some kind of a war “surtax” that would help. But just raising taxes on the “rich” and this will help is not factual true. It will have a counter effect of slowing the economy down, just as higher interest rates will do. It will decrease revenues in the long wrong. Tax cuts always stimulate the economy.
We need to talk less about “fairness” and more about how to best get the revenues we need and then curtail spending.
Posted by: mef at November 2, 2006 01:40 PMmef wrote: Seems black an white, but what they don’t say is that many times votes on multiple issue bills are made for reasons totally unrelated to the point they are trying to make.That’s why we need a One-Purpose-Per-BILL amendment. But, that would make graft, pork-barrel, and corporate welfare harder to do. No wonder they resist it.
If you want answers, do the math.
It’s not that complicated.
The total U.S. federal debt is $22 trillion.
That consists of $8.6 trillion National Debt which has interest on it.
Then there’s the $12.8 trillion of Social Security debt, which will have to be paid back relatively soon as 77 million baby boomers start drawing from it.
There there’s the $450 billion of Pension Benefit Guaranty debt, which has to be paid out as it comes payable.
There are also hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid, hurricane Katrina relief, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, the federal government’s annual revenues is about $2.2 trillion.
The nations (just and FYI) is about $12.5 trillion (and has been increasing by about a trillion per year, but that may not last much longer with increasing global competition, massive debt, etc.).
Therefore, $2.2T annual revenues / $22T total debt = 10
Therefore, total debt is 10 times the federal revenues.
That’s like you making $100K per year, but owing $1 million .
How long would it take a person making $100K to pay off $1 million?
A long time, of course.
But, what makes it worse is that there are pre-existing liabilities, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the National Defense, etc., etc., etc.
So where’s the money going to come from?
Can GDP grow enough?
Not likely?
They could stop over spending and over borrowing, but that’s not likely either.
So, GDP can’t grow enough without increasing the population substantially, and/or printing a lot more money.
Is that what you want?
Because, that’s what politicians want.
That’s part of their plan.
But, how will importing the impoverished and uneducated going to help that?
Well, it’s cheap labor.
Now you understand why most politicians don’t want to stop the inflow of cheap labor.
Now, if you don’t like this, then I would make one little suggestion. Stop re-electing the very same irrespnonsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians that ignore you, and enjoy a 90% re-election rate, and are irresponsibly threatening the future and security of the nation, and running up huge debt on future generations for many decades to come. Just because you have never seen an economic melt-down does not mean it can’t happen. Look at the big picture, and do your own calculations, and you’ll see that there IS valid cause for concern. Anyone that isn’t concerned with the massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money-printing is delusional.
Posted by: d.a.n at November 2, 2006 02:07 PMd.a.n,
You are a man of many stats!! I like the old saying that figures lie and liars figure. Now, I’m not saying you are lying as you have the fancy charts and everything to back you up.
And I do agree, this is a political situation independent of affliation and sending others there, while it sounds appealing, just won’t work either. The beltway corrupts and I’m talking both sides of the aisles and it will corrupt whomever you send that you think will solve the problem.
The 1% of income earners in our country have a AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) of 19% of the total. (2004 stats) They pay 36% of the income tax from individual tax payers. The top 5% are 33.45% of total AGI and 57% of total tax paid. The top 10% are 44.35% of AGI and they pay and astonishing 68% of total taxes paid. Top 10% pay two thirds of total taxes!! Top 25% have 66% of AGI and almost 85% of taxes. Top 50% have 86.58% of AGI and 97% of total taxes. The bottom 50% of AGI pay only 3.3% of total taxes.
Do you see? The bottom 50% of our taxpayers pay 3% of the total tax revenues and we want to tax the rich even more? Bad, bad idea and talk about fairness…..there is none in the above numbers. The “rich’ pay far more than their fare share and there are those who want them to pay even more.
I guess fairness is in the eye of the beholder, but when I see that amost 65 million tax returns only pay 3.3 percent of our total tax revenue why the other 65 million pay 97% of the taxes, fairness is not the word that comes to mind.
We need to think more about the amount of revenue we need (that can be argued) and less about the sources from whence that revenue comes.
Posted by: mef at November 2, 2006 02:19 PMafter rereading, I need to make a correction or two.
The top 1% of income earners in our country have a AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) of 19% of the total. (2004 stats) They pay 36% of the income tax from individual tax payers. The top 5% are 33.45% of total AGI and 57% of total tax paid. The top 10% are 44.35% of AGI and they pay an astonishing 68% of total taxes paid. Top 10% pay two thirds of total taxes!! The top 25% have 66% of AGI and almost 85% of taxes. Top 50% have 86.58% of AGI and 97% of total taxes. The bottom 50% have 13.4 % of AGI pay only 3.3% of total taxes.
Posted by: mef at November 2, 2006 02:25 PMJrb
See the figure just above. The rich pay more dollars and a greater percentage of their income. It is how it should be AND how it is.
Kevin
Both of us have distaste for details. I have answered your questions with greater specificity than they implied.
Re capital gains, there are many theories on how and if this works. They are controversial because ALL we have is correlation. So I indeed have no more than experience; neither do you or anyone else.
As you know, we don’t do details. I rely on someexperts.">http://search.heritage.org/search?restrict=Heritage&q=capital+gains+tax&btnG=Go&ie=&site=heritageorg&output=xml_no_dtd&client=heritageorg&lr=&filter=0&proxystylesheet=heritageorg&getfields=%252A”>experts.
Re HAL and stock investing.
I make money on the stock market. You don’t. Suffice with details? I do not own HAL, however. I do not think it is a good investment.
Most things in life are simpler than people want to believe, but not easier.
D.A.N.-
“Don, just because you’ve been saying something since 1976 doesn’t mean it can never happen.”
That’s not what I was saying. Go back and read my post again. I think everyone else got it…these problems have been with us for a long time and no congressman has done anything about it. THIS IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON. The train has been coming down the same tracks that our collective car is stranded on for decades. No congressman has gotten out to push the car off the tracks…do you have it now, or do I need to mix more metaphores.
Stop with all the cut-n-paste stuff, it gives me a headache. I proved long ago that you don’t understand most of the statistics yourself. Goodness, it took 3 or 4 days of back-n-forth arguments to get you to correct just one of your erroneous “statistics”. And most of it is out of context anyway. That being said, your conclusions might be right…our country is deep in debt, with too big of a trade imbalance, with Medicare and Social Security programs that are incredibly underfunded. That’s the train that has been coming for a long time.
“Many are worse now, and have never been worse ever, and some have never been worse since the Great Depression. For instance, the 1% of the U.S. population with 40% (and growing) of all wealth and the remaining 99% of the U.S. population has never been worse since the Great Depression. The total $22 trillion of federal debt (adjusted for inflation) has NEVER been worse than now. Not even in WWII.”
People are not worse off because someone else has more! That’s stupid! Thank goodness some people have money otherwise there would be no jobs for the yacht builders. There would be no money for the venders at baseball games, etc., etc. This idea that rich people are evil because they have MORE is doltish. We need rich people! The richer they are the better. Even if their wealth has outpaced the earning level of the common man, that is NOT evil.
I have to go to work and bring home some of that filthy lucre now.
Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 02:52 PMJack-
Those percentages don’t speak to what I was suggesting. While the total dollar ammount and percentages of total tax paid by all might be higher for the rich, and this makes sense since they make so much more, my point was that as a percentage of their income they often pay less than the middle class as a percentage of their income.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on my assertion.
Jack-
“Both of us have distaste for details. I have answered your questions with greater specificity than they implied.”
I happen to love the details, Jack. Don’t speak for me. You have enough trouble comprehending my posts as it is (as evidenced by your “responses”). And how have you respnded with ANY specificity? You go by experience? Funny how you never mention what that entails. Maybe that is too specific? But you are more than happy to comment on what you assume my experience to be in the market. Hmmm.
re: HAL
Investing in a company is to invest in its management, right? What was your original point then? You told someone to invest if they wanted a share of the profits. That just doesn’t make sense.
re: capital gains
You are the one who brought it up. I would never have assumed to know of any causal link…I’d be purely speculating. So, my question remains. Do you know something I dont? Or just speculating? Please clear that up.
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 03:44 PMKevin
I guess you are way smarter than I am. I just don’t see pertinent details that I have left unaddressed. If the premise is wrong, the details of the argument are immaterial, no matter how elegant.
RE your stock investment skills - Your statements led me to make conclusions about your experience in the market. Maybe I missed your point, but it seemed to me you were saying:
“Because the most likely scenario is that the profits are re-invested in the company to facilitate more of the same. Unless they decide to stop growing and give high dividends. Then the stock price goes up and a correction takes place, which is not what officers or directors of the company want.”
When I have made money in stocks, it has always been because the firm grew through reinvesting, in which case the price of the stock rose (i.e. Microsoft or CISCO) and/or they issued dividends in which case the stock price sort of stabilized. The real fun ones can do both (RIO or NUCOR) but not forever. Under the old capital gains laws, investors essentially paid extra tax on dividends, so many firms tried to grow the value of their stocks through reinvestments or repurchases. Under the new law, they were more likely to issue dividends. The before tax amount the investor made was similar, although the old law led to some inefficiencies.
I did not know there was any way for stocks to make money besides though some combination of appreciation & dividends. But according to you, HAL has some other method. Either you are a financial genius and have discovered a whole new income stream, or you have little successful experience in stocks. Since geniuses are rare, I drew the conclusion that seemed most likely based on my experience.
The more recent statement confirms this: “Investing in a company is to invest in its management, right? What was your original point then? You told someone to invest if they wanted a share of the profits. That just doesn’t make sense.”
Yes, when you invest you assume management is competent, but there REASON you invest is to share in the profits. Management and the firm itself is a means to that end.
If you invest w/o the expectation of sharing in the profits, you probably do not invest wisely.
Jack-
“When I have made money in stocks, it has always been because the firm grew through reinvesting, in which case the price of the stock rose (i.e. Microsoft or CISCO) and/or they issued dividends in which case the stock price sort of stabilized.”
Yes, but those stocks are not almost entirely tied to a finite resource. So again, you speak a general truth, but fail to account for the elephant in the room.
“Under the old capital gains laws, investors essentially paid extra tax on dividends, so many firms tried to grow the value of their stocks through reinvestments or repurchases. Under the new law, they were more likely to issue dividends. The before tax amount the investor made was similar, although the old law led to some inefficiencies.”
OK…thank you, because now you are getting me interested again. I will definately agree that is the theory. But has that really turned out to be the case? My experience from buying stocks with other people’s money for several years tells me that companies are still aggressively re-investing back into equity holdings due to the returns from developing countries and real estate. Of course the driving force is basically exploitation of cheap foreign labor in overseas equities, but here at home we also started letting pensions and other huge institutional investors invest in REITs and get add’l tax breaks. This greatly aided the real estate boom which, here in CA, has really impacted people’s money for non-fixed expenses. That has NOT helped the economy. And of course commodities and oil futures were deregulated. So people pay more for gas and food at unpredictable times because of the market manipulation that innevitable goes on, especially when regulators are told to look the other way.
So you starting to feel me a little bit? Come on, lets focus on things like this instead of challenging my investment success. You and I both know that stock speculation is an insiders game (actually knowing the management practices), and outsiders are taking shots in the dark. That is why you just diversify and keep re-balancing based on your original asset allocation. Simple. Granted. No need to try and assasinate my character before you even try to scrape the surface of the topic really at hand here. But when we are talking about an industry, we can’t ignore its very nature if it is relevent.
Now back to HAL-
Using the very logic you pointed out, isn’t it safe to say that the reason why you and I don’t like it as a stock is that there are lots of profits and very little dividends? So management isn’t looking out for its investors, right? My very point. They are probably too busy trying to filter money through offshore accounts to foreign subsidiaries to avoid being there showing up on earnings statements making investors demand dividends.
You aren’t seeming to understand even where we agree. But I do. So don’t be afraid to keep the genuine comments coming. But please stop pretending to know personal things about me.
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 05:11 PMJack,
I did not know there was any way for stocks to make money besides though some combination of appreciation & dividends.
There are other ways for someone to make money in the stock market [I assume by “way for stocks” you mean “method for someone to make money on a stock” since stocks, being inanimate, cannot actually make money … only people can]. One can short a stock.
Sorry, I Just felt you weren’t completely technically correct.
jrb-
Shorting a stock is just selling it before you own it. It is still stock speculation. Maybe the technicality would work for option trading. Puts and calls.
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 05:16 PMKevin23,
The statement was made that the only way to make money was through “appreciation & dividends.”
Since shorting a stock is not JUST selling before you own it—rather, it is banking on the value of a stock decreasing to make a profit—there is neither appreciation nor dividends involved. Additionally, in options trading one does not invest in the stock itself. Instead, one purchases the right to buy or sell the underlying stock at a given price irrepsective of whether or not they own any shares of that particular security.
[I’m sure you understand most, if not all, of this but I felt I should be clear]
Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 06:00 PMjrb-
I see where you were going. OK, so I’ll give you shorting the stock. What about buying a put, or selling a call? Aren’t we banking solely on depreciation in the same way? And the object at issue is still the underlying stock value.
Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 06:10 PMKevin23
Well, yes.
Obviously you know what you are talking about.
Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 06:24 PMd.a.n wrote: Don, just because you’ve been saying something since 1976 doesn’t mean it can never happen.
Don wrote: That’s not what I was saying.
Really? This is what you wrote:
Don wrote:
D.A.N. -
Nothing new in what you say. Same thing has been happening for 40 years or longer (maybe not as much, but still the same thing). I worried about the same things you complain about back in 1976.
Don wrote: Go back and read my post again. I think everyone else got it…these problems have been with us for a long time and no congressman has done anything about it. THIS IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON.Don, Things take a long time, and the growing debt of the last three decades will have have painful consequences, eventually. That time may not be that far away, since the National Debt was has been quickly escalated by $3 trillion since year 2000. The debt can get out of control, and it may already be out of control. 20% of all federal tax revenues are already spent on interest alone, and that’s ONLY on the $8.6 trillion of National Debt. To make matters worse, Congress passed a Drug Prescription plan that will cost hundreds of billions more per year.
Don wrote: The train has been coming down the same tracks that our collective car is stranded on for decades. No congressman has gotten out to push the car off the tracksSo, you’re saying the train will never arrive, these things will never be a problem, or there really is no problem, or what?
Don wrote: … do you have it now, or do I need to mix more metaphores.Do whatever you like.
Don wrote: Stop with all the cut-n-paste stuff, it gives me a headache.Then just scroll past it. Try it. It’s easy..
Don wrote: I proved long ago that you don’t understand most of the statistics yourself.No. You only proved it in your own mind. You are referring to the fact that of all federal campaign donations (in 2002) come from a mere 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters (total U.S. population is 300 million). That is corroborated by this document at OpenSecrets.org . Are you still disputing it? Which part? The 83% , or 0.15%, or the 200 million eligible voters, or the U.S. population of 300 million?
Don wrote: That being said, your conclusions might be right … our country is deep in debt, with too big of a trade imbalance, with Medicare and Social Security programs that are incredibly underfunded. That’s the train that has been coming for a long time.So you agree? Or, are you saying it will never arrive?
d.a.n wrote: 1% of the U.S. population with 40% (and growing) of all wealth and the remaining 99% of the U.S. population has never been worse since the Great Depression. The total $22 trillion of federal debt (adjusted for inflation) has NEVER been worse than now. Not even in WWII.
Don responded: People are not worse off because someone else has more! That’s stupid!Non-sequitur. Don, your own statement is the very thing you call other’s comments. Where did anyone say someone having more or less is worse or right or wrong. You are overlooking the squeezing of the middleclass via unfair taxation (the wealthy are not paying their fair percentage of income tax due to a tax system that is full of loopholes; for example, capital gains are taxed at 10% and 15% while the average tax rate is 21%), corporate welfare and pork-barrel, illegal immigration (costing U.S. taxpayers $70 billion per year), etc. I am not envious of the wealthy. There are those that are, and try to disguise their envy and jealousy as demands for equality. That is not me. I only expect fairness, and to me, that means everyone should pay the same flat 17% tax rate percentage (eliminate all deductions). As it is now, the ridiculously perverted tax code allows many wealthy to avoid paying even 17%.
Do wrote: Thank goodness some people have money otherwise there would be no jobs for the yacht builders. There would be no money for the venders at baseball games, etc., etc. This idea that rich people are evil because they have MORE is doltish.More nonsense, and is not even part of the real issue. The issue is unfair taxation, and corpocrisy, corporatism, and corporate welfare, and their unfair influence on politicians that is wrong. Government should NOT be FOR SALE. You are trying to twist the argument into something about class warfare, and that is just a lame distraction to cloud the issues and obscure the facts.
Do wrote: We need rich people! The richer they are the better. Even if their wealth has outpaced the earning level of the common man, that is NOT evil.I have said being wealthy is evil, but I will say it is wrong for the weatlhty to abuse their wealth to control government, which is the real point which you are trying to avoid with non-sequiturs and irrelevant and unrelated issues.
mef wrote: d.a.n, You are a man of many stats! I like the old saying that figures lie and liars figure.
Then, mef proceeds to provide a myriad of his own stats (only minutes after saying “I’m certainly not a genius on the economy as I have trouble balancing my checkbook every month.”) …
mef wrote:The 1% of income earners in our country have a AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) of 19% of the total. (2004 stats) They pay 36% of the income tax from individual tax payers. The top 5% are 33.45% of total AGI and 57% of total tax paid. The top 10% are 44.35% of AGI and they pay and astonishing 68% of total taxes paid. Top 10% pay two thirds of total taxes!! Top 25% have 66% of AGI and almost 85% of taxes. Top 50% have 86.58% of AGI and 97% of total taxes. The bottom 50% of AGI pay only 3.3% of total taxes.
I agree that the wealthy