February 21, 2007
Economic Inequality Is Real (Bad)
Rising American economic inequality has received attention by Senator Jim Webb, presidential candidate John Edwards, maverick Lou Dobbs, and others. The middle class has not shared in rising national prosperity, because the national wealth has been siphoned off to the richest Americans. Some elites are nervous.
They have attacked what are pejoratively called “neopopulists” – people who say the middle class is under siege. Surprisingly, the attack and economic propaganda have come from the relatively unknown Third Way group that is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. Why would self-proclaimed progressives and centrists put out a report that says the whole economic inequality story is bogus?
They favor continuation of the free trade globalization policies of recent Democratic and Republican administrations. They want no restraints on international trade, despite mounting U.S. trade deficits and loss of manufacturing and many professional jobs to low wage nations. Of Third Way’s 18 board members, 14 are current or former CEOs or investors, including several hedge fund managers and the co-head of global equity trading at Goldman Sachs.
Third Way’s report “The New Rules Economy” uses sleazy statistical tricks to create a false image of rising economic prosperity for middle class Americans. You know the group is full of crap when the intellectually bankrupt New York Times columnist David Brooks praises its findings. Anyone who believes this report’s data and conclusions is either in the Upper Class or is just plain gullible. The report argues that the middle class is not stagnating, not drowning in debt, not being victimized by free trade. Is this your reality?
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that incomes at all levels are rising; it's just that incomes at the upper end are rising much faster. Minor increases for the many are not the same as staggering increases for the few. And that’s what economic inequality and injustice are all about.
An expanding Upper Class does NOT mean that those below that class are doing equally well. Between 1979 and 2005, the percentage of the prime wage-earners aged 25 to 59 earning more than $100,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars grew by nearly 13 percentage points. But the overall population grew by more than 30 percent. So the Lower Class is expanding more rapidly than the Upper Class and they are not getting the increases in wages and benefits that they deserve.
Third Way removed lower and higher age Americans and non-married households from their data to emphasize the median income of married-couple households at more than $72,000, up 22 percent from 1979 to 2005 when adjusted for inflation (and not that impressive for 25 years). If both work outside the home it is $81,000. Guess what? Less than half of American households fit the married couple category, and even fewer in the prime wage-earner class. If you include the many unmarried households in this age range the median drops to $61,000. If all households are counted, the median drops sharply to just over $46,000.
Note that median wages for men are lower today than they were in 1973, and even total compensation, including benefits, is lower than it was in the late 1970s. And median incomes of high school graduates in general have declined a lot. For college graduates, median hourly real wages are up just 10 percent over thirty years!
The report dismisses the staggering increases in household debt by invoking higher home values. This of course ignores the housing bubble effect that has created delusional home equity wealth.
There is another reality check. Local geographic or regional economies determine whether a $72,000 or even $81,000 household income is really that good. Compared to 25 years ago, for example, there are incredibly higher housing costs in many places, high costs for two workers commuting long distances between jobs and affordable homes, much higher health insurance and medical costs, remarkably higher college costs, and other rising expenses that never seem to be captured by the government’s official inflation figures.
Listen to Turley K. Hayes of Topeka, Kansas – a relatively low cost of living area: “I earn a gross income of $81,000 and support my disabled domestic partner. My NET income from this (after taxes, insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Co-Pays for medical) is down to $46,435. My partner and I live paycheck to paycheck, as prices have risen. The ‘money’ specialists say we haven't had inflation. Tell that to me after I go to JC Penney and buy a new pair of workshoes, identical to the ones I bought last year and pay $21.34 more (and that was after a 10% discount coupon). There is inequality, those at the low end can get help, those at the high end don't need it. Those of us in the middle are suffering because we make too much to get help and not enough to save for anything.” But that schmuck David Brooks tells the world that such household incomes are just fine. How many households below the median can afford to send a child to even a state college and also save for retirement, because virtually no one gets a pension anymore?
As to economic inequality: Adjusted for inflation, wages rose about 11.5 percent from 1979 to 2006 for those at the median. Those near the bottom of the wage scale saw their pay rise just 4% during that time, while the incomes of those at the top rose 34%. That’s unfair distributional economics. If you are in the Upper Class, you could care less. But most Americans feel economic anxiety, because direct experience tells them that they are close to – or moving closer to – economic disaster. They are just one serious illness or job loss away from requiring government welfare assistance, losing their home, and going bankrupt.
It pays to be rich. In 2004, just about 25,000 taxpayers took home over $5 million. They paid an average 21.9 percent of their incomes in federal income tax. Back in 1952, at the height of the Korean War, the comparable federal tax bite on America’s richest 25,000 averaged 51.9 percent. About a decade earlier, in the middle of World War II, the 25,000 highest-income taxpayers paid 68.4 percent of their incomes in federal income tax. Public policy has helped the rich because the rich have shaped public policy.
True, Americans generally have many more possessions than in the past. But that results from all household adults working – and usually longer hours on the job and at home – than in the past. Is this progress? Economic data say little about quality of life. American insanity is that people are driven by advertising, easy credit and pop culture to consume compulsively even if it means increasing personal risk through excessive borrowing. The visibility of the Upper Class causes 80 percent of the population to fantasize that they too can become rich. But the odds are against that. More realistic is sinking into poverty during their work years or when they retire without a good pension and with uncertain Social Security.
The Third Way’s report and status quo power elites love to say that more education is the solution. Is this another lie? Americans have become more educated. In 1970, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that only 75 percent aged 25-29 had completed high school. In 2004, that increased to nearly 90 percent. Similarly, in 1970, only 16 percent of Americans in their late 20s held a four-year college degree. By 2004, that nearly doubled to 29 percent.
Something else doubled since 1970: the share of national income that goes to America's richest 1 percent. The share going to average Americans, by contrast, has dropped. Average Americans in the bottom 90 percent of the nation's income distribution took home 67 percent of U.S. income in 1970. This dropped to only 53 percent in 2004, despite higher education levels! It continues to drop. Education does not necessarily work. Why?
Education doesn’t determine how income and wealth get distributed. What does? Politics – or more correctly corrupt politics – does. Many political decisions — taxes, trade, labor rights, health care, regulations, banking, privatization, farm subsidies — have tilted income and wealth to the top. And not just during Republican administrations. More Americans must understand the linkage between a delusional democracy based on corrupt politics and delusional prosperity for the masses.
The trends are clear. There really is a war on the middle class. "We're creating tomorrow's poor, people who once saw themselves as part of the middle class but financially can no longer make it there,” said Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School.
The power elites running and ruining our country have no interest in closing the bipartisan economic inequality gap. Want to do something? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans that support free trade globalization and illegal immigration. Vote for anyone in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy and eliminating corporate handouts and welfare. Trust true populists. Use your consumer power: Stop pissing away your money on consuming more unnecessary “must have” (and probably imported) crap that keeps our debt ridden economy afloat and makes the rich richer. Start saving for that rainy day. It’s coming for most of us. Because national prosperity is not personal prosperity for most of us.
But Joel, but Joel, The economy is doing better than ever, you must be a Bush hater. But Joel, but Joel the multinationals are doing great profits are at record highs, you must be a socialist. But Joel, But Joel the poor are better off than ever before you must be well … exactly right.
Posted by: j2t2 at February 21, 2007 09:21 AMYou have a couple of technical problems that unbalance your data.
#1 Since 1972, the number of people making more than $100,000 has gone up 13%. This is good. 13% more Americans are well off. The population went up by 30% does not indicate that the middle class is shrinking. You are comparing two different things. One is a relative measure and the other a general one. 13% more people making the big bucks relative to those who were making it before. The fact that population rose by 30% is irrelevant. If incomes had stagnanted, nobody would make anymore. General population growth would have no effect.
#2 median is median. 50% are above and 50% below. When you say that the median went up by 11+ % it means that most Americans are doing better. The rich got a bigger share of the total gain, but nobody is worse off. Since it is adjusted for inflation, the idea that the cost of living has risen is already factored in.
#3 education. Education is the big determiner of income. When you talk about the general population becoming better educated, it is true, but then you compare the relative performance and the two are now apples and oranges.
In any society anywhere and anytime, half of all the people earn below median income and 20% fall into the lowest quintile of earnings. It can be stated to seem very ominous, but it is merely a statistical fact.
Income inequality is a problem, but you have to diagnose the right one. The poor have gotten richer. It is just the rich have gotten richer faster. Beyond that, this is a worldwide trend that has been going on for a generation. Tax rates do not significantly affect it. If you look at the GINI coefficients, they DROPPED in 2001 and 2002 (for those who do not now GINI is a measure of inequality. Lower is more equality) despite tax cuts. The general economy is more important and when the economy declined, so did inequality. It is a high price to pay if you have to lose real money to gain relative equality.
Joel
Numbers are not my strong point. I often get lost when people start making all the comparisons and using the various factors that determine the health of our economy. But one thing I have understood for a long time is that statistics are maliable and can easily be twisted to serve the needs of those throwing them out there. I do believe that insureing the presence of a subserviant middle class has been on the agenda of the upperclass since the inception of this country. Anyone who would deny this either does not care, has never given it consideration, or simply does not want to deal with the complications of class distinctions. The biggest problem is that the majority of people do not have the time, desire, or knowledge to sit down and study all these numbers and make an individual assesment on their own. So they simply sit back and put their complete trust and faith in those who do so. The middle class has been molded and trained over the last two hundred and thirty years to accept and not question with a lot of vigor our place in society. In essence those who control the money have us right where they want us. They buy and own the politicians who write the laws to favor the wealthy. They hire the economists who manipulate the factors to present the statistics that present favorable but not completely accurate reflections of the state of our economy. And I am sure they are laughing and counting their new found fortunes all the way to the bank at the growing economic disparity between classes.
IMO you have presented an excellent article fairly and clearly depicting the reasons behind the growing disparity and why americans should be concerned. Thank you for so clearly defining what I have always found so hard to express.
After following this blog for a few months now I am increasingly seeing the value and realizing the importance of the independant voter. I may soon be changing my name to ILindpt
Posted by: ILdem at February 21, 2007 10:35 AM“I may soon be changing my name to ILindpt”
ILdem, I ask you to reconsider that thought. If all the liberals desert the Democratic Party, all the country will be left with is Republican Lites and Republicans controlling our future for years to come. A while back, I left with the same thoughts that you are having now, then returned — because I feel the Democratic Party is worth trying to save. Why bother? Because Liberals need to have a major voice, not a minor one and we need to drag our party back to where it belongs on the left, not let it go more and more to the right in reaction to the neo-cons.
That being said, I think that the move toward third parties is a good one — and that’s why I often vote third party at the local level. These things need to be built from the ground up if they’re ever going to grow into something truly powerful and influential.
Joel, excellent article.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2007 11:39 AMj2t2, Funny!
Yes, haven’t you heard?
This goldi-locks economy is wonderful.
Nevermind that it is being propped up by massive debt, spending, borrowing, and excessive money-printing.
Here are some major points to substantiate what Joel Hirschhorn is talking about:
- [01] Median incomes have fallen. No wonder Michiganders are upset. Median incomes fell significantly since 1999.
- [02] The rich are getting richer, because in 1980, 1% of the U.S. population had 20% of all wealth in the U.S. However, now in 2007, 1% of the U.S. population now has 40% of all wealth:
Look above. It’s actually never been worse since the Great Depression of 1929. - [04] There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. But there is something wrong with abusing wealth to control government and fleece other citizens. A good example of that is the fact that a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters made a massive 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002). Government is FOR-SALE. How can the remaining 99.85% of all eligible U.S. voters compete against that? One obvious solution is to stop re-electing bought-and-paid-for politicians and call for an ARTICLE V Convention to raise voter awareness and education, to hopefully bring about many common-sense, no-brainer reforms that do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way politicians ignore (not to mention ignoring ARTICLE V of the Constitution). And those politicians will continue to ignore the nation’s pressing problems as long as voters keep rewarding them for it.
- [05] Education is increasingly expensive and unaffordable, except for the wealthy. Many graduates (and non-graduates) are being buried in massive debt. The public education system is also increasingly expensive and declining in quality.
- [06] The nation is swimming in debt.
The nation-wide personal debt is over $20 trillion.
Social Security is $12.8 trillion in debt (source: CATO Institute)
The National Debt is $8.75 trillion and growing fast.
Medicare is a trainwreck, with many hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the next year.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) is $450 billion (or more) in the hole.
The nation-wide debt is over $42 trillion.
The interest on the $8.75 trillion National Debt is over $1 billion per day!
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are staggering in terms of lives lost (from an unnecessary war started over false and/or trumped-up intelligence about non-existent WMD), and monetarily (over $360 billion in Iraq thus far). - [07] The nation is losing over $70 billion per year in net losses due to illegal immigration. Politicians refuse to enforce the laws. Democrats want votes. Republicans want cheap labor. Most voters want it stopped. Politicians are despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal aliens against each other, competing for tax-payer resources, hospitals, education, welfare (32% of illegal aliens receive welfare), healthcare, etc. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. Yet, the voters keep rewarding politicians for ignoring them and ignoring the existing laws, by repeatedly re-electing those politicians.
- [08] Healthcare is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and dangerous too. JAMA reported over 2.2 million hospitalized patients in 1994 had serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and 106,000 were fatal, making these drug reactions the 5th or 6th leading cause of death in the U.S.! On 27-July-2004, HealthGrades.com reported that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”.
[03] Inflationist practices erode savings, hammer the poor, hammer those on fixed incomes, and creates economic instability. Look at the inflationist practices and skyrocketing CPI since 1950.
Joel Hirschhorn is right.
There is a war (of sorts) on the middle-class.
However, the middle-class has themselves to thank for it also, because there is one very simple solution that has been right under their very own noses, all along. It is the one simple thing they were supposed to be doing all along, always:
- Reform Government Peacefully.
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Stop Rewarding and Empowering Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for, Look-the-Other-Way, Incumbent Politicians !
- Stop Re-Electing Bad Politicians !
Between 1997 and 2006, Congress voted itself 8 raises.
- For what?
- For starting unnecessary wars, and shirking their duty to declare war, and letting the Executive Branch grab more power ? ?
- For ignoring illegal immigration laws ?
- For pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other?
- For 6 cases per day of eminent domain abuse?
- For running up massive debt, borrowing, waste, spending, pork-barrel, graft, and excessive money-printing?
- For blunder after blunder in Iraq, and the consequential loss of life due to it ?
- For peddling influence (83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002) come from less than 300,000 people).?
- For pandering and perpetuating the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else?
- For bribing voters with their own tax dollars?
- For spending all their time campaigning and trolling for big-money donors and money to fill their campaign war chests?
- For looking the other way when pedophile peers are hitting on Pages?
- For a multitude of cover-ups and more concern over who leaked than the crime itself?
- For torture (ask Spc. Sean Baker about that) ?
- For spying on Americans without civil oversight?
- For a stupid, abused, and overly complex (for nefarious reasons) tax system?
- For tax cuts almost entirely for the wealthy only?
- For alienatiing our allies world-wide?
- For refusing to address Campaign Finance and Election reforms?
- For Gerrymandering?
- For tampered and defective voting machines (and privatized voting machines?)?
- For a dysfunctional legal system that executes and encarcerates the innocent and lets the guilty off easy?
- For abused presidential pardons (such as the 546 by Clinton; 140 on his last day in office)?
- For rampant corporate fraud, cooking the books, investor and stock fraud?
- For corprate welfare, pork-barrel, graft, and massive waste ?
- For refusing a common-sense, no-brainer ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL ?
- For pretending Homeland Security is important, and ignoring wide-open borders and ports?
- For a bloated government that grows and grows to nightmare proportions?
- For selling out American workers?
- For poor planning and energy vulnerabilites, despite the D.O.E.’s $25 billion annual budget?
- For the ever present, insidious, destabilizing inflation?
- For for continuing to plunder Social Security surpluses; replaceing them with worthless bonds?
- For the decling quality and rising cost of public education and the rising cost of college?
- For the unaffordability of healthcare?
- For usurious interest rates (24% or higher); never mind most courts don’t uphold civil suits for loans at over 10% because it is considered usury?
- For ignoring the multitude of problems with Medicare and Social Security as they keep sailing directly toward the titanic iceberg ?
- For fiscal and moral bankruptcy?
But other than that, and the nation’s other numerous pressing problems being ignored, everything is rosy.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2007 11:57 AMILdem wrote: After following this blog for a few months now I am increasingly seeing the value and realizing the importance of the independant voter. I may soon be changing my name to ILindpt
ILDem, Good idea!
That doesn’t mean voting for a candidate of ANY party is right or wrong.
Voting for the best candidate, always, regardless of suppposed party affiliation is the right thing to do.
Voters should try to reject those that tell them that their vote is wasted if it isn’t for THEIR party.
Some will tell you a vote for a third party or independent is a wasted vote.
Nevermind that your vote might be the the OTHER party had the independent option not been available.
That is another powerfully deceptive practice perpetuated by blind party loyalists.
Independent voters provide a very important and valuable service to the nation.
Independent voters have no blind loyalty to the either of the Democrat or Republican parties, and therefore, are a potent check and balance on both.
Competition and more choices is a good thing.
Of course, the main-party loyalists won’t agree.
I used to be one of them myself.
So, I understand how powerfully effective the circular partisan warfare is at distracting, dividing, and pitting Americans against each other over worthless minutia while the nation’s more pressing probems are continually ignored.
Some people say things like
If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?
So, if third parties and independents are no “good”, then why worry?
If third parties and independents are no “good”, then why were some Democrats working hard to keep Nader off the ballots in some states? Why were Nader and Badnarik denied access to ballots and national debates?
Why were Republicans so upset with Perot?
Why were Democrats so upset with Nader?
Why? Because they are competition that the two-party duopoly don’t like. In fact, they despise them, and tell voters that their vote is wasted if they vote for a third party candidate or independent (translated: any vote for anyone other than OUR candidate is a wasted vote). Nevermind that the vote may go to the opposing party had the third party choice not existed.
There are a growing number of voters that are beginning to understand that the two-party duopoly, Do-Nothing Congress, and arrogant Executive Branch are ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems, allowing those serious problems to grow in number and severity.
Voters are basically lazy.
That’s not said with malice, but it is a fact of human nature that we fail to account for when we attempt to design governments, organizations, and societies.
We fail by forgetting the importance of Transparency (visibility), and Accountability (deterrent via law enforcement), and Education (prerequisite to avoid repeating history).
While voters are basically lazy, pain trumps lazy.
When the consequences of the voters’ laziness finally becomes too painful, people will become more interested, more educated, and more responsible.
At the moment, too many voters don’t know what to do, as the two-main-party duopoly grows increasingly corrupt and dysfunctional, which is increasing the number of independent and third party voters.
This “not knowing what to do” seems somewhat apparent by the tiny lead (see graph) that each main-party has had during the last decade (see graph between 1996 and 2006). It appears voters really don’t see much difference between the two main parties.
That trend will change drastically when the painful consequences of the 30+ years of so much fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. massive debt, out-of-control debt, borrowing, spending, excessive money-printing, plundering Social Security & Medicare surpluses, inevitable consequences of the demographics, etc.) finally catch up with us. That is when that graph (above) will change drastically, becoming much more volatile, and Congress will no longer get to enjoy their cu$hy, coveted 90%+ re-election rates.
d.a.n.
It does not matter what you write, I am always ultra interested in seeing what you say. You have the print style of some one in marketing. I look at it and I am like “ooh! whats this!”. =)
Joel,
As a college student who made just under $10,000 in 2006 (just got my taxes done so new numbers ya’ll) and is financially comfortable in our economy and self-supporting, I must contest.
American debt is because of poor spending and being incapable of balancing a budget.
American consumerism is foolish and wasteful.
If you want to get work boots, don’t go to JC Penny (one of the highest mark-up retail chains on the planet), instead go to Ross and get the same thing of the same brand for 1/3 the cost.
When I was married, I was supporting my wife, her best friend, and her best friends mom of less than $20,000 a year. It was easy.
People are wasteful on junk they don’t need, that is why they are suffering.
The rich get richer because they are better with money. There is no more to it than that.
If you are broke making over $25,000 a year, then you do not know how to balance a budget and should not be debating economics.
P.S. The median is always the middle. 50% is always above and 50% is always below. If it goes up that means the average income has gone up which means people who were below the median got more money.
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at February 21, 2007 12:52 PMFunny:
Some posters oversimplify, and some include every issue ever in every post.
Posted by: womanmarine at February 21, 2007 01:01 PMOne of the problems is that both sides have a different definition of “middle class” and they are both wrong. Republicans tend to overestimate the size of the middle class and the Democrats tend to underestimate it.
The Republicans need to realize that people making millions are not middle class.
The Democrats need to realize that that people making hundreds of thousands are not rich.
womanmarine wrote: Funny: Some posters oversimplify, and some include every issue ever in every post.: )
Bryan AJ Kennedy,
Thanks!
The Traveler wrote: The Republicans need to realize that people making millions are not middle class. The Democrats need to realize that that people making hundreds of thousands are not rich.True.
It makes you wonder if they are really in touch with reality or simply mathematically challenged.
Did any of these bozos take economics?
But, these days, that may not be of much use, with all the widely accepted inflationist practices and theories.
The middle-class is systematically getting squeezed by a number of things that are largely a result of irresponsible incumbent politicians.
However, those same voters keep rewarding them for it, by repeatedly re-electing them, and it won’t get better until voters stop doing that.
Unfortunately, the circular partisan warfare distracts too many voters from substantive issues, and taps-into the voters’ laziness, by tricking them into blindly pulling the party-lever (i.e. straight-ticket), blindly voting only for candidates in THEIR party with no regard for who is truly the most quailified, demonizing the OTHER party, and wallowing in the petty partisan warfare while problems continue to grow, threatening the future and security of the nation.
Therefore, the blame does not only lie with the irresponsible incumbent politicians.
Half of the blame lies with the voters themselves, who keep rewarding and empowering the bad politicians, by repeatedly re-electing them, regardless of the corruption (such as Rep. Jefferson Williams who got re-elected), crimes, and incomptence.
Also, the majority of voters are the ones that will suffer the inevitable consequences.
Not the politicians who have already gotten theirs, their cu$hy retirement plans, and their golden parachutes (paid for by the tax payers).
d.a.n.
“Did any of these bozos take economics?”
I think we had a discussion about this a few months ago.
I am pretty sure the consensus was that there were currently no politicians at the federal level who majored in Bus. Admin., Accounting, or Economics.
Still a scary thought.
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at February 21, 2007 03:09 PMPeople are wasteful on junk they don’t need, that is why they are suffering.
That’s true and it is probably true most of the time.
Many people are simply lazy and irresponsible.
There are exceptions, such as:
- the elderly with health problems, and have been bankrupted by healthcare expenses, surgeries, etc.
- Some people are quite simply not that bright.
- Some people are mentally ill.
- Sometimes, bad things happen. Accidents. Sometimes, beyond our control.
Of course, I don’t think you meant to exclude those exceptions.
I think Jack would agree with you completely that many (perhaps most) Americans are fiscally irresponsible. He often says our poor are not that poor compared to the poor of some other nations. That’s true.
But, look at government. It sets a fine example for fiscal responsibility doesn’t it?
The nation is swimming in debt (over $42 trillion, nation-wide). Even Jack recognizes that trainwreck that is on the way. Therefore, this is not the time to celebrate this luke-warm economy, because it is OK only because it is being propped-up by massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money-printing.
What is worrisome about all the debt and fiscal irresponsibility is where it is most likely headed.
- What will happen to Social Security?
- Do you believe those that say everything is OK?
Nevermind that its surpluses are being plundered, and the so-called surplus is worthless government bonds. - What will happen to Medicare?
- What will happen to pensions (with the PBGC $450 billion in the hole)?
- What effect will the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have on these other systems?
- What effect will the growing $8.75 trillion National Debt have on the over all bugdet (currently costing $1 billion per day in interest)?
- What will this all do to inflation?
- With so much debt, and so much pressure to keep up with the $1 billion per day of interest, the unfunded liabilities for entitlements, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina, and increasing global competition, will government do as many have, and simply start printing more money? Probably.
- What will the trend for the next few decades be with so much debt? Not just $22 trillion of government debt, but $20 trillion of personal debt nation-wide?
- What will happen to many of the elderly if Social Security and Medicare fails?
- What happens if there is an energy crisis? That’s not at all far fetched. You’d think the D.O.E. could have done more with a budget of $25 billion per year.
Some are trying to portray the economy as good, but it is an illusion made possible with massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money-printing.
The possibility of a economic meltdown is not that far-fetched. If voters keep letting irresponsible incumbent politicians run the nation into the ground, it may become a certainty.
If you look at the math, the amount of interest associated with the debt, the nefarious inflationist practices, the growing corruption and irresponsibility of government, the growing corpocrisy and corporatism, and the voters that keep rewarding politicians for all of it, a major correction of some kind is not at all far fetched.
We must never allow patriotism interfere with business decisions. Greed causes blindness. No one can rationalize better than a share holder.
You have a point, but only if you assume income inequality is a bad thing.
In my view it is not.
Especially when it comes to people who are, as d.a.n put it, simply not that bright.
Posted by: Zeek at February 21, 2007 04:25 PMBrian
President Bush has an MBA. Maybe that is why the economy is growing so well and maybe why others cannot understand it.
Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2007 04:35 PMInequality is not bad always bad.
Inequality is a fact of life we can not change.
Unfairness is bad.
Unfairness may be a fact of life.
But unfairness should never be acceptable.
What we have going on in America is a number of things that are not fair.
Government is FOR-SALE.
That’s not fair.
The ultra wealthy (only 0.15% of all 200 million voters) drastially out-spend the majority of voters (99.85%).
Wealth is OK, but using it to control government is not OK.
Also, laws are not being sufficiently enforced, as evidenced by investor and stock fraud and many companies cooking the books.
Politicians ignore the illegal immigration laws, and are despicably pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other.
The middle class will thrive when they have a level playing field. That should not be accomplished by soaking the wealthy. But existing laws should be enforced, and common-sense reforms are needed to put an end to government FOR-SALE.
jlw wrote: No one can rationalize better than a share holderYes, greed is a powerful motivation.
- Some regulation is needed, otherwise there WILL be manifestations of unchecked greed. The problem now (e.g. Enron, stock fraud, investor fraud, cookin’ the books, plundering Social Security surpluses, excessive money printing, incessant inflation (by design), legal plunder, etc.) is the failure to enforce the existing laws.
- Some taxes are needed, or government has no way to accomplish anything, and it is folly to think otherwise. The problem now is a ridiculously complex and unfair tax system with loop-holes galore abused by many of the wealthy and irresponsible, FOR-SALE politicians in an increasingly corrupt and dysfunctional government.
Especially around election time.
I know. I used to be one of them.
Those evil [insert OTHER party] are the cause of all the nation’s problems.
A vote for [insert OTHER party] is a wasted vote.
It’s interesting to watch the loyalists getting all twisted in everywhich direction to explain THEIR party’s position, actions, etc. And if they can’t explain it, just don’t talk about it. Pretend it doesn’t exist. Or, better yet, blame the OTHER party for being worse. That’s what we have these days. The two party duopoly spend a great deal of time and effort trying to prove who is more corrupt. This ought be telling us something. But never, ever underestimate the power of the circular, divisive, time-wasting, seductive, and distracting partisan warfare. It is a powerfully effective control-mechanism.
Jack wrote: President Bush has an MBA. Maybe that is why the economy is growing so well and maybe why others cannot understand it.Jack, this luke-warm economy is being propped up by massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money-printing.
What do you think the economy would look like without that?
Even you have written about what you call:
- ”the entitlements iceberg we are sailing toward”
- “demographics are just going to smash us”
So, what do we have to celebrate?
What do you think is going to happen?
Yeah, yeah, you are going to say Bush tried to address Social Security.
That’s a laugh.
He didn’t try very hard.
He could have at least recommended that they stop spending the surpluses, but he didn’t.
He simply wanted to make it look like the OTHER party was to blame.
And, if he was worried about entitlements, why did he turn around and create another huge entitlement program (e.g. the Medicare Prescription drug plan)?
And where is Bush’s veto pen.
Why doesn’t he veto some of the record level pork-barrel?
What remains to be seen is what the next administration is going to do with the huge [expletive]ing mess Bush has left us with. In my opinion, Bush is incompetent which is only exceeded by his arrogance. His blunders would fill volumes. There’s little doubt he will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. If for no other reason than starting an unnecessary war based on flawed and/or trumped-up intelligence, and then trying to say “we found the weapons of mass destruction” which was not true. Some, understandably, might call that a war-crime. And do you really think another 21,500 troops will solve anything in Iraq? Bush does, but then he’s like a broken record. All he knows is stay the course no matter how far off course it is.
It’s going to take some really, truly creative rationalizing to explain away all of those 99+ blunders.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2007 05:12 PMd.a.n, this is just my impression and I do not have the statistics to back this up, but there seems to be a backlash against CEO’s recently. At least, I seem to be seeing a lot more top executives getting caught/scrutinized for unscrupulous business practices. Not that this means the problem is solved, but I do not think this is something that is particularly out of order at the moment.
As for illegal immigration… it would not be such a problem if the U.S. just let more people in legally and kept track of them. Of course, that is a debate that will probably go on for some time without ever really being solved.
But what you are ultimately addressing are the ineptitudes of government. This topic however seems to be attacking the idea of rich people getting richer and poor people getting richer at a far slower rate.
Posted by: Zeek at February 21, 2007 06:52 PMZeek wrote: But what you are ultimately addressing are the ineptitudes of government.Yes, that is 50% of the problem. The other 50% of the problem is voters themselves, because they keep re-electing bad politicians.
Zeek wrote: This topic however seems to be attacking the idea of rich people getting richer and poor people getting richer at a far slower rate.First, there’s nothing wrong with being wealthy, as long as that wealth is not obtained immorally or illegally, and as long as the wealthy do not abuse their power to control government. That is exactly what is happening, because 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002) came from only 01.5% of all 200 million eligible voters. That’s an average of $6667 per person from only 300,000 people. The remaining 99.85& of all 200 million eligible voters averaged only $2 per person.
Still, voters keep re-electing the same bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians.
Zeek wrote: As for illegal immigration … it would not be such a problem if the U.S. just let more people in legally and kept track of them.The U.S. already lets millions immigrate legally annually.
The U.S. is not obligated to let everyone come here.
That policy will ensure that illegal aliens will move from country to country, using up all the resources, and ruining everything for everybody.
Massive, uncontrolled immigration (legal or not) is a recipe for chaos, economic problems, resentments, and societal disorder.
We do not need to let more in legally.
How is importing the less educated and impoverished helping the U.S. ?
As for keeping track of them, politicians do not want to keep track of them.
Democrats want votes.
Republicans want cheap labor.
Voters want it stopped.
But voters keep rewarding politicians for it.
Look at this list of 51 Congress persons that voted to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.
Prominent names on that list are:
- Hillary Clinton
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Joe Biden
- Joe Lieberman
- Ted Kennedy
What’s wrong with these [expletive]s ?
Doesn’t it matter to them that a vast majority of Americans are against that?
Social Security already has enough problems without letting illegal aliens participate in it.
Illegal aliens are already collecting receiving plenty of benefits from the U.S. (to the tune of $70 billion per year in annual net losses to U.S. tax payers).
Already, 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare.
29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
Increased crime rates are another obvious problem.
95% of all warrants for homicide in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
While most come to look for work, many come for the welfare and the crime.
President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?
A Polling Station poll of 9,174 people shows:
________ Yes ______ No _______ Undecided
Dem ____ 27.6% ____ 60.1% ____ 12.3%
Ind ____ 16.5% ____ 72.5% ____ 11.0%
Rep ____ 10.9% ____ 81.3% ____ 7.8%
18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea.
71.2% do not believe amnesty is a good idea.
10.4% were undecided.
It seems pretty damn clear.
Americans want it stopped now.
But politicians choose to pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other.
And it won’t end as long as voters keep rewarding politicians for it by repeatedly re-electing them.
Zeek wrote: But what you are ultimately addressing are the ineptitudes of government.Yes, that is 50% of the problem. The other 50% of the problem is voters themselves, because they keep re-electing bad politicians.
Zeek wrote: This topic however seems to be attacking the idea of rich people getting richer and poor people getting richer at a far slower rate.First, there’s nothing wrong with being wealthy, as long as that wealth is not obtained immorally or illegally, and as long as the wealthy do not abuse their power to control government. That is exactly what is happening, because 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002) came from only 01.5% of all 200 million eligible voters. That’s an average of $6667 per person from only 300,000 people. The remaining 99.85& of all 200 million eligible voters averaged only $2 per person.
Still, voters keep re-electing the same bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians.
Zeek wrote: As for illegal immigration … it would not be such a problem if the U.S. just let more people in legally and kept track of them.The U.S. already lets millions immigrate legally annually.
The U.S. is not obligated to let everyone come here.
That policy will ensure that illegal aliens will move from country to country, using up all the resources, and ruining everything for everybody.
Massive, uncontrolled immigration (legal or not) is a recipe for chaos, economic problems, resentments, and societal disorder.
We do not need to let more in legally.
How is importing the less educated and impoverished helping the U.S. ?
As for keeping track of them, politicians do not want to keep track of them.
Democrats want votes.
Republicans want cheap labor.
Voters want it stopped.
But voters keep rewarding politicians for it.
Look at this list of 51 Congress persons that voted to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.
Prominent names on that list are:
- Hillary Clinton
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Joe Biden
- Joe Lieberman
- Ted Kennedy
What’s wrong with these [expletive]s ?
Doesn’t it matter to them that a vast majority of Americans are against that?
Social Security already has enough problems without letting illegal aliens participate in it.
Illegal aliens are already collecting receiving plenty of benefits from the U.S. (to the tune of $70 billion per year in annual net losses to U.S. tax payers).
Already, 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare.
29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
Increased crime rates are another obvious problem.
95% of all warrants for homicide in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?
A Polling Station poll of 9,174 people shows:
________ Yes ______ No _______ Undecided
Dem ____ 27.6% ____ 60.1% ____ 12.3%
Ind ____ 16.5% ____ 72.5% ____ 11.0%
Rep ____ 10.9% ____ 81.3% ____ 7.8%
18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea.
71.2% do not believe amnesty is a good idea.
10.4% were undecided.
It seems pretty damn clear.
Americans want it stopped now.
But politicians choose to pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other.
And it won’t end as long as voters keep rewarding politicians for it by repeatedly re-electing them.
Zeek,
“the idea of rich people getting richer and poor people getting richer at a far slower rate.”
On that subject, in all reality that is only fair, if one considers it is the rich who take all the risk and invest all the money.
The poor work their forty hours, invest no extra effort, and invest no money, but still get a share of the rewards.
In my personal opinion, that seems pretty fair to me, and I am on the bottom. My wages go up despite my having done nothing for the company other than what I was paid to do.
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at February 21, 2007 07:36 PMAdrienne and Dan
I do appreciate your concern and understand both your points of view. I have in the past voted Republican at the state level. It was very hard to do but the alternative was so bad I had no choice. The arrogance, hypocracy and narrow minded life controlling views of most repubs turns my stomach. They are so wrapped up and self absorbed in themselves and the preservation of their party that the needs of the people seem to take a backseat to the needs of the party and interests of the wealthy. On top of all that they seem to be consumed in corruption and deceptive practices so much that I am not sure they can be fully trusted on any matter.
To me the Dems values have always more closely represented mine. They are the more compassionate party and in my view have generally held the needs of the people above the party needs. They to have had their problems in the past with corruption. I am hoping that the most recent election has given them a recognizable mandate that it is time for government to clean up their act. I am expecting broad ethics and campaign reform between now and the next election. To me that would be a true indicator that they are on the right track and do indeed recognize the needs and wants of the people of this country. And that they do plan to move in the direction of those desires. In my view there is no more important issue than to remove the temptations of corruptive influences from government. Until we can put honest politicians who are willing to do their dealings in the open without the corruptive influences of money we will not be able to expect our government to work in our best interests.
As Dan said the third party presents a means of checks and balances and allows one much more flexibility. I also see it as means to keep both parties honest. For the meantime I am retaining my dem status. But as the elections approach I may very well change that status depending on what achievments I see over the next 20 months or so.
Posted by: ILdem at February 21, 2007 07:55 PMJack
“Brian
President Bush has an MBA. Maybe that is why the economy is growing so well and maybe why others cannot understand it.”
I am not sure what this says about getting an education. Maybe that anyone can get an MBA? Maybe that the wealthy can buy an MBA? Maybe that a degree is not a true indicator of intelligence?
If I did have an MBA I do not think I would be particularly proud of the fact that George also has one. I would be embarrased to be placed in the same category to be honest.
Posted by: ILdem at February 21, 2007 08:02 PMILdem,
You don’t have to follow my lead. I was just giving you my own perspective, for what it’s worth. Truthfully, I feel that my party has been hijacked by the DLC Dems (aka Republican Lite) almost as much as the GOP has been hijacked by the neo-cons.
I didn’t come back to the Dems to become a mindless cheerleader for the party come-what-may. Instead, I came back to FIGHT to make it what it once was: The Populist Party that represents the Middle Class and the Poor. I won’t vote for Hilary Clinton if she gets the nomination. I can’t. Because I am no longer willing to ignore what my conscience tells me for ANY DLC Democrat. Never again.
Joel:
“They have attacked what are pejoratively called “neopopulists” – people who say the middle class is under siege. Surprisingly, the attack and economic propaganda have come from the relatively unknown Third Way group that is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. Why would self-proclaimed progressives and centrists put out a report that says the whole economic inequality story is bogus?”
Not surprising at all, IMO. And I don’t give a rat’s ass what pejoratives those people use against the liberals of middle class and the poor. We aren’t Neo-anything. We’re as just populist as we’ve always been. You ask why would they do such a thing? It’s very simple: The DLC Democrats AREN”T actually Progressive, or Liberal or Centrist. They give lip service to liberals and progressives about some issues because they think that’ll get them elected by the majority (after all, most people in this country don’t align with the religious right), but when it comes to kowtowing to the corporations, and accepting money for their campaigns from them, there isn’t any discernible difference between those people and those in the Republican Party. This is strangely why some claim that they’re “Centrist” but they aren’t that either. All you need to do is look at who voted for the bankruptcy bill to understand that.
Aren’t we all aware of this by now?
Down with the DLC Democrats!!!
Adrienne
There was an article about you in the paper. It talked about the radical Dems now seek to destroy not only Republicans, but also moderate Dems. They are forgetting that the key to every Dem victory since 1964 has been to lean on the moderate Dems.
Just as well.
Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2007 09:31 PMRight Jack. Who’s your Daddy?
Btw, nice breaking of the rules for participation.
Not that you’ll get slapped or anything…
Adrienne
I am sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. I just thought the story I read in the paper seemed to fit with your statement. If you find a story that you really think fits me, please feel free to mention it.
Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2007 09:50 PMOkey-Dokey, Jack. Now this one doesn’t fit YOU exactly, but it sure as hell speaks volumes regarding the “loyalty and patriotism” of your standard GOP donor/plutocrat (and because no one else has written about it, and since I’ve no chance of ever being an editor here):
Terrorist named a National Republican Senatorial Committee “Inner Circle Member for Life” and was appointed to the NRCC’s “White House Business Advisory Committee.” The resume also says Alishtari was named the NRCC’s New York state businessman of the year in 2002 and 2003.
ILDem wrote: Adrienne and Dan I do appreciate your concern and understand both your points of view. I have in the past voted Republican at the state level. It was very hard to do but the alternative was so bad I had no choice… .
ILDem,
Thank you for that considerate response.
You’re right about most (if not all) of the Republican politicians.
They lost it. Power corrupts.
They lost it the same way the Democrats lost it in 1996. Power corrupts.
Our memories are short.
The IN-PARTY keeps losing it because they grow corrupt.
So, the IN-PARTY trades places with the OUT-PARTY.
The bad part is, they are now just taking turns, and enjoying 90%+ re-election rates.
Shouldn’t voters be holding Congress (as a whole) responsible and accountable?
Is a 90% re-election accomplishing that?
If BOTH parties keep getting their turn at being the IN-PARTY, then what is wrong?
Why are problems still being ignored?
OK, there are some differences between the two parties, but I’m still not at all sure this last election changed that much, since over 90% of the same incumbent politicians are still there.
The overall turnover was actually relatively small.
The Republicans barely had the lead from 1996 to 2006. Now, the Democrats barely have the lead.
Would anyone care to theorize why the re-election rates are so high (90% or higher) for the last decade (since 1996; see above) ?
A look at the last 60 years is interesting.
Perhaps voters should start looking at the results and accomplishments of Congress and the Executive Branch as a whole, and start holding all of them responsible, rather than letting the two-party duopoly take turns being irresponsible, as evidenced by the nation’s pressing problems that are still growing in number and severity?
Otherwise, Congress as a whole they will never develop the peer-pressure to police their own ranks, and they’ll simply continue to look the other way, and, for the most part, continue to ignore the voters. And they are doing exactly that. Especially with regard to illegal immigration.
The corruption will continue to grow as long as Congress enjoys a 90% re-election rate.
Already, I have not seen much out of this 110th Congress.
But, why should we, since 90% of the old bunch is still there?
Congress is still:
- ignoring campaign finance reform
- ignoring illegal immigration; pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other
- ignoring border security and port security; without that, Homeland Security is a bit of a joke
- ignoring plundered Social Security surpluses
- ignoring the entitlements iceberg we are sailing directly toward
- ignoring election reform
- ignoring Gerrymandering
- ignoring the $8.75 trillion National Debt
- ignoring ethics reform, corruption, graft, and government FOR-SALE
- ignoring ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL
- ignoring eminent domain abuse
- ignoring our energy vulnerability, which could be the catalyst for an economic meltdown
- ignoring excessive money printing and inflation, which will probably get worse because of massive debt, and a complete lack of fiscal discipline
- ignoring the plundered and insolvent pensions (the PBGC is over $450 billion in the hole)
- ignoring the increasingly unaffordable and unreliable healthcare system; largely due to government meddling and two unnecessary middlemen (government and insurance companies)
- ignoring common-sense, no-brainer tax reform for a ridiculously complex and abused tax system
- ignoring the damage to our environment; global warming; the U.S. is a mere 4% of the world population, but emits 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions
- nationwide debt and predatory lending practices; exacerbating a nation already swimming in massive debt (over $20 trillion of persoanl debt, nation-wide)
- ignoring the selling out of Americans; globalization, and the race to the bottom
ILDem wrote: But as the elections approach I may very well change that status depending on what achievments I see over the next 20 months or so.Me too. And I don’t care what party any politician belongs to. So far, what I’ve seen thus far, few (if any) deserve to be re-elected. Especially this bunch that want to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. That’s why, for over a year now, no one can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that:
- aren’t irresponsible
- aren’t FOR-SALE
- aren’t bought-and-paid-for
- don’t look-the-other-way
- don’t pander and peddle influence
- don’t spend most of their time trolling for big money donors rather than adequately addressing the nation’s problems
- don’t vote on pork-barrel, graft, waste, and themselves cu$hy perk$ and 8 raises between 1997 and 2006 (that’s while our troops are risking life and limb)
- and aren’t growing an already severely over-bloated government to nightmare proportions.
Joel,
This is one of the best researched articles I’ve ever read. You did good. Hells bells, you did excellent.
I would just ask that everyone check out the “Third Way” or either party, or any third party, or any independent before they buy the BS. Just know what you’re supporting.
Something I find interesting is that we actually have divisions in the Democratis party. Romney’s shift to the right on gay issues and abortion issues combined with McCain’s ass-kissing of the religious right shows me we have two ways to go: Towards Theocracy or maintaining Democracy.
We’ll see where we go from here.
Posted by: KansasDem at February 22, 2007 12:33 AMJoel, fine article, excellent data backup of your article’s conclusions, and irrefutable conclusions for those who understand the statistical data and what it means.
Simply put, my father worked as a welder for Ford and Mom stayed home with 7 kids, we had a 5 bedroom home and a car, and health insurance. All this on a welder’s wages. Today it takes two full time working adults to achieve that same level.
Your stats regarding increases of wealth over time divided by the number of years does not equal the rate of inflation. And that says it all. This steady erosion of wages through inflation and bottleneck on wage increases, is indeed hurting the middle class, none more than those who will retire in the next 45 years.
Voting Out Incumbents who push for globalization, so called “free trade” compacts, and who tout that our economy is good and going to get better, is the only way we American people are going to turn this thing around. Voting Out Republican Incumbents got the GOP’s attention last November and now they are fighting internally over how to win the people’s votes back.
We need to Vote Out Democratic Incumbents in ‘08 to cause the same reevaluation in the Democratic Party. When politicians work for the people’s vote instead of the special interests funding their campaigns, the American Middle Class will be better represented in policy.
Voting Out Incumbents is the ONLY guaranteed power granted to the American people by our Constitution to force change in government on their behalf. The people exercising that power is the greatest threat to the establishment and elites who profit from the system.
Voting incumbents back into office term after term is the hallmark signature of government’s like Saddam Hussein’s, China’s, and Nazi Germany’s. Power’s first obligation is to preserve their power. Which is another way of saying those in office are self serving by definition.
Spread the word. Voting Out Incumbents IS Democracy in action. Democracy allows the people to remove power from office without retaliation. What this country needs is a huge dose of Democracy. November was an excellent down payment on our recovering our democratic roots. Do NOT stop exercising that power in ‘08, grow it, instead!
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2007 02:25 AMAnd it is the one simple thing we were supposed to be doing all along.
Stop repeat offenders.
Stop rewarding them for it.
Adrienne
Yes. And the Chinese contributed to Bill Clinton. Everybody has unsavory donors. The donor decides if he wants to give or not. He is self selected. If a crime boss wants to give $1000 to the DLC, nobody will be able to stop him and if he is not too notorious, nobody will notice. When you find them, you deal with it.
David
You will be on the Republican side (or at least fellow traveling) this next election, since Dems are the majority of the incumbents. D.a.n. too. I hope you both will remain consistent.
Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2007 09:02 AMJack, I will be. Voting Out Incumbents is not a numbers or party game, it is a matter of competence and responsibility. I advocate voting out incumbents who are irresponsible, unethical, or incompetent in representing the interests of the nation and the voters in that order.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2007 10:10 AMd.a.n
“How is importing the less educated and impoverished helping the U.S. ?”
For one thing, it fueled our housing boom as the low payed workers bought up all the lower income housing and thereby allowing millions of Americans to move to better houses.
Second, immigrants do not need to be well educated to be doing the jobs that they are being paid to do (fruit picking, working as janitors, etc.). So I am not sure how that is an issue.
I suppose the government does not strictly need to allow more of anyone in, but it certainly helps. Higher immigration being unpopular with U.S. citizens does not make immigrants any less useful.
But coming back to the wealthy, I feel that more than anything you are just bringing this around to the government again.
The fact that the wealthy of a great deal of influence on politicians is a political problem, not an economic one.
Posted by: Zeek at February 22, 2007 11:03 AMAdrienne
I hope I did not give the impression that I was insinuating you are a mindless supporter no matter what the circumstances. I have read to many of your posts to know that you are not of that shallow breed. I to believe in taking care of the poor and middle class of this country. We are what make it work. Without us it would be nothing and the wealthy would not be so without us. It is our responsibility as a compassionate people to take care of our own first at all costs. Those who put themselves before the many and look down on the less fortunate as a disease disgust me and I will never support their self righteous ideologies.
It is the narrowing of that wall between the two parties that concerns me. I do not want a party that issues false promises and caters to large groups simply to court my vote as the republicans do. I desire a party that is genuine in their concerns and willing to pursue them. It is the corruptive influences of huge amounts of money and an almost guaranteed life of wealth beyond politics for our legislators that seems to set the agenda of legislation these days. It is these realities which seem to leave no option other than to somehow teach our legislators that we will no longer tolerate such practices. That option as I see it is the power of the vote.
I think the fact that you vote your concience says it all. If more people did that our legislature and executive branch would be a much more respectable bunch simply because they would have to do the right thing to retain their jobs.
Posted by: ILdem at February 22, 2007 11:20 AMJack, OMG, I just realized I erroneously agreed that I would be on Republicans side in ‘08. Wrong!#(* My error. I apologize. I didn’t read your comment correctly.
I can never be on Republicans or Democrats side ever again. As parties, I despise them both for the havoc they wreak on our nation and our people by putting reelection and party first, careers second, perks third, lobbyists and campaign donors fourth, and the nation and the people last.
I am not above voting for a Republican or Democrat, but, NOT because they are one. If I vote for one, it is because of the person and the plan they bring to the table to solve national problems.
I am currently represented by 3 Republicans in the House and Senate. I cannot vote for anyone of them. Not because they are Republican, but, because of their handling of their roles and votes on the issues. They are Sen. KB Hutchison, John Cornyn, and Rep. Lamar Smith.
I don’t agree with their Iraq policies, their trickle down theory adherence, their foreign policy positions, their views on education, state’s rights, court nominations, election reform, campaign finance reform, or ethics reform. And of course I have been appalled at their dismal failure toward fiscal responsibility.
I do agree with their policy on Border Security.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2007 11:41 AMDan
I can not disagree in anyway with your logic. It is loud, clear consice and quite obviously correct. At this juncture I am keeping an open mind. I do believe I have to give this current legislature the chance to show they have some balls and decency about them. Time will tell.
Posted by: ILdem at February 22, 2007 01:07 PMZeek wrote:Zeek, the net losses to U.S. taxpayers are over $70 billion per year.d.a.n wrote: “How is importing the less educated and impoverished helping the U.S. ?”For one thing, it fueled our housing boom as the low payed workers bought up all the lower income housing and thereby allowing millions of Americans to move to better houses.
That is after accounting for the value of their labor, and about half that pay income taxes. After that, the losses are over $70 billion per year.
Move to better houses?
That’s debatable.
Crediting that to illegal immigration is a stretch.
Especially since most Americans don’t own those homes.
Instead, they are deep in debt up to their eyeballs.
The nation is swimming in massive debt like never before.
Nation-wide personal debt is over $20 trillion.
The federal government has set a fine example with over $22 trillion of total federal debt.
Over $42 trillion of nation-wide debt is not a trivial matter.
Along with the demographic issues, the approaching trainwreck of 77 million aging, soon-to-retire baby boomers, the nation-wide debt, growing global competition, corpocrisy and corporatism, government FOR SALE, energy vulnerabilites, looming shortages in the massive Social Security and Medicare systems, and massive, out-of-control illegal immigration, an economic meltdown in the not so distant future is not at all far fetched.
Zeek wrote: Second, immigrants do not need to be well educated to be doing the jobs that they are being paid to do (fruit picking, working as janitors, etc.). So I am not sure how that is an issue.The issue is that illegal aliens are not a net benefit to the nation. Illegal aliens are costing U.S. taxpayers net losses of over $70 billion per year. And that does not even include the untold cost of crime, 2.3 million displaced American workers, and unemployment benefits to displaced workers.
Zeek,
The flaw in your conclusions is that you believe illegal aliens benefit the nation.
They aren’t.
They cost U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to:
- hospitals
- burdens on our schools and eduation systems
- burdens on our law enforcement systems
- burdens on our prisons (29% of all incarcerated in the nation are illegal aliens)
- burdens on Medicaid
- burdens on our welfare systems (32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare)
- burdens on the border patrol/security
- burdens on our hospitals and ERs (84 overrun hospitals have closed in California)
- burdens on our insurance systems
- unemployment due to 2.3 million displaced American workers
- voting fraud
Losses in California alone are over $10 billion of that $70 billion.
Border states are being overrun.
- 95% of all warrants for homicide in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
- Six-month figures (in 12/31/2002) revealed a 3.3% increase in violent crime in California, including a 16% rise in homicides, over the same span in 2001.
- In 2001, 87% of deportable aliens who received run letters later disappeared; a number that was even higher (94%) for illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring countries.
- John Mullaly a former NYPD homicide detective, states 70% of the drug dealers and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights are were illegal aliens.
- In 2004, an average of 2,000 illegal aliens stream across our borders daily. One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”
- 3.6 people are murdered each day by an illegal alien
- The nation’s highways have become far more dangerous since they have been turned into smuggling thruways for criminals. 19-year-old Travis Smith of Mesa, Arizona, was killed in 2002 by a carload of illegal aliens being smuggled to Pennsylvania. The accident occurred near Monticello in southeastern Utah, as the car driven by illegal alien smuggler Isidro Aranda-Flores plowed head-on into Smith’s 1966 Mustang. The smuggler apparently fell asleep at the wheel.
- PHOENIX: Television and radio stations began running ads in the Valley last week, paid for by the Coalition United to Secure America, attributing the 45% increase in homicides and 41% increase in home invasions to illegal aliens. Phoenix Police Department reports confirm those figures and Sgt. Tony Morales believes there is no doubt that the statistics are tied to illegal aliens.
- 67% of 17,000 fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens
- According to statistics by the Salt Lake City Police Department (and verified by an independent study), 80% of all drug crimes in the City are committed by illegal aliens. In Salt Lake County, the equivalent number is 50%. That’s why Congressman Cannon is on the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He is working to insure that interior states, like Utah, are not overlooked in the war on illegal immigration.
Zeek wrote: I suppose the government does not strictly need to allow more of anyone in, but it certainly helps.How does it help? How does massive immigration (legal or not) of the less educated and impoverished help ? Do you have and facts to support that conclusion? There are numerous studies to show that the net losses far outweigh any benefits (over $70 billion per year). Try to find some evidence that illegal aliens are helping. Moderate, controlled immigration might be OK, but not massive immigration (legal or not), because it creates chaos, burdens on social services, education systems, healthcare systems, law enforcement, welfare systems, it creates resentments, creates net losses to U.S. tax payers, and creates societal disorder. History proves it.
And wanting to grow the population ever larger, as if we were in some sort of population race, makes no sense.
Just ask China and India about it.
Ask them how wonderful over-population is.
Zeek wrote: Higher immigration being unpopular with U.S. citizens does not make immigrants any less useful.Useful for what? An under-paid, under-class to abuse? Cheap labor for Republicans? More votes for Democrats? Importing the less educated and impoverished makes no sense by any measure. That is, unless you want votes and cheap labor via illegally employment of illegal aliens.
Zeek wrote: But coming back to the wealthy, I feel that more than anything you are just bringing this around to the government again. The fact that the wealthy of a great deal of influence on politicians is a political problem, not an economic one.It is BOTH. Government is FOR-SALE. 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002) came from a mere 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters. That is an abuse of wealth. Bought-and-paid-politicians that pander and peddle infuence is an abuse of power. And BOTH of those things are sabotaging the economy.
Zeek wrote: I suppose the government does not strictly need to allow more of anyone in, but it certainly helps.Zeek, Have you really seriously studied this? How can it help when costs far outweigh the benefits? You can pick a lot of lettuce for the $70 billion per year of net losses to U.S. tax payers. BTW, I use a very conservative number of $70 billion per year. Some estimate it to be over $130-to-$200 billion per year.
ILDem wrote: At this juncture I am keeping an open mind.That’s good. Me too. Really. Some don’t believe that, but it’s true. It wasn’t always. I used to be a blind party loyalist. But, this last election, I voted for some Democrats (the first time ever), some Independents, some Libertarians, and one Republican for a local office, who was running unopposed anyway. None were incumbents. I couldn’t vote for any incumbents, because all of them were irresponsible, ignored the voters, and refused to enforce existing laws. The were all fiscally irresponsible.
What voters need to try to do, which is easier these days than ever before, is to look at the politician’s voting records (e.g. visit ontheissues.org and click on your state). Who would have thought Sen. John McCain would vote with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, etc. to allow illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits ?
Too many voters don’t even know how THEIR politicians vote.
If they did, they may vote a lot differently.
One thing is for certain.
Corrupt politicians will grow more corrupt as long as voters keep rewarding the for it.
Jack wrote: You will be on the Republican side (or at least fellow traveling) this next election, since Dems are the majority of the incumbents. d.a.n. too. I hope you both will remain consistent.Jack, I won’t be on the side of any party. I’ll be looking at each politicians voting records. So far, I’m not impressed. I still can’t list 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of the 535) incumbent politicians in Congress) that are responsible, don’t look the other way, don’t vote on pork-barrel, don’t fuel the petty partisan warfare, don’t troll for money, aren’t bought-and-paid-for, and truly embrace many badly-needed, common-sense reforms.
That’s pretty sad.
But why should they be responsible when voters keep rewarding them for being irresponsible?
Jack,
Since your genius MBA has made the economy so perfect, how about explaining to us morons how exactly he did that? I’m always a little amazed when a president causes an economy to do anything, given his lack of fiscal powers.
I would also like an explaination of Iraq and this genius, but since I don’t want to derail an economic post we’ll stick to this bit of magic.
Briefs are the whole of witless wedgies.
Posted by: gergle at February 22, 2007 09:23 PMCORRECTION: Maybe so, it if you you’re trying to be witty.
Jack, I was responding to three different persons. OK, I’m long winded, but thorough. : )
So, you got an MBA Jack?
Can you answer a few simple questions?
- (1)What is going to happen when we finally hit the entitlements iceberg we’re sailing towards?
- (2)If entitlements are bad, why did Bush and Congress create another huge entitlements system (i.e. the Medicare Prescription Drug plan)?
- (3)What would this economy look like without the massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money printing (i.e. inflation over 1% is excessive) of the last 6 years?
Joel:
I actually read most of the document you are writing about. It’s very balanced. It talks about the myths of the left and the right. This increases the credibility of the document. I think you are wrong in the way you deal with this paper. You have not mentioned it’s recommendations, or it’s view of the future.
I would encourage you to read the document for yourself, and not rely on the predictable left or right charactorization.
It’s thoughtful and provoking. And it’s optimistic about our countries future.
In a nutshell, both the left and the right have myth’s about the current economy. (fair enough). And there are new rules for this economy.
Old Rules
1. Success required a high
school diploma
2. “Good” jobs were in factories
3. Climbing the ladder meant
rising up the ranks within a
single company
4. The American dream meant
owning a home
5. Wealth was managed on
behalf of workers
6. Most mothers expected to
stay home
7. A family raised its children
8. Successful companies built
9. Competition was limited
New Rules
1. Success requires a college
degree
2. “Good” jobs are in offices
3. Climbing the ladder means
chasing opportunities with
multiple employers
4. The American Dream means
owning a home and a stock
portfolio
5. Workers need to manage their
wealth
6. Most mothers expect to work
7. A family now raises children
and cares for parents
8. Successful companies create
9. Competition is fierce
These conclusions do not look like they should be slammed to me. Rather debated.
I also think you have failed to look at “third-ways” concerns with the right. If I had relied on your article and not read the document for myself, I would have thought the paper was put out by the republican party. I think you should deal with the criticism this group has for the right. It’s pretty good.
All in all, I would ecourage others to actually read the document. It’s pretty good!! Very balanced.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2007 12:40 AMCraig, what an elitist downlooking list of new rules.
1)Given that the majority of Americans are NOT college graduate material for various reasons, WHY should success depend on a college education? That is elitist rightist corporate values - and not healthy for our nation’s future.
2)Good jobs overseas run the gamut from street vendor to corporate office with a great deal of industrial and manufacturing jobs in between. Why do you insist that America is not capable of becoming competitive with the rest of the world and leading the rest of the world to compete on a fair basis with the U.S.? More elitist ideology that underlies the transfer of good American jobs overseas.
4) The American dream, is far, far more than your narrow vision of a home and stock portfolio. Money is only a small part of the American Dream established in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Your values reflected here are so short sighted and shallow. My American Dream doesn’t include a stock portfolio at all. For many Americans, the dream is to serve usefully, and productively their own skills and talents, their families, and their fellow human beings. Charity is a huge part of the American Dream, the giving of it, not receiving, and the greatest charity is not money usually given as part of a business plan and tax deducted and yielded up from largesse one can easily afford.
5) Workers need to manage their wealth? My Buddha but what planet are you from. Half of American workers or more have no wealth, if wealth is defined as discretionary excess assets not needed for survival.
6) Most mothers NEED to work to provide a middle class opportunity to their children.
7) A middle class family trying to raise children will soon be unable to afford to assist their parents if Congress does not secure the future of the safety nets for retirees.
8) Successful companies create WHAT? Many things actually, like pollution, monopolistic and oligopolistic practices, tax evasive lobbyists and strategies, diminished earning capacity for workers, and obstacles to their responsibility to take a long view competitive position in this shrinking global economy, in addition to jobs, sky high compensation for a few, and constant interference with democratic representation of the American people. 350 billion dollars that should be collected in taxes this year won’t be. Corporations are a very large percentage of that evasion. Very large, according to our own federal government and IRS.
9) Competition is indeed fierce, between workers and management, between voters and politicians, between the future needs and present wants and desires of most less than wealthy people. And November’s election marked the beginning of all these becoming much fiercer.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2007 03:51 AMThe main point is, the nation is in decline.
- Home ownership? More like massive debt. Who owns who? Americans are becoming slaves to their debt. How many Americans truly own their homes?
- Government is FOR-SALE, giving rise to corpocrisy and corporatism.
- Even Jack knows we’re sailing toward an entitlements and demographic iceberg, with 77 million baby boomers, ill-prepared for retirement, are becoming eligible for beneifts at a rate of several thousand per day.
- Those wanting to use immigration to solve that by importing millions of less educated and impoverished are crazy, and treat the population growth as if it is some sort of population race, without any regard for the negative aspects of over-population (just look at China and India).
- Globaliszation is more like global pillage, as corporations flee from one place to another, guaranteeing cheap labor somewhere always exists.
- A severely over-bloated government continues to grow to nightmare proportions; more people now work in government than all manufacturing in the U.S.
- Government refuses to enforce existing immigration laws and chooses pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other.
- Household incomes have fallen, since there are more workers per household.
- That is why the nation’s problems are growing worse in number and severity.
This current luke-warm economy exists only because it is being propped up by massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money-printing.
But, other than that, everything is “very good”.
It is amazing how the warning signs are being ignored or downplayed.
And if you try to talk about it, you are labeled a doomsdayish, alarmist, pessimistic chick-little.
All the signs say that the past 30+ years of massive fiscal and moral irresponsibility are catching up with us.
All the signs show we are on the wrong path.
Even the polls reflect that too.
All the signs show that we should be more concerned.
Yet, slumbering voters and corrupt politicians are too busy and uncaring to notice.
That lack of concern, all by itself, is also ample reason for concern.
That apathy, complacency, and sense of futility, itself, is a recipe for growing corruption.
Yet, few are sufficiently concerned, as evidenced by their continual complaining of a corrupt Congress and Executive Branch, but mindlessly rewarding them for it with 90% re-election rates.
A few cherry-picked facts do not explain away the decline evidenced by the growing list of worsening economic factors, nation-wide debt, falling incomes, corruption, deception, unnecessary wars, alienation of the U.S. worldwide, energy vulnerabilities, corpocrisy, corporatism, and government FOR-SALE.
David:
1)Given that the majority of Americans are NOT college graduate material for various reasons, WHY should success depend on a college education? That is elitist rightist corporate values - and not healthy for our nation’s future.
This is factually incorrect. The majority of Americans are capable of a college degree. 90% earn high school dipomas up from 40% in about 1960. A doubling of the hs graduation rate has occured in our lifetime.
This third way material is factually correct for the middle class for the future. I would encourage you to read it.
High School only graduates are going to only fall farther and farther behind throughout this century.
The income gap that is often talked about is actually and education gap. Although there are always exceptions, when you look at the large numbers, it is very obvious that college education is a big determiner as to which side of the median income a family falls on.
The only true way to narrow the wage gap is for you to be wrong. Education and job skill training are the only true way to lift the working poor.
In the future, third-way is right, one ticket of admission to the middle class is a college education.
Craig
Education is important.
But public education is declining in quality while rising in cost.
Many students are not adequately prepared for college.
As a result, that set lower goals, and many get degrees that are not very useful.
And it is interesting that those trying to paint a rosy picture don’t want to answer a few simple questions:
- (1)What would this economy look like without the massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money printing (i.e. inflation over 1% is excessive) of the last 6 years?
- (2)What is going to happen when we finally hit the entitlements iceberg we are sailing towards?
- (3)If entitlements are bad, why did Bush and Congress create another huge entitlements system (i.e. the Medicare Prescription Drug plan)?
Especially when Social Security is already $12.8 trillion in debt, and Medicare has hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the next year, the National Debt is over $8.7 trillion, the PBGC is over $450 billion in the hole, etc. ?
Dan:
I’m not sure what measure you are using with regard to education declining. Americans as a whole are much better educated than they were 50 years ago. Fifty years ago the graduation rate was what 40%? Now it’s up to 80-90%.
It is true that todays graduate may not on average know as much as they did in years past, but that is because the lower half of the grading curve tends to stay in school and graduate.
Today students with low aptitudes stay in school which brings down the aptitude scores.
Sometimes I hear people say, we should go back to the 1940’s in education. Wow could we make SAT scores go up if we did that. We certainly could. Only about 25% of kids took SAT test then. It was only for the elite who went to college.
While I agree with you by some measures that education is struggling, by others we lead the world. (Lower end kids staying in school). In many foreign countries this students are sent to a trade school in middle school and are done!!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2007 07:28 PMDavid:
Successful companies create WHAT?
For starters the key board you are typing on, and the computer you are using.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2007 07:29 PMCraig, oh, you mean Chinese & Japanese Companies. I thought you were talking about America. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2007 07:32 PMCraig, no My statement is VERY FACTUALLY correct. I did not say they weren’t capable intellectually of acquiring a college education, I said for various reasons they are NOT college graduate material.
Those reasons vary from pregnancy to lack of self discipline, to lack of money to afford it and peer group pressures.
The reason my statement is FACTUALLY correct is because a Majority of Americans DON’T have a college degree. And the drop out rate for those entering college is growing, not declining.
Read what is said, not what you wish the words would say.
And look at the types of degrees.
We are falling behind in science and engineering.
Craig Holmes,
Who cares how we compare to ourselves 40 years ago?
That’s not really the impotant issue, but just another clever way to obscure the facts, cloud the issues, avoid the tough questions, and portray things as rosier than reality.
You have to look at the big picture.
A few cherry picked stats don’t prove anything.
There is substantial evidence of the declining quality and increasing cost of education in the U.S., and it is not helping to prepare students for college.
- On an international test, American 15-year-olds in lower third!
- Among 29 industrialized countries, the U.S. scored below 20 nations in math.
We need to measure ourselves by other industrialized nations, and by that measure, we are N_O_T doing good at all.
Also, importing the less educated and impoverished by the millions isn’t helping that.
But all those pro-population growth advocates ignore that, along with the $70 billion per year in net losses to U.S. tax payers.
There are twenty industialized nations doing better at education than the U.S.
Among them are:
- (01) Hong Kong-China: Score: 550 (highest)
- (02) Finland: Score: 544
- (03) Korea: Score: 542
- (04) Netherlands: Score: 538
- (05) Liechtenstein: Score: 536
- (06) Japan: Score: 534
- (07) Canada: Score: 532
- (08) Belgium: Score: 529
- (09) Macao-China: Score: 527
- (10) Switzerland: Score: 527
- (11) New Zealand: Score: 523
- (12) Australia: Score: 524
- (13) Czech Republic: Score: 516
- (14) Iceland: Score: 515
- (15) Denmark: Score: 514
- (16) France: Score: 511
- (17) Sweden: Score: 509
- (18) Austria: Score: 506
- (19) Germany: Score: 503
- (20) Ireland: Score: 503
- (21) Slovak Republic: Score: 498
- (22) Norway: Score: 495
- (23) Luxembourg: Score: 493
- (24) Poland: Score: 490
- (25) Hungary: Score: 490
- (26) Spain: Score: 485
- (27) Latvia: Score: 483
- (28) UNITED STATES: Score: 483
- (29) Russian Federation: Score: 468
- (30) Portugal: Score: 466
- (31) Italy: Score: 466
- (32) Greece: Score: 445
- (33) Serbia and Montenegro: Score: 437
- (34) Turkey: Score: 423
- (35) Uruguay: Score: 422
- (36) Thailand: Score: 417
- (37) Mexico: Score: 385
- (38) Indonesia: Score: 360
- (39) Tunisia: Score: 359
But other than that, and all these other pressing problems that supposedly don’t really exist, and do-nothing Congress is supposedly working hard to address, everything is “very good”.
Again, what would this luke-warm economy look like without the massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money printing (i.e. inflation over 1% is excessive) of the last 6 years?
Especially with the approaching demographic and entitlements train-wreck?
The nation is swimming in debt.
The severely over-bloated government is FOR-SALE.
The slumbering voters are equally irresponsible.
It’s not a pretty picture, and I have trouble seeing how anyone can paint a rosy picture of the big picture.
Dan:
Let me remind you of what you said:
Given that the majority of Americans are NOT college graduate material for various reasons
Then:
The reason my statement is FACTUALLY correct is because a Majority of Americans DON’T have a college degree.
I now understand that the misunderstanding is the words “graduate material”.
Any student that has a high school diploma is college graduate “material” meaning they have the raw material to achieve a college degree.
I understand that you mean they might have various issues that could slow down their progress. I still believe a college degree is achievable for a majority of americans.
I also saw where you said “Read what it says”. I would encourage you to read the document we are discussing in this post. It’s very balanced.
Craig
Dan:
I want you to think very very carefully about something.
If we were to compare statistic like what you are showing from say the 1960’s they would show the same thing.
Actually the big scare then was from the Soviet Union.
I want you to compare the list you provided to the list of Nobel Prizes at
www.nobelprize.org
The vast majority of nobel prizes have gone the americans for decades even though foreigners have kicked our kids behinds in secondary test scores for decades.
That was point one.
Second point is new inventions. Who created the Internet? Where is the technology boom located? USA!!! Who leads the world in technolgy?
Point three:
Doomsdayers in Education have been wrong for a long time:
Look at this quote from “A nation at risk”:
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.
Of course our the exact opposite happened. This was written in 1983. The 1990’s were the greatest tech boom in world history led by the USA.
Remember they were worried about statistics just like yours. (That’s why they thought we were at risk!!).
1960’s scare was Russia.
1980’s scare was Japan
2000’s scare is China.
Key question:
Since the numbers you show has been true for decades how do you explain our robust economy, our leading the world in nobel prizes, and our leading the world in the tech boom of the 1990’s?
Craig
Dan:
It’s real important to understand that Americanism is a unique culture (for better or worse) in the world.
Here is another question to add to the puzzle.
Why is the average age at a community college about 30?
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 24, 2007 01:17 AMCraig Holmes wrote: d.a.n: Let me remind you of what you said:Given that the majority of Americans are NOT college graduate material for various reasons
Craig,
I didn’t write that.
Someone else did.
Craig Holmes wrote: Any student that has a high school diploma is college graduate “material” meaning they have the raw material to achieve a college degree.I agree with that statement. I was never arguing that point at all. The issue is that they are ill prepared, because of the declining quality of public eduacation.
Craig Holmes wrote: I understand that you mean they might have various issues that could slow down their progress. I still believe a college degree is achievable for a majority of americans.
Craig Holmes wrote: I also saw where you said “Read what it says”.Craig, I never wrote that.
Craig Holmes wrote: d.a.n: I want you to think very very carefully about something. If we were to compare statistic like what you are showing from say the 1960’s they would show the same thing. Actually the big scare then was from the Soviet Union.What statistic are you talking about? The math scores from above? Please show me where the U.S. was that far down on the list in math scores 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago (compared to other nations).
Craig Holmes wrote: I want you to compare the list you provided to the list of Nobel Prizes at www.nobelprize.orgI’m not sure Nobel Prizes is apples to apples. Nobel prizes are a extremely small number of persons. That doesn’t really tell much.
Craig Holmes wrote: The vast majority of nobel prizes have gone the americans for decades even though foreigners have kicked our kids behinds in secondary test scores for decades. That was point one.Not like now, with 27 nations scoring better than the U.S. That point is not convincing at all.
Craig Holmes wrote: Second point is new inventions. Who created the Internet? Where is the technology boom located? USA!!! Who leads the world in technolgy?That is slipping away quickly. Also, I’m not at all certain the U.S. leads in technology anymore. That point is not convincing either.
Craig Holmes wrote: Point three: Doomsdayers in Education have been wrong for a long time: Look at this quote from “A nation at risk” … Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. Of course our the exact opposite happened. This was written in 1983. The 1990’s were the greatest tech boom in world history led by the USA.Just because they were wrong before doesn’t mean the warning are wrong now. They didn’t have some of the numerous problems we nave now. The 1990’s was largely irrational exuberance, and many lost a lot when that bubble burst. That is not a convincing point either.
Craig Holmes wrote: Remember they were worried about statistics just like yours. (That’s why they thought we were at risk!!).There were at risk. The past is strewn with bad times because of it. Wars, depressions, etc.
Craig Holmes wrote:
Key question:
Since the numbers you show has been true for decades …
First, that’s not true.
The numbers have not been true for decades.
Many things are worse now than other times.
Craig Holmes wrote: … how do you explain our robust economy,This economy is not robust. It is luke-warm. And it is being propped up with massive debt, borrowing, wasteful spending, and excessive money-printing.
Sorry, but your points are very weak and you still refused to answer my questions.
Why is the average age at a community college about 30?I’m not sure. Some may have got a late start. Some may be career students. It may be taking a long time for some due to lack of funding to go full time. Perhaps they got a late start because they were inadequately prepared by our public education systems, and had to take a lot of remedial courses. I suppose there are many reasons, but I would not call any of them good reasons. That only good thing is that late is better than never. I’m not sure what your point is.
Have you been to a graduation lately?