"Are you better off than you were four eight years ago?"

[Edited on September 3, 2006 at 4:47 AM. Reason : .]

9/3/2006 4:46:49 AM

Isn't it a bit early for that question? 8 years ago was 1998 and Clinton had 2 more years left to wreck the economy.

9/3/2006 8:54:30 AM

Poor Bush. Poor Republicans. If only they would go back to that whole less government, lower taxes within reason, and only invading countries with super-overwelming force everything would be great.

9/3/2006 11:01:13 AM

^

9/3/2006 11:59:06 AM

^^ DITTO

9/3/2006 12:44:17 PM

I too am a pussy ass liberal

9/3/2006 12:46:15 PM

i thought people feared socialism and communism? why do you fear pussy asses?

9/3/2006 12:51:37 PM

Bush is the worst leader in the history of the planet

9/3/2006 12:52:49 PM

we need to take a page from the man at the top of this thread and take the fight to the liberal socialists and those who wish to harm us (no longer the soviets, now the islamic facists).

9/3/2006 12:59:19 PM

no i think that was Pol Pot.

sorry dude

9/3/2006 12:59:22 PM

I enjoy bashing Bush and the fact that he is the dumbest President in American history

9/3/2006 1:00:25 PM

i dont like sarcasm, so ill tell the truth

bush is better than the last 3 democratic presidents for certain

9/3/2006 1:01:18 PM

well randy...every war has protestors...its just good that shortsighted protestors dont run the country

9/3/2006 1:02:54 PM

its a good thing Jews run the country because you guys would fuck it up.

9/3/2006 1:06:50 PM

thanks for the tip salisburyboy

9/3/2006 1:08:32 PM

oh i thought i was an evil liberal?

and I like Jewish people alot and im glad they run things.

9/3/2006 1:10:58 PM

who runs things? the 5 bankers? a bunch of 33rd degree masonic illuminati?

9/3/2006 1:12:06 PM

naw just wishfull thinking

9/3/2006 1:20:07 PM

wishful*

looks like you were selective in what you learned in middle school

9/3/2006 1:21:34 PM

spelling is for women and gays

[Edited on September 3, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : and communists]

9/3/2006 1:24:05 PM

and people who want to be taken more seriously when they discuss politics and other issues

9/3/2006 1:27:19 PM

eh im not really trying to be taken seriously in this thread

9/3/2006 1:34:31 PM

this coming from the guy with the status name "i'm with faggot"

9/3/2006 1:34:53 PM

^I'm With Faggot

9/3/2006 1:35:34 PM

Quote :

"we need to take a page from the man at the top of this thread and take the fight to the liberal socialists and those who wish to harm us (no longer the soviets, now the islamic facists)."

While at the same time, fully supporting the islamic facists who blew up the WTC and other dictators and tyrants worldwide. WHAT A GREAT MAN AND LEADER. SO NOBLE.

9/3/2006 1:59:05 PM

^what in the world is that supposed to mean?

9/3/2006 3:23:20 PM

all i know is i'm not better off...

9/3/2006 3:26:00 PM

Mistakes were made.

9/3/2006 3:26:06 PM

Quote :

"If only they would go back to that whole less government, lower taxes within reason, and only invading countries with super-overwelming force everything would be great."

concur on everything but the last point, and have to say "it depends" about that one.

Quote :

"we need to take a page from the man at the top of this thread and take the fight to the liberal socialists and those who wish to harm us (no longer the soviets, now the islamic facists)."

who cares about liberal socialists, as long as they're in another country?

Quote :

"no i think that was Pol Pot. sorry dude"

yeah, definitely on the short list of the worst.

Quote :

"bush is better than the last 3 democratic presidents for certain"

Clinton was pretty decent, for a Democrat.

Quote :

"While at the same time, fully supporting the islamic facists who blew up the WTC and other dictators and tyrants worldwide. WHAT A GREAT MAN AND LEADER. SO NOBLE."

Well, there's the greatest oversimplification of the day.

Quote :

"Mistakes were made."

Concur.

9/3/2006 3:55:08 PM

Quote :

"who cares about liberal socialists, as long as they're in another country?"

theyre the frontrunners for the democrat's presidential nomination

9/3/2006 4:22:23 PM

randyboy

9/3/2006 5:13:22 PM

Quote :

"Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and DAVID LEONHARDT With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers. That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years. The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period. As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

9/3/2006 5:49:20 PM

this is why the conservative movement is over

9/3/2006 6:17:39 PM

Josh may be right, this fact may kill the republican movement, but this economic reality has nothing to do with government policy during this time. It is an economic imbalance like any other and just takes time to work its way through the system.

It may take a decade, but it will happen eventually regardless of who is in office.

That said, you are exagerating the problem. You cannot just look at wage data, you must look at total compensation, which shows a rather respectable increase in real hourly wages over the last several years.

9/3/2006 6:46:39 PM

Ok. I'll eliminate the pix that are a visual representation of what's happening, and post statistics and information

[Edited on September 3, 2006 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2006 6:57:34 PM

And what again is wrong with liberal socialists other than you don't agree with them?

9/3/2006 6:58:32 PM

goddamit pryderi, stop making us look so foolish. keep that weak game out.

the only reasons reagan "ran away" w/ that debate:

1. "kill the bastards" appeals to most american knuckleheads as sound foreign policy
2. he's an actor, A-DUH!

[Edited on September 3, 2006 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2006 7:03:42 PM

Quote :

"Josh may be right, this fact may kill the republican movement, but this economic reality has nothing to do with government policy during this time. It is an economic imbalance like any other and just takes time to work its way through the system."

That's good to know. So increasing the income tax burden on corporations won't make a difference.

9/3/2006 7:04:17 PM

Quote :

"Josh may be right"

Hell, frozen yet?

9/3/2006 7:14:12 PM

^^ No because it will not correct the imbalance, in fact I would go so far as to say raising taxes on corporations would pro-long the imbalance.

9/3/2006 7:50:45 PM

^^lol, first thing i thought of too

9/3/2006 10:27:55 PM

Quote :

"^^ No because it will not correct the imbalance, in fact I would go so far as to say raising taxes on corporations would pro-long the imbalance."

You were the one that said government policy has nothing to do with economics.

Quote :

"Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, according to the article by Greenhouse and Leonhardt. In the first quarter of 2006, wages and salaries represented 45 percent of gross domestic product, down from almost 50 percent in the first quarter of 2001. To buttress the point, Greenhouse and Leonhardt quoted Goldman Sachs economists who wrote, “The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor’s share of national income.” The redistribution of wealth from the middle class is further demonstrated by other numbers quoted by Greenhouse and Leonhardt. In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners, which includes many CEOs, received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and 6 percent three decades ago. Inflation has outpaced pay increases even for workers in the 90th percentile — those earning about $80,000 a year — over the past three years."

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060903/OPINION01/60901106/1194

Why should workers make up the corporations' portion of the tax burden, when corporations are the ones making record profits?

9/4/2006 12:56:15 AM

No, I said "this economic reality has nothing to do with government policy," attempting to imply it was not caused by government policy, well, not specifically anyway. Ok it is entirely due to government policy, just not the intended consequence... I'll try to explain.

I'm sorry to try and say this, but you are making an error of reasoning. First, there are only so many places the nation's GDP can go, it is either claimed as profits or it is claimed as wages/salaries. Therefore, any economic imbalance that drives profits higher than historical averages will, by definition, decrease the worker's share of GDP.

Now, this "share" is usually fairly stable and moderate, fluctuating around 10% of GDP (below during recessions, above during expansions). This profit component is the reward earned by business for making the needed adjustments in the economy (without this reward the adjustments would not take place). It is not planned, no one woke up in 2001 and decided it should be increased to 15%, it was a market decision given the current level of pricing power found in the nation's markets. As such, during periods of heavy dislocation these rewards become much larger as businesses start new product lines, find foreign markets, and recycle capital from unproductive tasks to productive ones.

Therefore, the current profit ratio is very large because the latest expansion has been combined with numerous confounding factors: technological productivity growth, globalization, and domestic deregulation. All of these confounding factors have the effect of inflicting dramatic dislocation on the nations economy as businesses race to take advantage of their new situations, momentarily finding themselves with pricing power.

Now, the reason I say this is temporary is because the economy has to settle down eventually, the current rate of change is unsustainable. Eventually China will finish industrializing; eventually we will run out of productive places to put computers; eventually WiMax will put the existing communications industry in its place; it just might take decades.

Now, how much of this is due to government policy? Not all of it, just most of it, and not how you think. For example, China's industrialization could have no impact if our government prevented Trade with China. The current technological boom could not be taking place if regulation froze the labor markets by making it difficult to hire/fire/transfer personnel. The current telecommunication wars (among other battles) could not be taking place if competition was not being allowed. Etc.

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/4/2006 9:53:30 AM