Calling out sh76

As a first pass I checked out the census bureau's income inequality data. They report the income level of the 20th percentile and the 80th percentile which I figured formed a decent band for middle class. Here are the growth rates in income.

1980-1988:
20th percentile: 7%
80th percentile: 13%

1992-2000:
20th percentile 17.2%
80th percentile 18.3%

It would appear from these figures that the middle class did better in the 90's than in the 80's.
This is consistent with the general story I read all the time. The 90's were a time of strong economic growth and, under clinton mote redistribution to the middle and lower class. The 80's had decent growth though not as marked and tax reforms which favored the rich made those gains partiularly strong among the upper class.

Note that unlike the author I am assigning neither credit nor blame to either President for the extent of growth during their tenure nor to the changes in income inequality. This is about fact checking the article, and frankly at a first pass it seems to be little more than a partisan revision of economic history.

Given the source, I was curious about the obvious slant onthe article. After all it was pit out by a bipartisan committee (though only the republican members signed onto this article). I noticed right away that it was written in 1995, in the middle of Clinton's tenure. That may explain why their figures differ so much. I'll have to check. In fact that is the case. They are only using 1992-1994 data. The rest is just what the CBO projected in 1994 would happen. Basically they statements about the data are totally wrong.

there does seem to be a general sense that the "middle class" has seen a slippage in living standards.

But I don't think it's really about material living standards. Let's just say that in 1990, whodey wouldn't have been able to play chess on the internet and get into long arguments in a Forum with someone living in Indonesia. There are so many things that exist today that weren't around 20 years ago. So on a GDP basis, living standards have clearly risen greatly. But even when the economy was strong in the mid-2000's, I still got the sense that lots of Americans were very unhappy about things.

I think the issue might be more about economic security. Jobs and careers seem so much more in flux today. Unions have disintegrated in almost all non-public industries. The old pensions have been replaced by 401(k)s. You hear about so many jobs moving overseas, and all the new technologies have caused other jobs to vaporize completely. New jobs are being created, but they require a totally different set of skills.

And then there are the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and education. And many people are already maxxed out on their credit cards, and now see that their homes are now only worth half their previous value. So lots of people are now wondering how they're going to pay for it all. If they look to government for possible answers, all they see is lots of corruption, debt, and name-calling.

But there aren't any easy answers for any of this. A good first step might be for everyone in politics to just admit this.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
there does seem to be a general sense that the "middle class" has seen a slippage in living standards.

But I don't think it's really about material living standards. Let's just say that in 1990, whodey wouldn't have been able to play chess on the internet and get into long arguments in a Forum with someone living in Indonesia. There are so many things r any of this. A good first step might be for everyone in politics to just admit this.

Well we should caveat all this by recognizing that these last couple years have been exceptionally bad. Naturally most people are going to feel nostalgic when going through the worst recession since the 30's.

The more I looked at that article though the more convinced I became that it was a partisan hack peice (not blaming whodey on that since it would at first seem to come from a credible source). Once you realize that the joint economic committee is dominated by the majority party ( Republicans at that time), that only the Republican members signed it, and that 80% of their Clinton data was projections, it all makes a lot of sense.

Getting back to what you were saying though, it's interesting that when I think of the globalization of the labor market I think of most of it occurring under Clinton. I take that as further evidence that Clinton was a lot more conservative (at least economically) than that article gave him credit for.

Originally posted by telerion
Well we should caveat all this by recognizing that these last couple years have been exceptionally bad. Naturally most people are going to feel nostalgic when going through the worst recession since the 30's.

The more I looked at that article though the more convinced I became that it was a partisan hack peice (not blaming whodey on that since it woul ton was a lot more conservative (at least economically) than that article gave him credit for.

regarding whodey's post -- http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/taxpol.htm

without even doing any fact-checking, there are certain things that make it very likely that it is some sort of a hack piece.

1. it claims Clinton tried to "nationalize" healthcare. The word "nationalize" is one of those scary terms like "socialism". Whenever I see it, I know someone's not being on the level unless they're discussing Stalin.

2. It decries Clinton's original plan that proposed hundreds of billions of dollars of new debt. As Telerion stated earlier, it's silly to declare something harmful when it was never even enacted.

3. It mentions that W's federal budget grew by a "whopping" 104%. I hate that word. Reminds me of that weird Burger King mascot. I won't mention that the number is obviously wrong. W did not double the size of the federal budget.

4. It mentions that W. added 1,816 new subsidy programs. Are you sure? It might have only been 1,813 programs. An awful lot of bother counting all these programs when it would have sufficed to say "almost 2,000". Especially odd given that the rest of the article talks only about "hundreds of billions" and in general avoids using exact numbers.

5. It talks about how W. signed the Medicare bill that was the largest entitlement program since the Great Society. I'm always skeptical when someone pronounces something to be the largest thing EVAH!!! Almost always an attempt to make a mole hill look like Mt. Everest.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree with Posner. In effect, what he is trying to say is that the problem with conservatism is that it has become little more than an emotional "populist" movement designed to get lots of teabagger types really angry at Democrats.

it seems that onservatism has come down to little more than declaring that whatever the problem, the main cause of it is R have given credit to the other side's argument and made changes to your position.

Appeal to liberals based upon facts? How about social security? They steal from it continually and is projected to reach a crisis level in the near future by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Want to raise taxes to beef up the funds in social security? They did that in the 1980's only to have them steal those funds. How liberals can flat out ignore such issues is beyond me or even how they can tolerate it. I guess they figure, "Its as close to socialism as we can get, so lets defend it at all costs". Of course, this is just a guess, I have no idea how they defend the undefendable. As a result, I will have to disagree with yoo. It is not about appealing to peoples intellect and the facts at hand. It has more to do with ideology, or beliefs, and which horse you have in the race. That is why ones beliefs are so critical. In fact, it is arguably more important than the facts at hand.

BTW: The term "teabaggers" is most offensive. Any idea what this is in reference to, or are you purposefully trying to offend people?

Originally posted by telerion
Given the source, I was curious about the obvious slant onthe article. After all it was pit out by a bipartisan committee (though only the republican members signed onto this article). I noticed right away that it was written in 1995, in the middle of Clinton's tenure. That may explain why their figures differ so much. I'll have to check. In fact that ...[text shortened]... O projected in 1994 would happen. Basically they statements about the data are totally wrong.

I have to say, its hard to believe anything that comes out of Washington, isn't it Telerion. I would like it if you could post some of your references though. Of course, even if you could interpreting the facts can often be a daunting task, especially in light of so many people having something to defend or attack through such data. All I can tell ya is, at the end of Bush Sr's presidency the theme Clinton harped on was, "Its the economy stupid". So what does that tell ya in terms of the economic condition that we were in at that time? In terms of Clintons era, it seemed to me he just treaded water and ushered in "W", the worst spending president and entitlement guru to date.....before Obama out did him. Of course, the legacy of both Clinton and "W" is the credit crisis and their involvement in that occuring.

Originally posted by telerion
Well we should caveat all this by recognizing that these last couple years have been exceptionally bad. Naturally most people are going to feel nostalgic when going through the worst recession since the 30's.

The more I looked at that article though the more convinced I became that it was a partisan hack peice (not blaming whodey on that since it woul ...[text shortened]... ton was a lot more conservative (at least economically) than that article gave him credit for.

If it wasn't a partisan hack piece, whodey wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot pole.

Originally posted by whodey
The term "teabaggers" is most offensive. Any idea what this is in reference to, or are you purposefully trying to offend people?

How can you be genuinely offended if you have no idea what it is a reference to? Are you offended by a word that you are unable to understand? Or are you offended by your own inability to understand the word?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If it wasn't a partisan hack piece, whodey wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot pole.

What are you trying to say, that I am partisan?

Originally posted by FMF
How can you be genuinely offended if you have no idea what it is a reference to? Are you offended by a word that you are unable to understand? Or are you offended by your own inability to understand the word?

Was I talking to you FMF?

Originally posted by whodey
What are you trying to say, that I am partisan?

Beyond any doubt.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Beyond any doubt.

If I recall, I was taking issue with the Bush boys as well as Clinton. If I recall, both are from different parties. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Being partisan is the NAACP and Al Sharpton defending the likes of Harry Ried or those on the right defending the likes of Trent Lott for his similar comments. I, on the other hand, have no such partisan tendencies. For all I care, Lott and Reid and join hands and jump off a bridge some where.

Originally posted by whodey
If I recall, I was taking issue with the Bush boys as well as Clinton. If I recall, both are from different parties. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

It's very fashionable now in right wing Republican circles to bash GW because of his unpopularity. When he was actually in office, your criticisms of him were few and far between.

As proof of your extreme partisianship, I call your attention to your initial support of the bail out bills during the 2008 election, your praise of McCain for "suspending" his campaign to go back to Washington to "work on" the legislation, your attack on Obama for insisting the scheduled debate go on and your insistence that Democrats would oppose the bail outs and try to wreck the economy right before the election. All that changed the moment most Republicans in the House voted against Bush's bail out plan and you became exceedingly vocal in your criticisms of it. This 360 degree about face took about 3 days and 1 House vote to accomplish.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's very fashionable now in right wing Republican circles to bash GW because of his unpopularity. When he was actually in office, your criticisms of him were few and far between.

As proof of your extreme partisianship, I call your attention to your initial support of the bail out bills during the 2008 election, your praise of McCain for " icisms of it. This 360 degree about face took about 3 days and 1 House vote to accomplish.

I disagree. I know of many Republicans who adamently defend "W" despite the obvious fact that he was an abysmal president. That would be partisan. The real question is why he was abysmal. Was it because he ran on a conservative platform? Nope. If you don't agree, what was conservative about him other than opposing abortion, which is a nonsequitor, or lowering some taxes?

As far as your accusation, looking back at the original TARP bail out, I think it probably saved the US from going into a deep depression. As a result, I am somewhat torn over the original TARP bail outs. Was it worse to bail them out or worse to pay the piper and take our medicine? Do you not agree that the TARP averted a depression like outcome? If so, then Obama being focused on debates with McCain should have bee secondary. As for the rest of "W"'s adimintration, they spent like drunken sailors. Like most conservatives, I was uncomfortable with many of his policies and to a large extent ignorant of them or remained silent thinking that the only alternative was far worse. It is only recently that I have awoken to the train wreck that is our current federal system. I have Obama and the radical left to thank for this, and the same can be said for most conservatives. In fact, I freely admitt that had McCain been elected you probably would not have seen the rise of Tea Parties across the country, in large part because McCain had a big old "R" by his name when in reality these Tea Parties should have been going on long before McCain ever came on the scene.

As far as my critique on the current Republican party, I don't think they have an incling in changing their business as usual. In fact, the only reason they vote no on everything currently is because they know that this Presidents agenda's are not popular with the American people. They are outgunned so their participation is secondary anyway. If they vote along side them and those programs are "successful", all the credit will go to Obama and the Dems even though they participated. However, if they all vote no they can point their grubby little fingers at the Dems and smile all the way till next election. As a result, they have NOTHING to lose by voting against the Dems currently.


What the Republicans don't realize, however, is that these Tea Parties have begun a movement. The party no longer matters. In fact, the Tea Parties I have attended did not even mention parties, nor politicians. They only mentioned agendas and peices of legislation and continued waste and pork. No doubt, the Repulicans will return to their former ways but hopefully they have a rude surprise awaiting them. It is then that the Tea Parties need to kick it into overdrive to send a message. In fact, I believe that the powers that be within the Republican party snub their noses at consevatives. No party that is power hungry is looking for ways to reduce their power and influence in government, and that is what conservatism is all about.