Bush's fault.

I blame the tax cuts

does krugman still have a job?

Nice Spin.

Here is the real story:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The labor market posted weak job growth for the third straight month, according to a government report Friday, although a jump in wages could keep the Federal Reserve on its course of raising interest rates.

There was a net gain of 121,000 jobs for the U.S. economy, according to the Labor Department report, up from the revised 92,000 gain posted in May.

But economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a gain of 160,000 jobs, and this marked the third time in a row that payroll gains fell far short of forecasts.

Neorad Suicide Watch ~
Friday, July 7, 2006
Holding fast to delusions of economic failure, liberals, neorads, socialists and other Barneys continue to disseminate excellent economic news searching for a kernel of despair. In the past, Barneys merely lied about the economy, calling it the “worst economy since the Great Depression.” Faced with overwhelming evidence of a robust economy, they have now been reduced to claiming that the gains, although significant and historically high, were not up to the expectations of some unnamed economists.

Extra shipments of Zoloft® are being sent to enclaves where barneys congregate, to combat the deep depression caused by the realization that someone else out there is enjoying themselves.

We wish you a speedy recovery, barneys. Save your strength; your going to be truly depressed come November.

Barneyg2000

Nice ignoring the fact...

There was a net GAIN of 121,000 jobs for the U.S. economy, according to the Labor Department report, UP from the revised 92,000 GAIN posted in MAY! ...And the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, which is lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

It was a GAIN in job growth. It was NOT a LOSS of jobs. I'm sure many people would like to have seen a million or more new jobs, but even then, liberal Democrats would have complained that there should have been 10 million new jobs! There's no pleasing a liberal Democrat... on anything!

And if there had been a million new jobs, how would the liberal Democrats have spun that? Why, the economy is growing TOO FAST. The economy is OVERHEATING. There will be rampant INFLATION. It's President Bush's FAULT for creating TOO MANY JOBS and overheating the economy!

It looks like those [briefing.com] economists should do a better job of forecasting!

Take it for another spin-around-the-block, Barney!

AAR

AAR

The economic ignorance of liberals is truly astounding! I wonder if they realize that if we were to get, let's say, 500,000 a month job growth rate what would happen to inflation? Do you think they even understand that inflation would skyrocket?

This is what us traders consider a "goldielocks" economy. (except for oil prices) not too hot not too cold. A nearly perfect economy.

Hello,
What a load of crap!! Somebody out there
please show me what consumer products we manufacture (and I don't mean "hamburgers")
that actually create wealth? Where are the factories that make radios, televisions, toys,
clothes, hair dryers, toasters, tables, video cameras, telephones, etc???? Their all
GONE.....that's where!!!! America has been
dismantled and is turning into a 3rd world
shithole! That's why the're importing high school
drop-outs, ie. Mexicans etc.

Tell me something I don't know. Hell McDonald's told me they weren't hiring!

Man that's funny. Jobs go higher than expected and it's bad news!.... LMAO!!!!

AAR, What Barney thinks about employment in this country is just not relevant. I'm not sure why anyone even responds to him -- his glass is always empty. It would have been interesting to read comments from Barney and those who share his gloom and doom views in 1998 at the heart of the Clinton Boom:

Unemployment in early 1998 fell to its lowest point in 30 years, real wages for most workers are finally on the rise, and even productivity - a broad measure of the efficiency of the labor force - is speeding up. Yet even with these recent gains, the pay of the typical worker in mid-1998 is still not as high as it was in 1989 (emphasis - mine)

I would have loved to have seen Barney's spin on that news. The truth is that the vast majority of people in this country who want to work are working and making more money doing it. MarketWatch has this to say about it this morning:

The U.S. economy created 121,000 jobs in June, far fewer than the 174,000-job forecast by economists polled by MarketWatch. The unemployment rate remained at 4.6%. Despite the moderation in job growth, there were some signs of inflationary pressure: Average hourly earnings increased at a faster-than-expected pace. (emphasis - mine)

This is not the first time economists have been wrong about employment figures. In fact, if you go back and look at previous reports, they have been wrong more often than they've been right. The fact is that the unemployment rate has been very stable in the 4.6 - 4.9 range for a long time.

CJ,

Speaking of those oil prices, it's the liberals Democrats who are largely responsible for that. They have blocked all of the efforts to drill for more of our own oil, to build more refineries, to produce the gasoline here in America, coal liquification and gasification, oil shale development, and drilling in ANWR. They even oppose wind power off of Ted Kennedy's "sailing resort".

At the current price of oil, that's trillions of dollars going overseas that worsens our balance of payments and helps build up the economies and military of our enemies.

Republicans should start a 24/7 campaign to educate the American voters about the real villains -- the Democrats -- who are driving up our gas, heating oil, energy prices, adding to inflation, and increasing our balance of payments by trillions of dollars!

Ash,

Come down from those ski slopes. The McDonald's in my area are hiring and have been for many months, along with many other businesses.

AAR

ARR,

It's a bit odd, don't you think that the left always accuses the right of going to war to pad our pockets with money when they are helping the oil companies pad theirs?

Bane and AAR-
From FOX News:
July 7th, 2006

This just in....well the numbers are in and there's no mistaking it. The Bush administration’s policies have produced light in the skies over America again. Sunrise was achieved at 6:42 a.m. ahead of all forecasts which had the sun's rise at 6:43 a.m. Thanks to the Bush administration pro-light policies, along with it's cut's on the amount of clouds in the sky, light production increased throughout the day achieving a staggering 150,000 lumens by mid day. That fell only slightly short of the administration's forecast of 155,000 lumens. But it's still a significant lumen increase over previous administrations' light production policies, particularly the sluggish lumen production of the Clinton Whitehouse where light only managed to achieve 130,000 lumen. Tanlessness is down to just 4.6% the lowest in 30 years. Visible light velocity remained steady at 3 x 10^8m/sec. This despite the Democrats call for a redefinition of the speed of light. The administration as well as the Republican led Congress have fought such efforts by the Democrats with the Defense of Light Act that they hope to pass in the Senate this fall for inclusion to the Constitution by early 2007. Our numbers show such an Amendmaent has broad public support.

Next on Fox and Friends, Does being a Republican lower your risk of cancer? We have scientist who say yes.

Leftotium, very creative, but that's about it, very creative. Cheers!

Hell McDonald's told me they weren't hiring!

lol, Ashley--what's "Hell McDonald's?" Did you mean, "Hell, McDonald's told me they weren't hiring?" I never know what you dumbass doom-and-gloomers mean, because you can't frickin' write!

McDonald's doesn't hire window-licker, so you and Baloney are out of luck, Ashley.

Bacterium, you really ought to learn to write also--maybe then your stupid parody would be funny.

Hey folks, if you're ever in Delaware, don't go into a Seven-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Honest, Senator "Plugs the Plagarist" Biden said so. He said this racist comment, and got a pass, because he's a DemocRAT...

Leftover,
Are you saying Clinton was a dim-bulb?

According to Matt’s numbers “..Bush economic boom has created 5.4 million jobs since August 2003.” That comes to 150,000 new jobs per month. Based on the last three months, the average has dropped to 108,000 jobs per month.

What was Clinton’s average? His economy created on average 248,000 per month.

President Bush's tax cuts and other economic policies are producing amazing results!

"His economy"? We'd all like to benefit from his vast expertise; what, exactly did he do to create these jobs?

Clinton benefited from Reagenomics and the DemoRats give Clinton the credit for it. Bush has to deal with Clintonmoics and the DemoRats blame Bush for it. The ecomony was going down hill at the end of Clinton's Presidency, and Bush has to clean up the mess Slick Willy made.

Are they hirin' at the toll booth keebler? Are there ANY skills needed?

What was Clinton’s average? His economy created on average 248,000 per month.

Yeah, Barney, but as noted in my previous post, real wages early in Clinton's 6th year (almost exactly where Bush is now) were still not back to where they were a decade earlier. What does that say about the quality of the jobs produced under Clinton? Talk about McDonalds.

Now in all fairness, if you Google "Real Wages", you will find article after article that says real wages have been stagnant during Bush's first 6 years also, but I ran across something last winter at Macroblog that Barney and the rest of the Libs are not going to like because it looks, not just at real wages but real compensation, which includes both pay and benefits. Pay particular attention to the 3rd graph and the comparison following it by presidential administration.

Spook, so you are saying that it is good that average wages have decreased over the last two years because workers are trading wages for higher insurance premiums?

That is great. I get a smaller pay check because my employer has an ever increase insurance contribution liability. That’s Bush’s economics for you.

Ash, maybe there were just not hiring YOU.

You liberal [progressive] Democrats want more American jobs, then stop blocking the oil drilling in ANWR.

Estimates vary, but some projections estimate ANWR could produce as many as 735,000 jobs and billions and billions of dollars in revenue to the state and federal government. A study from by National Defense Council Foundation projects that ANWR could produce 1,000,000 new jobs for Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Yes, liberal Democrats are the ones blocking more American jobs!

And where are these jobs going along with the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in oil revenue, salaries, taxes, and American dollars? To Iran, Venezuela, and other nations to develop their economies, provide them with jobs, and develop their military!

You want to help America's balance of payments, then start drilling in ANWR and start producing America's oil!

You want more American jobs, then start drilling in ANWR and start producing America's oil!

AAR

Spook, so you are saying that it is good that average wages have decreased over the last two years because workers are trading wages for higher insurance premiums?

Barney, that would only be true for those companies that pass on 100% of the increases in health insurance premiums to their employees. My wife works for a Fortune 500 company, and her share of health insurance premiums is lower now than it was 2 years ago while her salary is higher. Why must you always seek out the most negative aspect of every issue? That kind of thinking is simply not healthy.

Are they hirin' at the toll booth keebler? Are there ANY skills needed?

No, Ashley, we're not hirin' window lickers. And your skills--frequently kneeling while forming a circle with your lips--aren't required. Try the gay bar down the street from your house; I hear they're looking for a pole dancer...

The bigger point is that Al Gore, John Kerry and the rest of the lunactic fringe all said tax cuts would cause job losses, poor economic performance, etc. They said the same thing in 1980. The said the same thing in 1960 when JFK did it.

These guys apparently don't read history to well.

President George W. Bush, residing over the strongest economy in american history. Thank you President Bush for keeping our economy strong, for keeping my loved ones safe and fighting the terrorists.

and this doesn't even count the 11,000,000 illegals that are working but not on the official rolls

Regarding lower-tiered workers, i.e., non-managers in the services sectors and production-line workers in manufacturing:

$ 14.44 = Avg. hourly earnings - April 2001.
$ 14.82 = Avg. hourly earnings - April 2002.
$ 15.26 = Avg. hourly earnings - April 2003.
$ 15.58 = Avg. hourly earnings - April 2004.
$ 16.00 = Avg. hourly earnings - April 2005.
$ 16.61 = Avg. hourly earnings - April 2006.

That gain exceeds by a pretty fair margin the total consumer inflation rate throughout that period.

You can find the stats here. That should put the rest the lie about earnings "falling." I wonder if any of these lying left wing kooks ever bother to actually look up the facts?

The economy is strong thanks to President Bush's tax cuts and economic policies. The left and the main stream news media try everyday to convince the American people that the sky is falling and doomsday for the economy is just around the corner. However, the numbers are not backing them up. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years, and lower than it ever was during Clinton's rein, when every liberal and the main stream news media though the unemployment rate was GREAT !

no no no.. according to the democrats thats 5.4 million low paying blue collar jobs.. none of it is in the technical and white collar sector.. ohh no.. never..

Bush is good
Bush is great
let us thank him for our food
Amen...

P.S. CJ, please adjust your numbers for inflation. You may in fact be surprised but I think not. We all konw average wages are declining, why do you attempt to deny this? I don't necessarily blame Bush for this but let's at least be honest.

Spook,

The more I learn about economics the more I realize I don't know. Nonetheless, in my continued attempt to lift myself out of relative ignorance (because an informed electorate is a responsible electrate, right?) I found the article you cited about real compensation very interesting. Unfortunately, the authors didn't cite their source for the third graph (the one on real compensation). They did, however, recommend this analysis. In that analysis they make two good points: (1) you have to be very careful what statistics you look at, and (2) if you look at the most inclusive ones (that is, the BLS's ECI (Employment Cost Index), unfortunately you come to the conclusion that Barney just mentioned -- take-home wages are stagnant or declining because insurance premiums are going up. Unlike him, though, I don't blame that on Bush. He has some awfully big issues on his plate. I suppose one could argue that some of that might be self-inflicted, but then again, 9/11 made some issues extremely hard to ignore. For better or worse, though, I have to say that Bush hasn't done much to alleviate the situation. In fact, he's pretty much ignored it. But now that you've highlighted it, maybe we should consider it.

Here's another issue that concerns me, and about which Bane and I have discussed at some length previously: the difference between real mean and real median values -- of anything. Although I know very little about economics, I do know a reasonable amount about statistics. And I can say with reasonable authority that by simply comparing trends in mean and median values you can glean quite a bit about the distribution in question. In the case of wages, the fact is that the lower end of distribution is the most heavily populated area. In other words, most people don't make all that much whereas a small few make a lot. Said in a different way, it is not a normal distribution, or a "bell curve". If it was then most people would make a moderate amount of money and there would be an increasingly smaller number of people making very little or a huge amount. In which case, real mean wages (or compensation) would be identical to real median wages (or compensation). But they aren't. Rather, the mean wage (or compensation) value is always higher than the median wage (or compensation) value. That right there tells you that there is a small number of individuals that are pushing the mean beyond the median value. Whether or not that's a problem is open to interpretation I suppose (I don't see it as a problem). But either way, it is a fact.

Additionally, if you follow the relative movements of the mean and median values over time you can get a feel for the societal impact those trends will have. For example, if the real median wage (or compensation) value decreases over time while the real mean wage (or compensation) value increases, then you know that, in general, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If both the mean and median increase over time, then you know that, in general, everyone is better off. Likewise, if the median remains stagnant (or drops) and the mean increases, you know that wage inequality is increasing -- i.e., in general, there is a larger difference between rich and poor. Similarly, if the median remains stagnant (or increases) and the mean drops, then you know that wages are becoming more equal -- i.e., the difference between rich and poor is contracting.

Isn't this fun?

I can't stress enough that I mean "in general". And, as Spook's article, along with my follow-up indicate, you really have to be careful how you measure things. The more information the better, of course. But then again, more information is harder to calculate. For example, before computers came on-line on Wall Street, people had no choice but to track the Dow index as a sort of short-hand method of tracking the trends of the entire NYSE. Now you can track both. And by tracking both you gather more information -- you can get a feel for what the blue chips are doing relative to the smaller stocks.

And that brings me to my final point -- the more information you know, the better informed you are. Watching the trends in real mean and median wages and comparing them tells you more than either alone. But it is even better if you know more information. So, back before I started my travelling road show I spent WAY too much time sifting through the BLS statistics to answer a question raised by Bane in order to break down the increases/decreases in wages with more specificity than is offered by either the mean or the median values. What I did was I went up to the BLS web site looked at the National Cross Industry estimates for 2004 (November), 2003 (November), 2002, and 2001 (which was all I could find), and I extracted from each table the hourly wages of all workers at the 10th, 25th, 50th(that’s the median), 75th and 90th percentiles. Unfortunately, if you look back at the median numbers from the chart I mentioned in a previous post from the Economic Policy Institute, even the median numbers were essentially flat over that time-period, so I wasn’t really expecting to see much. But anyway, these are the numbers for hourly wage I extracted at the different percentiles (they are labeled as they are in the BLS tables):

2001 2002 2003 2004
h_wpct10 6.76 6.95 7.09 7.21
h_wpct25 8.72 8.93 9.17 9.36
h_median 13.01 13.31 13.65 13.98
h_wpct75 20.31 20.84 21.39 21.94
h_wpct90 30.23 31.20 32.37 33.32

Then I adjusted them into 1998 dollars, like I did in my previous post (which is long gone, I suspect). This is what I got:

2001 2002 2003 2004
real h_wpct10 6.27 6.29 6.30 6.20
real h_wpct25 8.08 8.08 8.15 8.05
real h_median 12.06 12.05 12.12 12.02
real h_wpct75 18.82 18.86 19.00 18.87
real h_wpct90 28.02 28.24 28.75 28.65

So basically, wages remained stagnant over this time for everyone -- except the upper tier. And if you compare the percentage change from 2001 - 2004 at each percentile point, you get this:

real h_wpct10: -1.12%
real h_wpct25: -0.37%
real h_median: -0.33%
real h_wpct75: 0.27%
real h_wpct90: 2.25%

The differences aren't dramatic, but I think you could make the case that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer -- at least when you compare real hourly wages. Unfortunately, now that Spook has brought up the real compensation issue, I guess I'm going to have to go back and re-analyze the data. If I only had time.

In the mean time I ruminated on a point that Bane made way back when, and that is this: early on in any economic recovery there will be more lower-tier jobs created than upper-tier ones. And that may explain the numbers such as they are available at the present time. And there is no question about the fact that Bush had something of an economic poop sandwich presented to him early on in his administration -- speculation on the high tech sector tanked, exposing some very creative accounting schemes that couldn't bear the light of day, followed closely by the attacks on 9-11. Contrary to many, I don't blame the Clinton administration for creating the situation, and I don't blame Bush for having to deal with it on his watch. For better or worse, a president can only influence the economy by policies that affect its infrastructure. After that the economy is on its own. I wish I knew more about it. But I have to say that I am deeply, deeply concerned by the current fundamentals -- which I see to be the trade deficit, in combination with the national debt.

Federal deficit appears on track to fall below $300 billion...

(Reuters) WASHINGTON, July 7, 2006 -- The U.S. budget deficit during the first three quarters of the current fiscal year was about $208 billion, $41 billion below the deficit recorded in the same period the previous year, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.

(USA Today) -- Indeed, tax collections are surging at a 13% growth rate, reflecting particularly strong growth in taxes paid on corporate profits and income taxes paid by wealthier people and small businessmen who pay taxes quarterly instead of having them withheld by employers.

(USA Today) -- The improvements in the deficit picture come despite the high cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing federal outlays related to Hurricane Katrina and other disasters last year.

For liberal Democrats...

(USA Today) -- White House critics say the Bush team always inflates its February numbers so as to trumpet good news later in the year. And they say that seemingly intractable deficits in the $300 billion range are nothing to celebrate.

AAR

"Next on Fox and Friends, Does being a Republican lower your risk of cancer? We have scientist who say yes." Leftorium

Actually lefty you are not far off. The following study shows that leftists like yourself are far more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression than conservatives. In addition the study also shows that you leftists have greater problems with language comprehension...which explains many of the posts that you and your moonbat friends make.

http://neuropolitics.org/Anxiety-Depression-and-Goal-Seeking-in-Conservatives-Liberals-Moderates.htm

Anxiety and depression lead to increased levels of stress. Stress is known to increase the incidence cardiac disease:

http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/riskfactors/a/stresshtdisease.htm

and may be related to increased incidence of cancer:

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/8-19-95/stress.html

In summary the bile that all of you moonbats have roiled up inside is killing you...ahhh the sweet irony of it all.

Only 5 million jobs in his terms? Thats not something to be particularly proud of. Clinton had well over 20 million new jobs in his 2 terms, Bush still has a long way to go before he is even half the job creator that Clinton was...

Only 5 million jobs in his terms? Thats not something to be particularly proud of. Clinton had well over 20 million new jobs in his 2 terms, Bush still has a long way to go before he is even half the job creator that Clinton was...

Clinton had 20 million blow jobs on his watch?

Impressive

Axis...you may want to check out these other jobs Clinton created.

This list of jobs is even better

This list of jobs is even better

keebler, my man, once again you are in rare form:

while folling the crap out of me

I hope it was protected folling, keebler

Some pretty reputable looking sites you quoted there warrior, LOL

Nonetheless, Bush is only at a QUARTER of the job creation that Clinton had going on and only a couple more years left

Bush's job creation track record is very dismal, just barely keeping pace with the new workers entering the job market

3moreyears

You just showed your utter stupidity. Take a look at inflation. As you'll see the wages have outpaced inflation in each and every year since 2001.

Also, don't forget that the new budget deficit projections will be less than $300 billion, a significant decline in the budget deficit of $420 billion, which was projected in February. This decline is solely due to the second largest increase in the percentage of tax revenue ever after 2005, which was the largest increase in tax revenue.

As you can see, there was a stunning turnaround after the tax cuts were signed into law in May 2003. Almost immediately we were out of the Clinton/Gore recession that began in the third quarter of 2000.

Don't know why that didn't show up. Try this one.

What amazes me about the dumocrat's comparison of the 'Clinton' econcomy and the 'Bush' econcomy is that they completely fail to consider:

1. The stock market crash and the recession that was the legacy of the Clinton years.

2. The devistating effect of 9/11...its like that never happened...and the subsequent necessary expenditures to fight the war on terror.

In addition, while I have heard many of the moonbats credit Clinton with the economy during his tenure, not one has ever specifically stated what it was that he actually did to stimulate the economy, mainly because he did NOTHING to stimulate the economy.

On the otherhand President Bush took the initiative to cut taxes and stimulate the economy which continues to out perform all developed countries, and all of the EU combined for controlling inflation, job growth, low unemployment and economic growth.

It must suck to be a donk and be blinded by hatred. Its no wonder they are predisposed to anxiety and depression.

CJ, the recession was long over when Clinton left office.

I'm taking a wild guess here but I figure you can read a chart. As you can see the GDP fell off the cliff beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2000. In case your liberal mind has no idea what the third quarter means it means October, November, and December.

Axis, the recession STARTED in the last quarter of Clinton's Presidency and didn't end until after Bush took over.

Axis

Point remains...if you crossed Clinton...you ended up DEAD. Way too many bodies to be coincidences. Lots of dead people.

Geez, now I feel as stupid as Axis. Third quarter is July, August, and September. Man, reading the rants of axis, third eye open, 3moreyears, etc....can make a smart person stupid!

axis,

Which member of "axis" is posting today?

Now don't forget to count most of those 11 million to 20 million jobs held by illegal aliens!

AAR

CJ, are you implying that you are a smart person or are you just guessing? FYI, I hardly think two or three sentences can be catagorized as a rant but that's just me.

Fools! You shall soon see the truth.

"That is great. I get a smaller pay check because my employer has an ever increase insurance contribution liability."

But I'll bet you voted for Kerry/Edwards, didn't you?

Ever wonder why insurance premiums are so high? Try the tactics of low-life trial lawyers like Edwards. Doctors are quitting because so much of what they make has to go for malpractice premiums. Women are having trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies, to a great extent due to shysters like Edwards, who became a multi-millionaire by convincing juries that the care recieved in the last few minutes before birth was the cause of a multitude of ailments, getting huge settlements and causing insurance premioums to go through the roof.

You neorads need to spend some time learning about Unintended Consequences.

Her's one for you...right now, mostly due to lower taxes and a great economy, my business supports three families outright and is the major contributor to three more. When I move, I will be adding at least one more full-time employee.

Try to confiscate more of the money I EARN, and I will simply cut back to one employee. I'll work harder and longer if and when I can keep the fruits of my labors. Confiscate the product of my hard work and investment and creativity and willingness to take risks and put myself on the line, and I am not motivated to keep doing it.

So, subtract the taxes I won't be paying, and the taxes those other people won't be paying, and figure out the net gain of punishing me for being productive and successful. If I sell my land and assets soon enough, before you drag the economy into the toilet, I can live off the proceeds and develop my fly-fishing skills.

CJ says:
"Geez, now I feel as stupid as Axis."

What did you do, CJ---scrape out your brains with a melon-baller and let the Canadian wind whistle through? Because that's the ONLY way you could feel as stupid as axis.

Thanks for your research and analysis---your contributions are major.

Do you have, at the tips of your fingers, the figures on the movements among the financial classes? I heard it on the radio and haven't had a chance to look it up--driving, I couldn't write down the author's name or that of his book.

But you know the neorad claim that the Bush Administration is "destroying the middle class"? As "proved" by the smaller of numbers of people who qualify?

This guy said that if you classify "middle class" as those making between, I think, $15,000 a year and $100,000 a year, yes, the middle class is shrinking---but so is the lower class. The lower class is moving into the middle class, and the middle class is moving up, losing about 10% in the past five years. All adjusted for inflation, of course. I believe the total moving into the "upper class" was about 15%, from the middle and lower classes. Some destruction, eh? People will stand in line to be 'destroyed' like that...

If I get a chance, I'll see if I can track down the source, but you are so sharp on the financial info, I thought you might have it.

I wonder if any of these lying left wing kooks ever bother to actually look up the facts?

They get their "facts" from Paul Krugman.

Ashley, "folling" is a typo. I have said in the past that I overlook typos, because everybody makes them. I also overlook misspellings, unless there is no excuse to misspell the word. However, I do not excuse poor writing, of which you, Barney, and axis are consistently guilty of.

BTW, Ashley, that "folling" typo was from another thread. Can't you come up with something new? Did I hurt your feelings when I kicked your ass with my response to your post about the toll booth? Or do you actually work as a pole dancer in that gay bar down the street from your house? That's it, isn't it, Ashley? You pole dance in more ways than one, huh? You're blushing, Ashley. Night-night, thweetie...

"However, I do not excuse poor writing, of which you, Barney, and axis are consistently guilty of." - Keebler.

Oh, the irony of this statement alone is too good to let go. Gotta love it when Keebler gives writing tips, don't ya Ash, and then makes a grammatical mistake in that very same sentence?

Almiranta,

15,000 is below the poverty line for a family of 3, infact if you look at the statistics, the poverty rate has been rising since 2000, from a 26 year low in 2000 of 11.3% to 12.7% in 2004.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/prs05asc.html

The median income is right about 44,000 dollars in the US, so your theory has an inital flaw in it.

maf53

Not that you're intelligent enough but I believe Keefer was describing the disjointed, fragmented, and generally incoherent sentences employed by the left wing kooks at this site. We all make "grammatical" errors as we type.

"The median income is right about 44,000 dollars in the US, so your theory has an inital flaw in it."

It is not my theory. I said I was looking for the source of the information I heard on a radio show in an interview with the author. I do remember that he gave some references for his statistics, but when I am on a freeway I don't try to write down names and references. I was hoping some other reader had heard the same interview or could guide me to the author I was listening to.

Simple figures regarding the "poverty level" do not impress me as much as hard data about those people. What is their educational level? How many hours do they work in a week? Are they heads of households? Are they retired people who own their own homes or are they responsible for families?

Because the employed poor are better off than they ever have been, and are advancing toward the middle class. Admittedly, the uneducated, the unemployed, the unemployable, are always going to be at the bottom of the economic ladder. Does this surprise you? Amaze you? Distress you? Confuse you? Are you saying that we OWE these people a life above the arbitrary poverty level? All of them? Why?

And as the level you quoted was for a family of three, though I think you meant four, what is the percentage of those at that level who actually support a family of four? Or even three?

As you undoubtedly know, being such a student of economics, many of those listed as being at or under the poverty level are students, whose earnings are minimal even though they are susidized by families and other sources of income. This level also includes young singles new to the job market, and many of the elderly, who might not be able to support a family of four on their incomes but who can live comfortably, if not lavishly, on what they receive or earn.

The basic fact is, the neorads are desperate to believe, and to convince others, that this country is going to hell in a handbasket, is suffering greatly, is an economic mess, is regressing from the lofty heights of the Clinton years, is a hellhole hardly worth defending much less living in, and that the economic figures we keep getting are---you guessed it---LIES.

Which is, I guess, why we have to have all those big fences on our borders, to keep the desperate populace IN, to keep them from escaping to other, more inviting, countries with better opportunities.

Almiranta,

Actually no, people who are in school, for the most part are living in dorms of some sort, they are not counted in poverty statistics. The ones who do live at home, probably aren't working a full time job either, so they aren't counted.

people considered in "poverty" are required to be working full time, for the course of a year.

my statistics do not take into account people over 65, atleast the HHS numbers don't, but those were the ones I presented.

The statisctics are pretty basic, it shows that wages have been stagnant with relation to inflation, and in most cases people have lost buying power as inflation goes up, and real wages have not.

I advise you read the link I provided, and you can get a link back to HOW the HHS determines "poverty" and who is included in that status.

As far as Mexicans are concerned, If your home markets are being flooded by cheap goods, so much that you cannot continue to make a living in your country, aren't you going to go where you CAN make a living so that your family doesn't starve?

Warriornation-
" the recession STARTED in the last quarter of Clinton's Presidency and didn't end until after Bush took over."

"The National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-partisan group of mostly academic economists, set the start date of the recession as March 2001, weeks after Bush took office on Jan 20. The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

To be sure, the rate of economic growth had slowed significantly at the time Bush took office, as the longest boom in US history drew to a close. Real Gross Domestic Product, a general indicator of economic performance, grew an an unimpressive annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final quarter of 2000, after actually contracting by half a percentage point in the previous quarter. But employment was still growing when Bush was sworn in, and the economy actually added 113,000 payroll jobs between January and March 2001, before starting to decline in April.

In fact, the NBER did not even make a determination that a recession had begun until 10 months after Bush was sworn in, and said that the downturn might not even have qualified as a recession until the attacks of September 11, 2001 exacerbated the nation's economic troubles. The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee said, "Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession."
(Annenberg Political Fact Check)
http://www.factcheck.org/article278.html

As you can see and ofcourse will refuse to believe, Clinton didn't give Bush an economy in recession. Have your anti-Clinton tendencies gotten the better of your ability to read a calender?

"Point remains...if you crossed Clinton...you ended up DEAD. Way too many bodies to be coincidences. Lots of dead people.

Posted by: Warriornation at July 8, 2006 04:20 PM"

Wait, they have gotten the better of you haven't they?

Ppsst.... Warrior.

Ssssshhhhhhhhhh...(hushed tone) they're listening at the DNC and if you keep talking like that their black helicopters will come and take you away. I know cause someone told me it happened to his 2nd cousin's, best friend's, next door neighbor's, son. True story...........LOL

In all seriousness though, get yourself off the right wing conspiracy sites.

"In fact, the NBER did not even make a determination that a recession had begun until 10 months after Bush was sworn in ..." You mean before Bush submitted his first budget?

The blame game doesn't work if you really understood the economics involved.

Rico,
Notice how they ignore your research and analysis? Great job, Although I disagree with a few minor points, but mostly I think you're dead-bang on. (I've moved my position since you and I began this discussion, my understanding of economics and your grasp of statistics.) Thanks for the lessons.

Leftorium,

You want to blame President Bush for a declining economy that started well before he took office -- under Clinton?!

It doesn't matter what "official date" the NBER chooses to set for the start date of the recession by "their definition", the fact is the recession started long before that -- during the Clinton years. Recessions don't start instantly or overnight -- the events that cause them build up over time. Check the charts and the declining GDP. You will see that it began well before President Bush took office -- under Clinton!

Statistics other than real GDP indicate that the problems for the economy developed in the summer of 2000 -- under Clinton.

The unemployment rate bottomed in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there -- during the Clinton administration.

The fed funds rate peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" -- during the Clinton administration.

GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 -- during the Clinton administration.

Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 -- during the Bush administration.

AAR