GDP Growth Anemic

#51
#51
If you were making a million dollars a year, you're now making 360,000 less now.

If you were making 20,000 a year, you're now making a 1,000 less now.

Inflation is hurting the bottom the most, but we should just keep printing that money.
 
#52
#52
MG1968 said:
it's sort of funny how the only "answers" you have received thus far are "sorry, I'm on vacation, but I'll get back to you soon."

Not even lawgator has chimed in with specific Bush-era policies that led the the recession.

funny how that always happens
Click to expand...

the only things I can see are:

1) there was a tone of increasing home ownership which may have contributed to the housing bubble - but the Bush admin actually tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie but were thwarted by Dems in Congress.

The tone really hasn't changed currently so I don't see how Obama's policies are different here - in fact they've made no substantial moves to lessen the F&F impact and many of their short-term housing fixes are perpetuating the housing bottom.

2) running up the deficit/debt - not as direct an impact but will ultimately have to be addressed and sucks capital out of private sector.

Again, Team Obama has done the same so I don't see a difference here.

3) For some reason the Bush tax cuts get blamed but Obama has extended them. It's hard to draw a cause/effect link between the tax cuts and an economic downturn.

4) Wars? They have a stimulative effect so I don't see how you can blame it on them regardless of the wisdom of those decisions. Besides, we've continued them.

Omitted policies?

Perhaps the SEC leadership should have been purged.

Again to put it in current terms, Dodd-Frank is largely unwritten (like Obamacare) and institutionalizes "too-big-too fail".


What am I missing? What are those failed policies of the W admin that:

1) were directly responsible of the economic downturn

AND

2) are fundamentally different than Obama's policies?
 
#53
#53
Volst53 said:
If you were making a million dollars a year, you're now making 360,000 less now.

If you were making 20,000 a year, you're now making a 1,000 less now.

Inflation is hurting the bottom the most, but we should just keep printing that money.
Click to expand...

It always hurts the bottom most but I took Huff's point to be that the class warfare/rich are just getting richer off the backs of the poor rhetoric doesn't match the facts.
 
#54
#54
volinbham said:
It always hurts the bottom most but I took Huff's point to be that the class warfare/rich are just getting richer off the backs of the poor rhetoric doesn't match the facts.
Click to expand...



I agree. Everyone is hurting right now, and when you add that the low bracket pays nothing in taxes and most likely gets money back. The rich is getting hit even harder.
 
#55
#55
n_huffhines said:
Interesting tidbit: Thomas Sowell said that income among the top 1% has fallen by 36% since 2007. Income among the bottom 20% has fallen by just 5% in that same time frame.
Click to expand...

The other way to look at it....

CEO pay and the top 1%: How executive compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality | Economic Policy Institute



- The significant income growth at the very top of the income distribution over the last few decades was largely driven by households headed by someone who was either an executive or was employed in the financial sector. Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005. These estimates understate the role of executive compensation and the financial sector in fueling income growth at the top because the increasing presence of working spouses who are executives or in finance is not included.

- From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.

- Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.

- Using an alternative measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, CEOs earned 20.1 times more than typical workers in 1965, 383.4 times more in 2000, and 231.0 times more in 2011
Click to expand...

The top 1% are doing just fine.
 
#59
#59
Gramps said:
:no::no::no:

That right there should be nonimated for the epic post of the year.

unbelievable....
Click to expand...

Unskilled workers are never going to have it made, but relative to the rest of the world's unskilled workers, they have it good here.
 
#60
#60
I don't know about "having it good". On one hand even our low end tends to have decent housing, plenty of material goods, access to healthcare and education, access to food (and pretty amazing obesity), etc.

OTOH, the route to all these things is frequently government programs and I can't shake the notion that such dependency can't be good for the soul in the long term (obviously just an opinion). I wonder if a self - sufficient poor person in a 3rd world country is actually more content than a fully dependent poor person in our country (oh crap I just channeled "happiness" ala Gibbs).
 
#61
#61
n_huffhines said:
I'm not sure I trust that 5.7% figure. Average compensation among unskilled workers rose 500% from 1974-2000.

The bottom 20% is doing just fine.

Unskilled wage index, U.S. | Economic History Services
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing that 500% number?

Given the disparity between the two studies, someone is using witchcraft math.

And actually, I somewhat agree with your sentiment about the bottom 20%. The middle class is who is getting screwed. The top earners in this country enjoy the lobby induced legislation that gives beneficial tax and loopholes breaks and leniency for fraud, and the bottom earners have enjoyed increases to welfare and unemployment benefits without the hassle of dealing with any real motivation to go be a productive member of society.

The middle class guys, that actually work 9-5 making real things and providing real services are not being squeezed from both sides.
 
#62
#62
rjd970 said:
The middle class guys, that actually work 9-5 making real things and providing real services are not being squeezed from both sides.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree but where do you see the squeeze coming from - what are the poor doing to squeeze the middle? the rich?
 
#63
#63
Gramps said:
:no::no::no:

That right there should be nonimated for the epic post of the year.

unbelievable....
Click to expand...

It was tongue-in-cheek. I was mocking RJD, because his stat was about income increasing substantially over a 30 year period as evidence that the rich are doing well, but that income has increased substantially for every wealth demographic since the 1970s.
 
#64
#64
volinbham said:
I don't know about "having it good". On one hand even our low end tends to have decent housing, plenty of material goods, access to healthcare and education, access to food (and pretty amazing obesity), etc.

OTOH, the route to all these things is frequently government programs and I can't shake the notion that such dependency can't be good for the soul in the long term (obviously just an opinion). I wonder if a self - sufficient poor person in a 3rd world country is actually more content than a fully dependent poor person in our country (oh crap I just channeled "happiness" ala Gibbs).
Click to expand...



I agree that it would be hard accepting the life style of living on government aid, but I wasn't grouping low wage workers with them. I'd say they're a lot of them that do both though, so I see your point.
 
#65
#65
volinbham said:
I don't know about "having it good". On one hand even our low end tends to have decent housing, plenty of material goods, access to healthcare and education, access to food (and pretty amazing obesity), etc.

OTOH, the route to all these things is frequently government programs and I can't shake the notion that such dependency can't be good for the soul in the long term (obviously just an opinion). I wonder if a self - sufficient poor person in a 3rd world country is actually more content than a fully dependent poor person in our country (oh crap I just channeled "happiness" ala Gibbs).
Click to expand...

I would think it would be safe to say the bottom 20% is having to rely on the govt program to provide. Some by choice, other due to the current economy. The ones living on govt programs by choice, I have no sympathy for. The ones that have been working and barely supporting their families and now have lost their jobs, I do feel sorry for.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
n_huffhines said:
It was tongue-in-cheek. I was mocking RJD, because his stat was about income increasing substantially over a 30 year period as evidence that the rich are doing well, but that income has increased substantially for every wealth demographic since the 1970s.
Click to expand...

gotcha
 
#67
#67
volinbham said:
I don't necessarily disagree but where do you see the squeeze coming from - what are the poor doing to squeeze the middle? the rich?
Click to expand...

I meant in the political arena. The top have the lobbies and influence, the bottom have a wide voting base content with voting themselves more benefits with those on the left saying it is a good thing.

Personally, I hate the fact that I look at my paycheck and see chunks taken out that go to unneeded social programs, while at the same time seeing the CEO pay 2000% what mine is. I get that I have to pay taxes, and that the CEO job is a lot more important than mine. But the disparity coming from both sides is at ridiculous levels now.
 
#68
#68
rjd970 said:
I meant in the political arena. The top have the lobbies and influence, the bottom have a wide voting base content with voting themselves more benefits with those on the left saying it is a good thing.

Personally, I hate the fact that I look at my paycheck and see chunks taken out that go to unneeded social programs, while at the same time seeing the CEO pay 2000% what mine is. I get that I have to pay taxes, and that the CEO job is a lot more important than mine. But the disparity coming from both sides is at ridiculous levels now.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I see the CEO pay as less political - it is primarily a market phenomenon right or wrong.

I'm naive I'm sure but I have to think a flat or fair tax program would remove some of the political influence at both ends of the spectrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#69
#69
volinbham said:
I hear you. I see the CEO pay as less political - it is primarily a market phenomenon right or wrong.

I'm naive I'm sure but I have to think a flat or fair tax program would remove some of the political influence at both ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I used to be against it, mainly because I didn't understand it, and thought it would be regressive towards the lower income bracket. But the more I read about it, the more it makes sense.
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
I hear you. I see the CEO pay as less political - it is primarily a market phenomenon right or wrong.

I'm naive I'm sure but I have to think a flat or fair tax program would remove some of the political influence at both ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

agree 100%
 
#71
#71
rjd970 said:
Where are you seeing that 500% number?

Given the disparity between the two studies, someone is using witchcraft math.

And actually, I somewhat agree with your sentiment about the bottom 20%. The middle class is who is getting screwed. The top earners in this country enjoy the lobby induced legislation that gives beneficial tax and loopholes breaks and leniency for fraud, and the bottom earners have enjoyed increases to welfare and unemployment benefits without the hassle of dealing with any real motivation to go be a productive member of society.

The middle class guys, that actually work 9-5 making real things and providing real services are not being squeezed from both sides.
Click to expand...

Column C is income, and from 1973-2004 income rose from $3,735 to $15,123 on average among unskilled laborers. This comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
 
#72
#72
VolFan32 said:
Agreed. The government does not create jobs, but they should set a business-friendly envirnoment. Obama has shown that his policies are not business-friendly.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. In the 1980s, the government was responsible for creating MILLIONS of jobs through its billion dollar investment into military weapons development and production.

The government was the single biggest contributor for jobs during the Reagan administration but you won't EVER hear a conservative pop off that fact to you
 
#73
#73
volinbham said:
Yes please.
Click to expand...

Well, Bush’s problem was thinking that Trickle Down Economics would work. At the time we were feeling a dot.com bubble, but we also had a surplus. Bush did his town hall thing trying to promote his ideology, thinking that a large tax cut (which had more windfalls for richer individuals than any other group) would help stimulate the economy. He was wrong in thinking that he could sustain a war and tax cuts during a slight recession. Bush’s idea of lowering taxes (mostly on those with higher incomes), tax cuts for all, deregulation of the housing market, deregulation of the banking market, declining dollar after spending on wars and tax cuts, and “conservative” politics were disastrous. When Bush tried to push regulations most died in the Senate over “conservative” politics. Look, Bush should not hold all of the blame, but by the time he tried to fix his mistakes it was to late. He propagated a mentality that the people’s money should be returned and that national defense spending is vital. Deregulation is not always the answer neither is cutting taxes. Smart deregulation and smart tax cuts are needed and important. Being a great prognosticator of markets would also help. Bush and Clinton both started the same, Clinton was just able to correct the utopian democrat vision before it was to late; Bush never had that luxury. Both followed their ideology to the point of realizing that neither party had the monopoly on good ideas. Ideology is to blame. Clinton just got a head of his ideology and decided to reform welfare and do great things toward later in his presidency. Bush realized the need for regulation and spending on direct middle class stimulation to late and congress stepped in to stop him many times. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and possibly Romney- I like the Clinton’s administration the most of this list. He started out rough but finally got things together (some like to claim that it was the republican congress that caused him get on track but most of this people are just pneumopathological ideologues) Obama has shown the ability to push a full blown ideology aside for what is right, his not completely there yet, but he has shown signs. Romney has also shown great stride in breaking the complete ideological background through his work in Massachusetts. But his rhetoric, lately, has shown him to be an ideologue. His rhetoric shows more spending on defense while creating massive trickle down tax cuts- much of the Bush model; more deregulation to the point of not making sense. The root of Mitt’s 50+ point plan has to do with spending on defense, cutting taxes on those “job creators”, deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, and cutting spending on safety nets- much of the beginning of the bush administrations economic disaster that through us into a great recession. That is what I was referring too when I originally posted (but dumbed down).
 
#74
#74
volinbham said:
I hear you. I see the CEO pay as less political - it is primarily a market phenomenon right or wrong.

I'm naive I'm sure but I have to think a flat or fair tax program would remove some of the political influence at both ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Na, it is to regressive in nature to work. If you can account for the regressive nature of a "flat or fair tax" than it would be better, but current plans to off set the regressive nature makes it as bad if not worse than what we have today, a progressive tax model.
 
#75
#75
Vols JD said:
At the time we were feeling a dot.com bubble, but we also had a surplus.

Clinton just got a head of his ideology and decided to reform welfare and do great things toward later in his presidency.

Obama has shown the ability to push a full blown ideology aside for what is right, his not completely there yet, but he has shown signs.
Click to expand...

just a couple of things that stood out in your wall of text (might be more but it's extremely hard to read). You really believe those to be true?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top