Unexpectedly - Page 3

The facts, which I posted, say otherwise.

What's interesting is that the Gini coefficient, which the left loves to drag out as their index of choice for income inequality, in the US actually increased faster under Clinton than under Reagan and much faster than under Bush. In fact the index shows that income inequality increased more under Clinton than Reagan and Bush combined.

From here (See: "Gini Ratios for Households, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder"), here are the Gini coefficients:

1980\t0.403
1981\t0.406 Reagan's first year in office
1982\t0.412
1983 \t0.414
1984\t0.415
1985 \t0.419
1986\t0.425
1987 \t0.426
1988\t0.426
1989\t0.431 Bush's first year in office
1990\t0.428
1991\t0.428
1992 \t0.433
1993 \t0.454 Clinton's first year in office
1994 \t0.456
1995 \t0.450
1996\t0.455
1997\t0.459
1998\t0.456
1999 \t0.458
2000 \t0.462 Bush's first year in office
2001\t0.466
2002\t0.462
2003\t0.464
2004 \t0.466
2005\t0.469
2006\t0.470
2007\t0.463
2008\t0.466
2009\t0.468 Obama's first year in office

From 1980-1988 income inequality increased 5.71% (0.023).

From 1992-2000 income inequality increased 6.70% (0.029).

From 2000 - 2008 income inequality increased 0.87% (0.004).

What's more, the total increase for Reagan and Bush (16 years) was 0.027 and for Clinton (8 years) was 0.029.

I'll bet that was unexpected.

Hahaha!!! What's absolutely not unexpected is that you interpret the data from 1993 to be the effect of Clinton's policies.

No one on Earth can look at that graph and support what you're claiming, without lying or making shit up. The graph shows unarguably that there has been zero correlation between the wealth increase of the rich and the wealth increase of the working class.

Thanks for your "in-depth" analysis.

I used consistent timeline ranges for all of them. And chose the first full year of their presidencies for a reason. But, okay, let's deal with your objection.

If you assume that the incoming President did not implement any policies in their first year that effect this metric, the picture changes:

From 1981-1989 income inequality increased 6.2%.

From 1993-2001 income inequality increased 2.6%.

From 2001 - 2009 income inequality increased 1.3%.

So income inequality increased twice as fast under Clinton than Bush. Much faster under Reagan. What's still interesting is that we heard lots about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" under Bush, but not so much about Clinton.

Now we can debate which start and end years are the best picks and for what reasons.

BTW...I don't actually claim the Gini coefficient to be a useful measure. Just the one the left likes to use.

A more important measure would be rising median incomes. Because while the rich might get rich faster, it doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. They might just be getting rich more slowly. In fact, during the Clinton years, mean household income rose faster in the top 5% and top fifth than in either of the other two administrations while the bottom 4/5 stayed pretty steady.

The other issue is class mobility. The people at the bottom in the earlier years are not necessarily the same people in the bottom in the later years.

I believe he is talking about the argument posted here often that it is interesting who has control of Congress during that time as that is who actually implements fiscal policy. You have argued that Congress is responsible for the upswing, and then in this post appear to be assigning responsibility to the president which is inconsistent on its face.

Actually, I'm not making any argument like that at all*. I'm simply showing some data.

*Though if I was, I'm arguing on the same terms that our leftist friends want to use when vesting all control, power and responsibility with the president. I agree 100% that who controls Congress is an additionally useful data point on this table/chart.

Here's that data:

Senate/House

1980\t0.403
1981\t0.406 R/D Reagan's first year in office
1982\t0.412 R/D
1983 0.414 R/D
1984\t0.415 R/D
1985 0.419 R/D
1986\t0.425 R/D
1987 0.426 D/D
1988\t0.426 D/D
1989\t0.431 D/D Bush's first year in office
1990\t0.428 D/D
1991\t0.428 D/D
1992 0.433 D/D
1993 0.454 D/D Clinton's first year in office
1994 0.456 D/D
1995 0.450 R/R
1996\t0.455 R/R
1997\t0.459 R/R
1998\t0.456 R/R
1999 0.458 R/R
2000 0.462 R/R Bush's first year in office
2001\t0.466 D/R
2002\t0.462 D/R
2003\t0.464 R/R
2004 0.466 R/R
2005\t0.469 R/R
2006\t0.470 R/R
2007\t0.463 D/D
2008\t0.466 D/D
2009\t0.468 D/D Obama's first year in office

Granted it would be much more helpful to plot this visually on a chart...including the degree of control by each party. NOTE: This whole party thing also presumes (incorrectly I believe) that Republicans (or Democrats) 20 years ago are the same as Republicans (or Democrats) now. At best this is a very loose proxy for actual political and economic philosophy and policy.

It may be in line with their arguments, but I was more interested in how you reconciled the possible discrepancy.

Thank you for the data update.

Completely false. From wiki:



Now, let's talk about tax revenue:


and




Let's also add that federal revenue increased about 30% during the decade when inflation is accounted for, or nearly 50% in real dollars. So tell me...how did it only benefit the top 1%?

I believe that is the "we're fucked" chart.

That's because there aren't any.


Another "oops".


... you know, those things you actually need...


If you include the food and energy the real inflation rate - that perceived by the consumer - becomes scarier. Estimates range from 12% to 27%. Carter-esque.


Oh good.


Which is exactly what happens when you "inject more money into the financial system."

Idiots.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...645898530.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...740744336.html
http://www.indexmundi.com/commoditie...ty-price-index

June 2010: U.S. Federal Debt Is NOT Approaching 100% Of GDP Anytime Soon

June 2011: Fed Expects GDP to Slow, Total Debt to GDP to Breach 100%

And Obama is fiddling while we burn. He's hoping to pin the double-dip recession/depression on the GOP because they don't want to raise the debt limit. He'll try to argue that lack of government spending increases caused the double-dip. \

Interestingly, I heard today that the notion we will default in August is simply not true. Treasury will still have money to pay the bills because of ongoing income tax receipts. What some now believe Obama wants is to let us pass the deadline and wait until Treasury really does have insufficient cash to fund government operations. In that case, the Administration gets to choose what to fund and what not to fund rather than default on credit obligations. He'd then try to pin the whole thing on the GOP, who refused to raise the debt limit without serious cuts in spending.

The U.S. economy expanded at a slower pace than expected: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...201857064.html


The economic consensus was for 1.8% growth, but the most pessimistic forecasts estimated 1.5%, concluding markets will react negatively to anything less. The economy needs to expand at a minimum of 3% just to support population growth. Therefore, anything less than 3% is effectively a recession, a mantra consistently repeated by the complicit media when Bush was in office.

It gets worse: the degree of GDP growth required to support Obama's pullulating welfare state is much, much higher than 3%. We're not anywhere close to that, yet - incredibly - Obama and his swarms of complicit Congresscritters are calling for even more crushing taxes to support even more unsustainable spending, for which yet more borrowed money is required!


Consumer sentiment at its lowest since Obama's inauguration: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76S0T120110729. That can't possibly be related, could it

When history books chronicle the decline and fall of the United States, the reasons will be obvious. The only unresolved question will be "how could they have allowed this to happen".

"....history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: man's old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

---Ronald Reagan, 1964

Talking about the Soviet Union. Could easily be applied to today's economic woes.

http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/0...-hits-new-low/

Obama's overall approval rating is now lower than Bush's ever was.

Even Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon's approval ratings weren't as bad as the Obamanation's

I'm sure this is all the Tea Party's fault

Speaking of the Evil Empire:


Putin's choice of the word "parasite" is significant. The USSR often used it to describe dissidents, Jews, and anyone else who disagreed with their all-knowing beneficent Government. Under Stalin, "parasitism" was a crime punishable by imprisonment, exile, banishment, or death. This was their commonly accepted practice, which continued until the end of the Soviet Union.


There already is, and it already has.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77052R20110801

Thought it was time for this thread to come back.

Unemployment "unexpectedly" drops to 8.5% with "200,00 new jobs" created.


Right, except 200,000 jobs is the number needed to offset losses. It means real unemployment is going nowhere, because 200,000 jobs is the number we need tread water.

Good point. In fact, I was just taking that as a given (people not looking for work). Even assuming that WASN'T true, 200,00 jobs are still needed to tread water.

No one could have anticipated this disastrous recovery.

I don't think that's true. In fact, this recovery actually rather closely models the Great Depression "recovery." The problem is that people perceived the causes and effects of that time wrongly. They learned the wrong lessons.

In other words there was an analogous pattern of what happens when you have a bubble, a crash and then a heavily Keynesian response. The GD is that. This is merely a milder form of that.

Japan provides another example. We're about 3.5 years into our own "lost decade."

So I think it could be anticipated. The specific details? No. Of course not. But the general stagnation and non-recovery? Sure.

In fact I was saying that all they were doing was kicking the can down the road rather than solving the core problems and probably making the problems worse just dragging them out.

Both Bush and Obama did the exact opposite of what they should have done. Maybe someone will wake up and turn this thing around:

- Cut spending and deficits
- Cut taxes...start with both personal and corporate income taxes (preferably also streamline and simplify)
- Reduce and streamline regulations
- Tear down trade barriers, stop erecting our own

Doh! Oops. Sorry FJ...my brain was not in full gear.

U.S. Employers Add 69,000 Jobs, Fewer Than Forecast

 

I've got to say, you couldn't have created a more illustrative thread with regard to bias and incompetence.