PDA

View Full Version : Repiglicans Still OffTheirRockers!



Gayle in MD
05-26-2011, 08:51 AM
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>There's nothing remotely conservative about believing in magic. Yet when it comes to fiscal questions, Republicans are as superstitious as gamblers around a roulette wheel. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Regardless of how much they've lost, they're confident their system will prevail if they double down one more time.</span>

How you can tell they're about to do something momentously dumb is when they're unanimous, i.e., operating on sheer ideology. Show me a unified GOP, and I'll show you a budgetary disaster about to happen. That's what makes the pending showdown over raising the national debt limit so worrying.

But hold that thought.

The betting system the GOP's been playing for the past 30 years is called supply-side economics. "The theory goes like this," explains David Cay Johnston. "Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity -- so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates."

To anybody with a passing interest in the material world, it's clear that this has never happened. Over the same period, the national debt has risen to more than $14 trillion -- almost 90 percent of it under Republican presidents.

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have failed to prosper as President Reagan's seductive "morning in America" rhetoric promised. Since 1980, Johnston shows, "the average income of the vast majority -- the bottom 90 percent of Americans -- has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent." Meanwhile, the income of the upper 1 percent of taxpayers more than doubled, and that of the top tenth of 1 percent increased more than 400 percent.

Social mobility in the United States lags behind many European countries. The richest 300,000 American taxpayers currently enjoy incomes roughly equal to that of the bottom 150 million combined.</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Anyway, here's what I mean about the dangers of GOP herd behavior: Given current conservative hysteria about "runaway spending," it's worth remembering that the United States last balanced the federal budget in FY2001 under Bill Clinton.


That was largely a result of the Clinton income-tax increases of 1993, enacted without a single GOP vote amid universal Republican predictions of doom. They probably cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>But contrary to Newt Gingrich and the rest, what followed was the most prolonged economic boom since World War II -- 22 million new jobs altogether, the only period since 1980 when middle-class prosperity grew substantially.

Enter George W. Bush and the now-infamous tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Actually professing to worry that eliminating the national debt too quickly would throw markets into turmoil, Republicans again promised lower taxes, higher revenue and boom times.

Again, they were virtually unanimous, voting to cut marginal income tax rates mainly on the wealthy by 224-1 in the House and 48-3 in the Senate.

Two wars and a large entitlement increase (Medicare, Part D) later, no boom took place. At its peak in 2007, the Bush economy had produced roughly 8 million jobs (7 million of which vanished in the 2007-09 financial crisis).</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Budget deficits soared, topping out with the $1.3 trillion FY2009 shortfall President Obama inherited that January.</span>

Somewhat to their credit, when pressed none of Bush's top-level Treasury people endorsed the supply-side delusion. Aggravated by GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's recent invocations of the old-time religion, recovering Republican economist Bruce Bartlett compiled quotes from Bush administration officials debunking the idea.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>"Will the tax cuts pay for themselves?" Edward Lazear, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors told a Senate committee in 2006. "As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Lazear's predecessor, Harvard's Greg Mankiw, has written scholarly articles arguing that the economic boost from tax cuts amounts to roughly 30 percent of government revenue forgone.

In direct consequence, the national debt almost doubled under George W. Bush, from roughly $5 trillion in 2001 to more than $10 trillion in 2009.

Also in consequence, every Republican leader now posing as a hard-line fiscal conservative -- Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Paul Ryan, and Sen. McConnell -- voted to increase the national debt limit at least seven times under President Bush. All of them, every time.

Ironically, of the present players, only Barack Obama made what he now calls a protest vote against raising the debt limit in 2006.

Under a Democratic president, GOP supply-siders are mad keen to give the wheel another spin. Republican House members voted 235-4 for Rep. Ryan's preposterous fantasy of balancing the budget by cutting millionaires' taxes by $1 trillion and downgrading Medicare to a cheaper voucher system.

So now the same posers vow to risk the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Treasury during a fragile economic recovery unless President Obama agrees to deep cuts in the nation's social safety net.</span><span style='font-size: 26pt'>A mature electorate would have wised up by now.</span>

By: Gene Lyons

http://www.salon.com

LWW
05-26-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The betting system the GOP's been playing for the past 30 years is called supply-side economics. "The theory goes like this," explains David Cay Johnston. "Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity -- so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates."</div></div>

Actually, that's Bravo Sierra ... and a potent version.


Under Reagan US income rose from $517.1B to $991.1B.

Under an R congress, 1995 through 2007, revenue rose from $1,351.8B to $2,568B.

Under the D congress revenue shrunk to $2,162.7B.

Following the Bush tax cuts implementation, revenue rose from $1,853.1B to $2,568B.

TRUTH VERSUS MYTHOLOGY (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)

LWW
05-26-2011, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To anybody with a passing interest in the material world, it's clear that this has never happened. Over the same period, the national debt has risen to more than $14 trillion -- almost 90 percent of it under Republican presidents.</div></div>

That's pure Barbara Streisand.

Not tacking this year's debacle onto the regime ... over 20% of the US debt has been accumulated in under 2 year's of dear leader's regime.

Roughly 40% of the debt has been added on since the democrooks took over the budget in 2007.

Yet another leftist myth slain. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

eg8r
05-26-2011, 11:23 AM
If you use enlarged font all the time then all it does it look like you are screaming. No one listens to a screamer.

The effect makes more sense when used as emphasis rather than screaming.

eg8r

LWW
05-26-2011, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have failed to prosper as President Reagan's seductive "morning in America" rhetoric promised. Since 1980, Johnston shows, "the average income of the vast majority -- the bottom 90 percent of Americans -- has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent." Meanwhile, the income of the upper 1 percent of taxpayers more than doubled, and that of the top tenth of 1 percent increased more than 400 percent.</div></div>

Still more unsubstantiated Bovine Scatology I see.

However, even according to the NEW YORK TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/business/yourmoney/03standard.html) in 2005:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other words, can it be that living standards are actually slipping in America?

No economist, demographer or historian would make that case. Living standards, after all, almost never go backward, at least not in a material sense. Indeed, the economy today is growing, consumer spending is plentiful and new technologies - from the Internet to laparoscopic surgery - make life better than ever, as they do in every generation. </div></div>

so if the SOL has fallen, which party was running the show when it happened?

It is so remarkably simple to paint you into a corner.

pooltchr
05-26-2011, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you use enlarged font all the time then all it does it look like you are screaming. No one listens to a screamer.

The effect makes more sense when used as emphasis rather than screaming.

eg8r </div></div>

When you know what you are saying is wrong, using a more forceful delivery style seems to make sense.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

LWW
05-27-2011, 05:10 AM
You could regain some respectability by admitting what yiu posted was wrong.

Gayle in MD
05-27-2011, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you use enlarged font all the time then all it does it look like you are screaming. No one listens to a screamer.

The effect makes more sense when used as emphasis rather than screaming.

eg8r </div></div>

Thanks for the unsought for advice.

I'll decide how I post. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif If it bothers you, then don't read it.

G.

pooltchr
05-27-2011, 09:32 AM
Ed,
Nobody can tell her anything. She thinks she knows it all.

Steve

Qtec
05-27-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Under Reagan US income rose from $517.1B to $991.1B.</div></div>...over 8 years and he TRIPLED the Nat Debt.

He also raised taxes.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-27-2011, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Under Reagan US income rose from $517.1B to $991.1B.</div></div>...over 8 years and he TRIPLED the Nat Debt.

He also raised taxes.

Q </div></div>

Another of his usual exercises in Cherry Picking.

It's part of having an incurable case of Elephant Flu.

He has no credibility. His BS posts have been blown away so many times on here you'd think he'd be embarrassed enough to leave, by now.

G.

pooltchr
05-27-2011, 01:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
His BS posts have been blown away so many times on here you'd think he'd be embarrassed enough to leave, by now.

G. </div></div>

It hasn't embarrassed you enough to leave! And you have been shown to be wrong far more than anyone on the forum.

LWW
05-27-2011, 03:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Under Reagan US income rose from $517.1B to $991.1B.</div></div>...over 8 years and he TRIPLED the Nat Debt.

He also raised taxes.

Q </div></div>

Under Reagan the deficit rost about $1.9B in 8 years.

Under Obama it has risen about $2.5B in under 2 years.

How can a sane man complain about the first and give a pass on the second ... unless they are a spoon fed hyper partisan tool?

LWW
05-27-2011, 03:54 PM
What did I cherry pick.

I took your rant and shredded it within minutes.

Deal with it.

llotter
05-28-2011, 07:14 AM
Speaking of cherry picking, the author of G's post tried to do it but still had to cheat to make his point, a perpetual and necessary problem of the Left. Unfortunately, because the Left has been arguing from a fundamentally flawed premise, they have been cheating and lying for so long that they are no longer even aware of their dishonesty.

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
His BS posts have been blown away so many times on here you'd think he'd be embarrassed enough to leave, by now.

G. </div></div>

It hasn't embarrassed you enough to leave! And you have been shown to be wrong far more than anyone on the forum.

</div></div>

Coming from you that is hilarious!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
05-28-2011, 07:59 AM
Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny when I posted it!

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you use enlarged font all the time then all it does it look like you are screaming. No one listens to a screamer.

The effect makes more sense when used as emphasis rather than screaming.

eg8r </div></div>

When you know what you are saying is wrong, using a more forceful delivery style seems to make sense.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve </div></div>


When there is a troll, who continuously posts BS, you should read the link, as you are usually just as uninformed, ignorant and partisan, as the Little Wonkie Weenie.


From the WONK's own NYT link, facts which he ignored, which went beyond his usual deceitful cherry picking...

hard to figure out which one of you is the most ignorant!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fast forward to Tom and Marie DeSisto in 2005. They are real people in their early 50's, living in a three-bedroom condominium in Newton, Mass. Ask them if their standard of living is rising and they say yes, indeed, it is - but not in the Rath family's sense of the word. The DeSistos' income made a U-turn last year, but they manage to live within its limits, even eking out money for extras. And that success lifts their spirits. "We are not really into boats and cars," Mrs. DeSisto said, "but we are traveling more."

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Pushed into early retirement last year by his employer, Verizon, Mr. DeSisto's salary plummeted from more than $100,000 as a manager to $36,000 as a first-year math teacher at Newton High School. </span>His wife, on the other hand, has just been promoted to director of nursing in the Framingham public schools. Her salary rose by nearly $4,000, to $67,000 a year, but she is also adding eight working days a year to handle the additional responsibilities.

While the Raths moved up in income, home size and leisure time, the DeSistos sold their four-bedroom colonial home in Newton, pocketing a profit while cutting their property taxes and maintenance costs. "We planned carefully," Mrs. DeSisto said, "and we downsized successfully."

So, did the Raths, that quintessential 1950's family, enjoy a higher standard of living than middle-class families like the DeSistos do today? In other words, can it be that living standards are actually slipping in America?

No economist, demographer or historian would make that case. Living standards, after all, almost never go backward, at least not in a material sense. Indeed, the economy today is growing, consumer spending is plentiful and new technologies - from the Internet to laparoscopic surgery - make life better than ever, as they do in every generation.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BUT for the DeSistos and their contemporaries, the trajectory is no longer the steadily upward line that the Rath family enjoyed. Instead, the line appears to be climbing erratically. That is certainly true of the traditional measures of standard of living. After 20 years of very small gains, the rate of improvement surged from 1995 to 2000 - only to fall back toward zero over the last four years, a reversal that puzzles analysts. </span>


"When you talk about living standards, you have to focus on people in the middle," said Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University. "A lot of the goodies that we think of as raising living standards have gone to the people at the top at the expense of the broad mass of Americans in the middle."

Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that federal subsidies in the form of tax credits, mainly the earned income tax credit, are raising living standards for low-income families by more than many people realize. Those subsidies have risen by about $2,000 since President Bush took office in 2001, to just over $3,000 a year for a married couple with two children and a family income of $27,300, Mr. Hassett estimates.

"The standard income numbers don't capture what is happening to people at the bottom," he said. "So you have to look at their consumption, not their income, to gauge standard of living. And consumption has significantly outperformed income."

While income and consumption are the chief measures of a nation's standard of living, other, more subtle indicators also play an important role - and several of them are not doing so well. Life expectancy in the United States, while still rising, has fallen behind that in France, Germany and Japan. Home ownership is at a record high for the population as a whole, but it has dropped since the 1970's for some groups - working families with children, for example, according to the Center for Housing Policy. In overwhelming numbers, Americans say they are satisfied with their standard of living, a Gallup poll reports. But 25 percent of the nation's families also worry all or most of time that they won't be able to pay their bills. That is up from 21 percent in the late 1990's.



And in many cases, public services are not holding their own. "Thirty years ago a lot of public goods were free, and now they are fee-based," said Michael Hout, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Even the Grand Canyon charges, and many public schools are engaged in fund-raising. So public goods that contribute to living standards are more dependent today on family income."



And in many cases, public services are not holding their own. "Thirty years ago a lot of public goods were free, and now they are fee-based," said Michael Hout, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Even the Grand Canyon charges, and many public schools are engaged in fund-raising. So public goods that contribute to living standards are more dependent today on family income."



And in many cases, public services are not holding their own. "Thirty years ago a lot of public goods were free, and now they are fee-based," said Michael Hout, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Even the Grand Canyon charges, and many public schools are engaged in fund-raising. So public goods that contribute to living standards are more dependent today on family income."

Skip to next paragraph

The Drag on American Living Standards
The good news for the nation is that productivity - a measure of output per worker that is the bedrock on which income and living standards are built - is rising. When it goes up, so does the revenue from the sale of the additional goods and services that each worker produces. In theory, some of that revenue feeds back into the income of the workers, financing improvements in their standard of living.

That symbiotic relationship worked very well for Tom Rath. From the late 1940's through 1973, productivity grew at an annual rate of nearly 3 percent, and incomes rose almost as briskly. Then came a horrific slowdown: productivity fell back to an annual growth rate of less than 1.5 percent from the mid-1970's to the mid-90's, and median income hardly rose at all.

The revival that started in 1995 brought productivity growth back to its old rate of increase, and for five years incomes also rose smartly. What happened next is tough for economists to explain. The productivity growth rate has stayed strong - rising at an average annual rate of just under 3 percent since 1995, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But starting in 2000, median income, adjusted for inflation, has grown more slowly every year - and this year the increase is almost imperceptible.

"There is no question that a huge gap has opened up between productivity and living standards," said Jared Bernstein, a senior labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

Not since World War II have productivity and income diverged so sharply, yet that phenomenon barely registers in public opinion surveys. Nearly 9 in 10 people surveyed by Gallup say they are satisfied with their standard of living, a higher proportion than in the 1960's. In answering that question, however, those surveyed make no comparisons with the past, said Lydia Saad, a senior editor at Gallup, "so they don't know whether they are falling behind on some treadmill of life."

Richard A. Easterlin, an economic historian at the University of Southern California, has a different take. Satisfaction is always relative, he says. If a family's debt rises, that is not a negative as long as other people's debt is increasing at roughly the same pace.

The parity helps to explain why consumption has risen 40 percent faster than income since 2001, and why people are able to focus on the amenities they acquire - the cellphones, the bigger homes, the cars and the digital cameras - without feeling weighed down by rising debt or by income that is rising more slowly.

TOM RATH'S generation, having experienced the Depression, expected more hard times after World War II. When the economy boomed instead, the aspirations of his generation rose and so, eventually, did their sense of well-being. All of that changed in the 1980's, when globalization infected public attitudes and people told pollsters that they expected their children's living standards to decline.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>That shift in expectations soon gave way to a new norm. In the age of layoffs, tens of thousands of families have done what the DeSistos have done: adjusted to a decline in income after a job loss.</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Labor's share, which has historically represented 60 to 65 percent of the total, has fallen in the last five years to the low end of that range. But for Mr. Gordon at Northwestern, that is only part of the story. Capital's share, he says, has increasingly found its way to upper-income families as stock options, dividends, special bonuses and the like. </span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
The Drag on American Living Standards
"We had much less income inequality in the first couple of decades after World War II because of strong unions, restricted trade and a decline in immigration," Mr. Gordon said. "Then all three reversed, which means that the income from productivity falls to the bottom line and for the time being stays there."</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>To him and others, living standards cannot be truly rising if the improvement is so unevenly distributed; in addition, they say, earning a living has become increasingly stressful.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Job security, which Tom Rath took for granted, has deteriorated.</span> "People talk of the new economy and of reinventing themselves in the workplace, and in that sense most of us are less secure," said Daniel Kahneman, a Princeton University economist who shared a Nobel in economics for his contributions to behavioral economics.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
People approaching the age of 65 face a different uncertainty: smaller retirement incomes than their parents enjoyed. That is happening as the nation shifts from a system of fixed monthly pensions to 401(k)-type accounts, in which people save what they can for their own retirement.</span> In the process, retirement income is falling from 93 percent of preretirement pay for today's retirees to 80 percent, on average, for the next generation, according to an Urban Institute projection.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some retirees cannot afford the pension hit, and they continue to work. The portion of the 65-and-over population that is employed has risen to 14 percent from less than 12 percent in 1995, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The option to retire is slipping away, and that damages living standards.</span>"People who have a choice experience a greater standard of living," said Richard T. Curtin, director of the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers. "They are not constrained from choosing what they prefer."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Choosing not to work is no longer an option for many families who need two incomes to pay what they consider basic expenses. Two of those expenses - health care and education - have risen faster than incomes, says Elizabeth Warren, a bankruptcy specialist at Harvard Law School and co-author of "The Two-Income Trap."</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Half of all people who file for personal bankruptcy do so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem," she said, noting that the number of Americans without health insurance has increased in recent years.</span> As for education, the rising cost is mostly in the purchase of expensive homes in upscale areas known to have good public schools. "A generation ago," Ms. Warren said, "the majority of American parents believed they could buy whatever home they could afford and send their kids to a good school down the street."

There is a problem with this argument. The quality of public school education, measured by test scores, is in fact holding up quite well, on average. The National Assessment of Education Progress, a federally sponsored testing program that started in the 1960's, periodically measures the skills and achievements of students at the ages of 9, 13 and 17. Scores have risen slightly since the early 1980's, on average, but so, too, has the disparity in school performance.

"The variation is extraordinary across school districts and even across schools in the same district," said Richard Murnane, an economist at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, "so when you ask about how good the schools are, the measure of central tendency is less interesting than the variation around the average."

HEALTH problems also undermine living standards. Life expectancy at birth is one symptom. At 69.7 years in the late 1950's, life expectancy in the United States was slightly ahead of that of Germany and France, and well ahead of Japan's. Now Japan is far ahead at 80.5 years, compared with 78.5 in France, 77.5 in Germany and 76.5 in the United States.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Infant mortality, at more than six deaths per thousand live births, similarly trails the rates in France, Germany and Japan, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Height, too, is no longer an American hallmark. Average height has been stuck at less than 6 feet for a decade or more while Europeans have grown past that mark, suggesting that they are somehow healthier.</span>



The Drag on American Living Standards
Obesity is now a distinguishing feature. The percentage of obese American adults has doubled in the last 15 years, to 30 percent, said Kenneth E. Thorpe, chairman of the department of health policy management at Emory University's School of Public Health.

The way we live makes that happen, he argues: the lack of exercise, the marketing of foods high in sugar and fat, the over-large portions. As a result, weight-related illnesses - diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, asthma - have risen sharply.

"Once you are sick, we are doing a better job in treatment," Dr. Thorpe said. "The pace of technological development has probably accelerated since 1980 more than in previous generations. That's the good news. The bad news is that we have larger shares of the population who are sick."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>For Dr. Thorpe, the much better treatment is clearly a big improvement in standard of living - offset, however, by the big increase in the incidence of illness. He estimated that the additional health care cost resulting from the decline in healthiness would total $70 billion this year. </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"You can't have a rising standard of living," he said, "if you have people getting less healthy."</span>The Rath family had no such misfortune. In Sloan Wilson's hands, the man in the gray flannel suit enjoyed an ever more prosperous life - a happy ending that many middle-class families can't seem to match today.
</div></div>Wonk wonk wonk wonk!

HOIST???


<span style='font-size: 26pt'> </span>

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have failed to prosper as President Reagan's seductive "morning in America" rhetoric promised. Since 1980, Johnston shows, "the average income of the vast majority -- the bottom 90 percent of Americans -- has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent." Meanwhile, the income of the upper 1 percent of taxpayers more than doubled, and that of the top tenth of 1 percent increased more than 400 percent.</div></div>

Still more unsubstantiated Bovine Scatology I see.

However, even according to the NEW YORK TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/business/yourmoney/03standard.html) in 2005:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other words, can it be that living standards are actually slipping in America?

No economist, demographer or historian would make that case. Living standards, after all, almost never go backward, at least not in a material sense. Indeed, the economy today is growing, consumer spending is plentiful and new technologies - from the Internet to laparoscopic surgery - make life better than ever, as they do in every generation. </div></div>

so if the SOL has fallen, which party was running the show when it happened?

It is so remarkably simple to paint you into a corner. </div></div>



<span style='font-size: 17pt'> BWA HA HA HA!!!!

What an act of sleezy cherry picking.

I hope anyone who sees this BS of yours, will actually go to the link, if just to see how underhanded, and deceitfully you continuously cherry pick, to spread your gross lies and ignorance on here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me turn your claim around for you. It isn't blind support of the president that drives these go-rounds, but your blind opposition to him, in conflict with the facts and reason.

Soflasnapper </div></div>


May be one of the best sentences ever written on this forum!


G </span>

LWW
05-28-2011, 03:03 PM
The true question is which of you can parrot dear leader the fastest ... and Charlotte, not that you comprehend what you posted, but it supports exactly what I said.

Thanks for having my back snookums.