Getting Trickled On

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
It amazes me that we didn't stick with what was working - Clinton-onmics, in favor of a half-cocked scheme that, for the most part, doesn't work: Bush-onomics:



Where’s My Trickle?
By Paul Krugman

Four years ago the Bush administration, exploiting the political bounce it got from the illusion of success in Iraq, pushed a cut in capital-gains and dividend taxes through Congress. It was an extremely elitist tax cut even by Bush-era standards: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that more than half of the tax breaks went to Americans with incomes of more than $1 million a year.

Needless to say, administration economists produced various misleading statistics designed to convey the opposite impression, that the tax cut mainly went to ordinary, middle-class Americans. But they also insisted that the benefits of the tax cut would trickle down — that lower tax rates on the rich would do great things for the economy, helping everyone.

Well, Friday’s dismal jobs report showed that the Bush boom, such as it was, has run its course. And working Americans have a right to ask, "Where’s my trickle?"

It’s true, as the Bushies never tire of reminding us, that the U.S. economy has added eight million jobs since that 2003 tax cut. That sounds impressive, unless you happen to know that a good part of that gain was simply a recovery from large job losses earlier in the administration’s tenure — and that the United States added no fewer than 21 million jobs after Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich, a move that had conservative pundits predicting economic disaster.

What’s really remarkable, however, is that four years of economic growth have produced essentially no gains for ordinary American workers.

Wages, adjusted for inflation, have stagnated: the real hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, the most widely used measure of how typical workers are faring, were no higher in July 2007 than they were in July 2003.

Meanwhile, benefits have deteriorated: the percentage of Americans receiving health insurance through employers, which plunged along with employment during the early years of the Bush administration, continued to decline even as the economy finally began creating some jobs.

And one of the few seeming bright spots of the Bush-era economy, rising homeownership, is now revealed as the result of a bubble inflated in part by financial flim-flam, which deceived both borrowers and investors.

Now you know why 66 percent of Americans rate economic conditions in this country as only fair or poor, and why Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy almost as strongly as they disapprove of the job he is doing in general.


continued



http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-wheres-my-trickle.html
 
The rich get richer baby, fortunately it'll be the same under the dems.
It's called globalization.
Secondly,, dems acting like whiney little bitches only loses votes.
Things are tough for the uneducated and unskilled and will take years of funding votec and more access to college which hopefully the dems can do but no guarentee.
:readit:
 
The rich get richer baby, fortunately it'll be the same under the dems.
It's called globalization.
Secondly,, dems acting like whiney little bitches only loses votes.
Things are tough for the uneducated and unskilled and will take years of funding votec and more access to college which hopefully the dems can do but no guarentee.
:readit:



You can't make 100% of american go to college. We're still going to need janitors, bus drivers, convenience store clerks, and day care workers. And we still need a manufacturing base, composed of blue collar workers.
 
Cypress what would you recommend
I have said votec and more college, no where did I say everyone should go or could handle it. Obviously USC and his hillbilly kids couldn't handle it.:clink:
 
It amazes me that we didn't stick with what was working - Clinton-onmics, in favor of a half-cocked scheme that, for the most part, doesn't work: Bush-onomics:



Where’s My Trickle?
By Paul Krugman

Four years ago the Bush administration, exploiting the political bounce it got from the illusion of success in Iraq, pushed a cut in capital-gains and dividend taxes through Congress. It was an extremely elitist tax cut even by Bush-era standards: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that more than half of the tax breaks went to Americans with incomes of more than $1 million a year.

Needless to say, administration economists produced various misleading statistics designed to convey the opposite impression, that the tax cut mainly went to ordinary, middle-class Americans. But they also insisted that the benefits of the tax cut would trickle down — that lower tax rates on the rich would do great things for the economy, helping everyone.

Well, Friday’s dismal jobs report showed that the Bush boom, such as it was, has run its course. And working Americans have a right to ask, "Where’s my trickle?"

It’s true, as the Bushies never tire of reminding us, that the U.S. economy has added eight million jobs since that 2003 tax cut. That sounds impressive, unless you happen to know that a good part of that gain was simply a recovery from large job losses earlier in the administration’s tenure — and that the United States added no fewer than 21 million jobs after Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich, a move that had conservative pundits predicting economic disaster.

What’s really remarkable, however, is that four years of economic growth have produced essentially no gains for ordinary American workers.

Wages, adjusted for inflation, have stagnated: the real hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, the most widely used measure of how typical workers are faring, were no higher in July 2007 than they were in July 2003.

Meanwhile, benefits have deteriorated: the percentage of Americans receiving health insurance through employers, which plunged along with employment during the early years of the Bush administration, continued to decline even as the economy finally began creating some jobs.

And one of the few seeming bright spots of the Bush-era economy, rising homeownership, is now revealed as the result of a bubble inflated in part by financial flim-flam, which deceived both borrowers and investors.

Now you know why 66 percent of Americans rate economic conditions in this country as only fair or poor, and why Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy almost as strongly as they disapprove of the job he is doing in general.


continued



http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-wheres-my-trickle.html

Ohh, it's my future lover, SF did you see this? My future lover has really shot a hole in your theories. Sorry, you've been debunked, butt, don't feel badly, it was by the best.
 
USC didn't your kid follow in your illustrious GED shoes

Duhla, what would you and castro cypress do that's better than what I reconmmend?
 
Umm Is about time to talk about gay tendancies of wrasslers ?

Naw I can't lower myself to Toppers level. They can't help that their old man is a prick.
 
USC didn't your kid follow in your illustrious GED shoes

Duhla, what would you and castro cypress do that's better than what I reconmmend?

Top my post to you was regarding your remarks on usc's children, for God sakes I don't read your economy posts. Especially not on my future lover Paul Krugman's thread. Someone who actually knows something about economics, you know?
 
Top my post to you was regarding your remarks on usc's children, for God sakes I don't read your economy posts. Especially not on my future lover Paul Krugman's thread. Someone who actually knows something about economics, you know?

Yeah, thet lefty lefty SF knows much more about economics and the market than topper does.
 
Ohh, it's my future lover, SF did you see this? My future lover has really shot a hole in your theories. Sorry, you've been debunked, butt, don't feel badly, it was by the best.



No, no, no....SF would say that I'm completely delusional and out to lunch, to suggest that the middle class is stagnating. Even when respected economists agree with me.
 
usc's economics knowledge is limited to the price of trailer park slots.

I corrected that for ya college boy :)
 
Its all just history repeating itself.. just like the industrial revolution was used for political gain.. over and over again.. re-writing history to fit the candidates criteria.. so wont the high-tech revolution.

It was a golden age.. learn people.
 
the upper 30% are doing great
the higher up the food chain you go the higher % are likely voters.
no coincidence
 
Back
Top