George W. Bush's great

[AUman43 5]

It always amazes me to hear the Repuuuuuuubics rant and rave about the economic accomplishments of GWB. In reality, in 2005, total reported income in the United States rose over the previous year by almost 9 percent. Pretty good, huh? Actually, it depends on who you are. A new study of tax data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that, now more than ever, the old adage is true: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. As reported in The New York Times, the research found that those making the top 1 percent of income, $348,000 or more per year, saw an increase in earnings of 14 percent in 2005. That compares with Americans in the bottom 90 percent of the income ladder, whose earnings slipped by 0.6 percent.

The numbers get worse the more closely you look, and together they paint a troubling picture of a growing income gap in the United States. The study, done by economist Emmanuel Saez at the University of California at Berkeley with Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics, found that the top 1 percent of earners collectively held in 2005 the largest share of the nation's total income in eight decades -- 21.8 percent.

Only a year earlier, the top 1 percent had 19.8 percent of all income. To see when the rich copped its largest chunk of the nation's income, 23.9 percent, you'd have to go back to 1928, during the Calvin Coolidge administration. Is anyone really surprised that, after six years of economic policy under George W. Bush, America's rich have done almost as well? Bottom line is.....it's GREAT IF you are in that top 1%...if not, you're screwed!

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07099/776331-192.stm

[MDM4AU 336]

This is my response to topic of the Bush Economy back in April...it fits almost perfectly here.

Socialism at it's finest. Since he/she makes more money, he/she should make more money, too. "Income Equality!"

Unemployment is what, 4.5%? The last numbers I saw had the average hourly wage at around $16/hour - well above the minimum wage and those on minimum wage stay there an average of 6 months. Approximately 2.5% of hourly workers make the minimum wage which includes part time workers and service industry workers where unclaimed tips are about as common as unclaimed children nine months after a Kid Rock World Tour. I am not the Bush supporter I was a year, two years, six years ago, but I don't see many reasons to complain about this economy. Unless you just hate Bush...

[AURaptor 1,126]

This thread is a complete waste of time and space.

[rexbo 104]

Bottom line is.....it's GREAT IF you are in that top 1%...if not, you're screwed!

You're right, the bottom 99% of Americans are all living in poverty; Apple was even checking people's income statements when they got in line for the iPhone, only people in the Top 1% were allowed to buy one.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Bottom line is.....it's GREAT IF you are in that top 1%...if not, you're screwed!

You're right, the bottom 99% of Americans are all living in poverty; Apple was even checking people's income statements when they got in line for the iPhone, only people in the Top 1% were allowed to buy one.

You apparently can't read because you missed the point by a mile.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

[Tigermike 3,053]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

That is the only reason for the complete and total rancor from the left.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

George W Bush - The Elite My Base

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxFn8FfauU

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

[AFTiger 282]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

Where you gonna find those guys these days?

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

That compares with Americans in the bottom 90 percent of the income ladder, whose earnings slipped by 0.6 percent.

Are you serious??? You are complaining about .6%????

So if my household income was $100,000 last year, and I made 99, 400 this year...I should be pissed as hell! $600 per year equals $50 per month. What a HUGE difference...I am pissed. Maybe if I would have sold something else this year I couldn't complain.....oops, no...that would be holding MYSELF accountable for the slip in salary. We are obviously looking to blame Mr. Bush here so that wouldn't work.

But seriously, let's say you are really struggling and make $25,000 per year. If your income went down .6%, you lost a WHOPPING $15 freaking dollars that year. $15 That is $1.25 per month. HOW COULD GEORGE W. live with himself. He is not allowing people to stop at a coke machine ONCE A MONTH to get a coke.

I fail to see the point of this silly thread. At least attack Bush about the border or something else of importance. Remember what I said...personal accountability is a good thing sometimes....

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

And yet despite the deficits and despite the war, we're STILL in the middle of a fantastic economic run. Imagine that.

[AFTiger 282]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

Where you gonna find those guys these days?

I don't know but a Democrat administration with a Democrat Congress would be a disaster. I think a return to conservatism can be accomplished. Just look at what is happening to McCain.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

Where you gonna find those guys these days?

I don't know but a Democrat administration with a Democrat Congress would be a disaster. I think a return to conservatism can be accomplished. Just look at what is happening to McCain.

McCain is one of the last fiscally conservative Republicans. No wonder he's being rejected. He's outta step.

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

Where you gonna find those guys these days?

I don't know but a Democrat administration with a Democrat Congress would be a disaster. I think a return to conservatism can be accomplished. Just look at what is happening to McCain.

I just wanted to be the fifth post in a row to do this

[AFTiger 282]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

Where you gonna find those guys these days?

I don't know but a Democrat administration with a Democrat Congress would be a disaster. I think a return to conservatism can be accomplished. Just look at what is happening to McCain.

I just wanted to be the fifth post in a row to do this

It is TT's favorite emoticon.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Yeah, the point is that if this were Clinton in the W.H., it'd be the best economy in the history of the cosmos, but because it's Bush......

If it were Clinton, we wouldn't have deficits.

Maybe, but you would need a Republican Congress that really acted like Republicans.

Where you gonna find those guys these days?

I don't know but a Democrat administration with a Democrat Congress would be a disaster. I think a return to conservatism can be accomplished. Just look at what is happening to McCain.

I just wanted to be the fifth post in a row to do this

It is TT's favorite emoticon.

Actually, I rarely use it.

This is my favorite:

[FootballFanatic 4]

Btw, on the subject of unemployment, I seem to remember that somewhere they stated unemployment numbers were only drawn from people actively recieving unemployment and that the new laws for maximum time under unemployment has many people falling off those lists due to recieving unemployment to its end and moving on to welfare.

So, unemployment numbers are sometimes skewed by the fact that long term unemployment means leaving the statistical group represented. My point is its easy to maintain unemployment numbers if you don't keep people who aren't drawing unemployment anymore on the list until they are reemployed.

[jw 4 au 526]

My point is its easy to maintain unemployment numbers if you don't keep people who aren't drawing unemployment anymore on the list until they are reemployed.

Huh?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

That compares with Americans in the bottom 90 percent of the income ladder, whose earnings slipped by 0.6 percent.

Are you serious??? You are complaining about .6%????

So if my household income was $100,000 last year, and I made 99, 400 this year...I should be pissed as hell! $600 per year equals $50 per month. What a HUGE difference...I am pissed. Maybe if I would have sold something else this year I couldn't complain.....oops, no...that would be holding MYSELF accountable for the slip in salary. We are obviously looking to blame Mr. Bush here so that wouldn't work.

But seriously, let's say you are really struggling and make $25,000 per year. If your income went down .6%, you lost a WHOPPING $15 freaking dollars that year. $15 That is $1.25 per month. HOW COULD GEORGE W. live with himself. He is not allowing people to stop at a coke machine ONCE A MONTH to get a coke.

I fail to see the point of this silly thread. At least attack Bush about the border or something else of importance. Remember what I said...personal accountability is a good thing sometimes....

Not agreeing with the original poster necessarily, but your argument here isn't that great. If I'm making around $30,000 and my pay stays the same or goes down, I'm further behind because of inflation. Gas prices have gone up substantially from last year. In turn, things like groceries have gone up significantly to account for the increase cost of shipping to the stores. In all likelihood, my health care premiums also went up. So if my earnings are stagnant or declining even slightly, I'm hurting.

The only problem with stats like these is that it makes it sound like the exact same people stay in the exact same financial tiers each year. But in most cases, people have gotten a raise or moved to a new job over time so the people in a given salary range are changing frequently...some are moving up and into a new range and new ones are coming in from the college ranks or from a range below.

[japantiger 4,051]

Btw, on the subject of unemployment, I seem to remember that somewhere they stated unemployment numbers were only drawn from people actively recieving unemployment and that the new laws for maximum time under unemployment has many people falling off those lists due to recieving unemployment to its end and moving on to welfare.

So, unemployment numbers are sometimes skewed by the fact that long term unemployment means leaving the statistical group represented. My point is its easy to maintain unemployment numbers if you don't keep people who aren't drawing unemployment anymore on the list until they are reemployed.

Unemployment rate is the same for all reported periods...so if it is wrong or understated now..it has always been wrong or understated...this is the argument democrats always make when a Republican president has low unemployment....current unemployment is good and keeps getting better.

Tax $$ receipts are WAY up since the tax rate cuts...overall tax dollars collected are up 14%..we just spend too damn much...Current economy is in pretty good shape....

The deficit is a real problem in terms of interest payments required...we all owe about $30k per year to just fund the debt...as a % of GDP, it has been about 6% of GDP for the last 15 years. Until Bush 1, it had always been under 5%...CLinton took it to just under 7%...since then it has settled to just over 6%. Interest on the debt is the 3rd highest spending category...Social Programs are #1 and Defense is #2. I wonder if the framers intended it to be this way.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Btw, on the subject of unemployment, I seem to remember that somewhere they stated unemployment numbers were only drawn from people actively recieving unemployment and that the new laws for maximum time under unemployment has many people falling off those lists due to recieving unemployment to its end and moving on to welfare.

This is true.

[AFTiger 282]

Btw, on the subject of unemployment, I seem to remember that somewhere they stated unemployment numbers were only drawn from people actively recieving unemployment and that the new laws for maximum time under unemployment has many people falling off those lists due to recieving unemployment to its end and moving on to welfare.

This is true.

Are you confusing unemployment with welfare?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Btw, on the subject of unemployment, I seem to remember that somewhere they stated unemployment numbers were only drawn from people actively recieving unemployment and that the new laws for maximum time under unemployment has many people falling off those lists due to recieving unemployment to its end and moving on to welfare.

This is true.

Are you confusing unemployment with welfare?

No it's just his normal confusion.