Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArellaNova
Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.
All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.
Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.
The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.
hmmm.......  |
You're new to the forum, and seemingly smug....even arrogant....compared to the lack of strength and documentation you presented.
First impressions are important. What is it that "you wanna hit"?
You indicate a personal feeling of anger that the actual "record" of the politician you favor, has not been fully appreciated.
In fact, I do appreciate Reagan's "contribution". He left us with a pathetic legacy and lasting influence that the Clinton presidency was temporarily able to reverse, but one that the Bush administration has set back "on track" again. <b>When will the eighty-five percent of Californians who cannot afford an average priced home, or the 45.8 million with no health insurance coveage, reap the "benefit" of the Bush influenced economy?</b>
"Trickle down" economic policies do not benefit the majority. Officials in the Bush administration seem to agree:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083001727.html
Poverty Rate Continues To Climb
2004 Census Data Show Labor Market Is Still Struggling
By Jonathan Weisman and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 31, 2005; Page A03
Despite robust economic growth last year, 1.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty in 2004, while household incomes stagnated and earnings fell, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 800,000, to 45.8 million.........
.........The median household income stood at $44,389 last year, <b>down slightly from the 2003 level of $44,482. But that level was propped up by more people going to work for lower earnings.</b> A full-time male worker earned a median income of $40,798 last year, down $963 in inflation-adjusted dollars from 2003. Women's median earnings fell $327, to $31,223.
<b>The poverty rate climbed in 2004 to 12.7 percent, from 12.5 percent in 2003 -- the fourth year in a row that poverty has risen. The increase was borne completely by non-Hispanic whites, the only ethnic group that saw its poverty rate rise.</b> The percentage of whites in poverty rose from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 8.6 percent. African Americans saw no change in their poverty rate, which remained at 24.7 percent. The poverty rate for Hispanics remained at 21.9 percent, while Asian Americans' poverty levels dropped by two percentage points, to 9.8 percent.
The Midwest was the only region that saw both the poverty rate rise and median household income fall, a "double whammy,".............
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080801445.html
Snow Concedes Economic Surge Is Not Benefiting People Equally
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Page A03
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow acknowledged yesterday that the fruits of strong economic growth are not spreading equally to less educated Americans, as he and the rest of President Bush's economic team prepared to meet today to discuss wages and income distribution in an otherwise surging economy.........
........A study released yesterday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office focuses on "unprecedented" declines in the workforce in the wake of the 2001 recession that continued through early 2005. Job growth in this economic recovery has been substantially slower than previous recoveries, the CBO said.
Administration officials now acknowledge they have a problem, at least with voters' perceptions. Bush will huddle with his Treasury, agriculture, labor and commerce secretaries, his budget director and his two top economic advisers to review the farm economy, overall economic growth, wages, income levels, income distribution and trade, Snow said.
"If the country as a whole is going to undergo economic growth, then the population has to be able to take advantage of opportunities," said Randal K. Quarles, Treasury's undersecretary for domestic finance. "And to the extent out there that there are differentials, significant differentials in the population in their ability to take advantage of those opportunities, that's one of the things we have to consider."
|
Quote:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...1/daily53.html
October 4, 2001
More Californians can afford to buy a home
The percentage of households in California able to afford a median-priced home increased by three percentage points in August compared to a year ago, according to a report released today by the California Association of Realtors [CAR].
Its figures show that one out of three (32 percent) of California families could qualify for a loan to buy the median-priced home. .........
|
Quote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8502784/
Few Calif. households can afford a home
Higher prices pushing affordability down near record lows
Updated: 12:11 p.m. ET July 11, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - The percentage of California households that can afford to buy a median-priced home has neared a record low, according to a report released Thursday.
The percentage fell to 16 percent in May from 17 percent in April and 19 percent a year earlier, according to the report by the California Association of Realtors.
"The record low was 14 percent set back in May and June of 1989," said Robert Kleinhenz, an economist with the group.
|
In the fall of 2001, nine months after Bush took office, 32 percent of California households could afford to purchase a median priced house in that state. 43 months later....in may, 2005, half the 2001 household number....just 16 percent could afford to buy the median priced, California house.
Can an economy that fails to bring improvements in wages and benefits and housing affordability to 84 percent of it's participants, an economy that places more households in poverty for four years in a row, be described as a success of the POTUS who presides over it?
<a href="http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_there_is_no_one_there_to_hear_it_fall_does_it_make_a_noise">If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall does it make a noise?</a>
Change the wording to "if an economy grows and only the wealthiest get to benefit from it, does a POTUS deserve much credit for the growth?