FINALLY!? He is asking the right question
Are Americans better off? It is one of the signal questions of the presidential election, and both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are asking voters to ponder it.
It’s a slam dunk question. And oh when you link McBush with the question it’s a simple recipe for victory.
Are you better off than you were seven years ago during the last economic downturn?
Apparently I missed the upturn.
Was John McCain better off when he was a POW, I think not.
With 80% of Americans thinking that America is on the wrong track, why in the world would John McCain want Americans to ask themselves that question?
Are we a safer country? No attacks on American soil. That’s better off in my book.
Sharon – I’m actually surprised there hasn’t been another successful attack since 9/11.
But there hasn’t. Funny that.
So the Republican standard for success is: You should be happy, you are not dead.
McCain was $112,000 better off from contributions from Charles Keating and the other officers at the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan, bailed out with our tax dollars.
Perhaps he used this for the downpayment of one of his seven houses, or were they all bought and paid for by Cindy?
Speaking of ‘bought and paid for’, Hess Corporation executives contributed $28,500 to McCain days after he flip-flopped and now supports off-shore drilling.
Here are a few more facts:
1) Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006, adjusted for inflation, averaged $58,029, up 1.2 percent from 2000.
2) Some 60 percent of the increase in total income went to those making more than $75,000, but less than $1 million a year.
3) Average income rose $2,291 in 2004 and $2,210 in 2005, and $1,369 in 2006—the slowdown because of the effect of inflation.
4) Salaries fell by almost 1 percent among taxpayers whose total income was $1 million or more.
Are we better off? Hell yes.
McCain was one of two Senators cleared of charges in the Keating Five scandal. You guys really need to find some new material. Or learn your history.
Sharon,
Care to cite any sources for your numbers?
Presentations such as you shared are far more useful when they are uniform. You use after-inflation figures in your first point, pre-inflation in point 3, and it isn’t clear which you use for numbers 2 and 4.
In #3 you cite average income. Does this include those laid off under Bush’s reign, who have too little income to need to file tax returns? I doubt it.
Averages are near meaningless. Think about the impact that Bill Gates has on the averages. Does Bill Gates’ success have much bearing on whether you and I are better off? If not, then why do we include his results in the figures you use to determine this (the averages).
Tell me how the median taxpayer (or preferably, the median American) did, and then the top 10%, and bottom 10%. That has meaning.
Are we better off? Depending on what you mean by ‘we’, then heck yes, or heck no.
McCain did take $112,000 from Keating and pals, who ran the S&L that used taxpayer money to be bailed out.
Those are facts, and are history.
Pbaumbach – The Democratic Congress just bailed out the entire housing/mortgage market with your tax money. That’s a hell of a lot worse than a measley $112K.
Sharon… your numbers are a bunch of non sequiturs. The only meaningful one is the 1.2% growth in real wages during the Bush administration – which sucks and is way below the historic mean.
I don’t usually put in links here because they end up eaten by the spam filter. But here goes:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/8/26/shhh-americans-getting-richer.html
The Democratic Congress approved bailing out homeowners harmed as the result of lax regulation by the Bush Administration and the prior Republican Congress.
(The label on the Kool Aid reads–regulation is BAD!)
The Lincoln Savings and Loan debacle cost taxpayers $295 million, not $112K–that was just McCain’s cut.
Oh I forgot–it’s OK, he was a POW.
not to mention… real wages have declined in 5 of the last 8 years, and the trend is currently down, and dropping faster, including the biggest drop last year:
“Jan 2008
Average weekly earnings rose by 3.4 percent, seasonally adjusted, from January 2007 to January 2008. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings decreased by 1.4 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and inflation, average weekly earnings were $592.74 in January 2008, compared with
$573.14 a year earlier.”
(bls.gov)
In your link is an article where someone lists your post word-for-word (have you ever heard of attribution, BTW). How is a link to what you pirated supportive? Where is a link to the supposed IRS data?
Does Bill Gates’ success have much bearing on whether you and I are better off?
Yes, because the company Gates’ ran employs hundreds of people and offers opportunities for thousands more through the technology of his company.
McCain did take $112,000 from Keating and pals, who ran the S&L that used taxpayer money to be bailed out.
McCain was also cleared of any charges of wrongdoing, P. That’s the important part. Do you really wanna go down the list of who gives to whom? You already have the Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko givers to Obama. Do you really want to start down this path? It gets awfully dirty down there.
The only meaningful one is the 1.2% growth in real wages during the Bush administration – which sucks and is way below the historic mean.
The question wasn’t “Are you more than 1.2% better off in real wages during the Bush administration”? The question was, are we better off ? The answer to that is yes.
Sharon… your wingnut link says: “Although you almost never hear about it, incomes began growing strongly starting in 2003. ”
but this is a load of crap, here are the real numbers from
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/realer_nr.htm
Jan 2001
Average weekly earnings rose by 3.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2000 to January 2001. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings declined by 0.4 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $477.65 in January 2001, compared with
$467.15 a year earlier.
Jan 2002
Average weekly earnings rose by 2.8 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2001 to January 2002. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings rose by 1.9 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $492.91 in January 2002, compared with
$477.99 a year earlier.
Jan 2003
Average weekly earnings rose by 3.0 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2002 to January 2003. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings rose by 0.4 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $507.19 in January 2003, compared with
$491.90 a year earlier.
Jan 2004
Average weekly earnings rose by 1.7 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2003 to January 2004. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings declined by 0.1 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $516.59 in January 2004, compared with
$509.68 a year earlier.
Jan 2005
Average weekly earnings rose by 2.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2004 to January 2005. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings decreased by 0.7 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $538.86 in January 2005, compared with
$517.82 a year earlier.
Jan 2006
Average weekly earnings rose by 3.6 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2005 to January 2006. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings decreased by 0.4 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $558.38 in January 2006, compared with
$537.26 a year earlier.
Jan 2007
Average weekly earnings rose by 4.0 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2006 to January 2007. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings increased by 2.1 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $573.48 in January 2007, compared with
$558.71 a year earlier.
Jan 2008
Average weekly earnings rose by 3.4 percent, seasonally adjusted, from
January 2007 to January 2008. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly
earnings decreased by 1.4 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and
inflation, average weekly earnings were $592.74 in January 2008, compared with
$573.14 a year earlier.
July 2008
After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings decreased by 3.1 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and inflation, average weekly earnings were $606.26 in July 2008, compared with $596.45 a year earlier. “
In your link is an article where someone lists your post word-for-word (have you ever heard of attribution, BTW).
Again, I don’t typically link on this blog because I’ve had comments eaten because of them. And I’ve heard of attribution. Have you heard of making better arguments?
How is a link to what you pirated supportive? Where is a link to the supposed IRS data?
Why don’t you contact the author and ask for that information? I gave you the link to the information I quoted. You can go chase it down if you are really interested, which I don’t think you are.
How do you come up with earnings decreasing after inflation? Your numbers don’t add up, child.
U.S. News and World Report is a “wingnut site”? Are you one of those people who link to Media Matters?
Inflation-adjusted median household income in 2000 — $49,158
Median household income in 2006 –$48,201
(H-6 Tables Census Bureau 2000, 2006)
Poverty Rate 2000 — 11.3%
Poverty Rate 2006 — 12.3%
(Historical Poverty Tables Census Bureau)
And a 1.2% increase in wages over six years is a functional decrease in wages, since prices for food, gas and housing certainly increased faster than 1.2% over six years.
And a big reason why 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.
Interesting that Sharon’s link has no links to the referenced IRS data.
How do you come up with earnings decreasing after inflation? Your numbers don’t add up, child.
Take it up with the bls.gov, it’s their numbers.
And a 1.2% increase in wages over six years is a functional decrease in wages
Sorry Cassandra, I’m on your side but the 1.2% increase is already adjusted for inflation. It still sucks though, and is below historic norms.
Your other numbers are right though.
Is the 1.2% for the total of six years or for each year? It is still a crappy number, but especially bad if it covers all 6 years which is the way I read it from the original post.
Well, … I just did the math from bls.gov:
2000 avg weekly earnings: 273.35
2008 avg weekly earnings: $277.81
% change: 1.45
(bls measures real earnings in 1982 base dollars)
Mercy, even the SSA COLA for last year alone was 2.3%. I certainly doubt (tho I haven’t done the math) that 1.45% over six years doesn’t come close to matching the increase in the CPI for those same 6 years.
Cassandra…. that 1.45% is in 1982 base dollars and therefore already takes inflation into account… the point is that 1.45% sucks and it’s Bush’s fault.
Real wage is a direct measure of the US standard of living.
of course, CPI excludes energy prices, so the price of oil, electric, etc. doesn’t directly affect the inflation rate until all the producers start passing on their increased energy costs into non-energy goods, so there is a delayed effect, but you are now seeing it accelerate, that is why real wage is going down faster this year.
Way to miss the point, all. Or, how to lie with statistics. Are you better off with your constitutianal rights being trampled? Are we a better nation for torturing people? Are we moving in the right direction with our dependence on fossil fuels? Need I go on? Better off is not limited to economic factors.
Better of is defined in economic factors in the article that started this off. That would be why we are all focused on it. You certainly have a good point, but let’s not forget the subject of the thread.
And thanks, anon — I missed the measurement in 1982 dollars.
What we need is more tax cuts for the top 2% of earners.
That will turn this thing around.
Wudda poo-nanny!
She rather have the illusion of safety than freedom!!!
Loser.
Go move to N. Korea – it hasn’t had an attack on its soil in decades!
Loser.
The Pico family is better off, by a lot.
I ran my 2006 and 2007 income through a tax year 2000 Form 1040, just to see what the Bush tax cuts did for us. The answer: we saved $12,905 in federal income taxes in just those two years.