Telling It Like It Is

[NJ Stinks]

The excerpt below is from the Washington Post website. The comments to this article at the website are pretty good too.
___________________________________________

....Because the nation's economy was growing handsomely, that means that the average income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent was growing, too -- from $17,719 in 1950 to $30,941 in 1980 -- a 75 percent increase in income in constant 2008 dollars....Since 1980, it's been a very different story. The economy has continued to grow handsomely, but for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, it's been a time of stagnation and loss. Since 1980, the share of all income in America going to the bottom 90 percent has declined from 65 percent to 52 percent. In actual dollars, the average income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent flat-lined -- going from the $30,941 of 1980 to $31,244 in 2008.

In short, the economic life and prospects for Americans since the Reagan Revolution have grown dim, while the lives of the rich -- the super-rich in particular -- have never been brighter. The share of income accruing to America's wealthiest 1 percent rose from 9 percent in 1974 to a tidy 23.5 percent in 2007.

Looking at these numbers, it would be reasonable to infer that when the Tea Partyers say that they want to take the country back, they mean back to the period between 1950 and 1980, when the vast majority of Americans encountered more opportunity and security in their economic lives than they had before or since. Reasonable, but wrong. As the right sees it, America's woes are traceable to the New Deal order that Franklin Roosevelt, working in the shadow of the even more sinister Woodrow Wilson, imposed on an unsuspecting people.

In fact, the New Deal order produced the only three decades in American history -- the '50s, '60s and '70s -- when economic security and opportunity were widely shared. It was the only period in the American chronicle when unions were big and powerful enough to ensure that corporate revenue actually trickled down to workers. It marked the only time in American history when, courtesy originally of the GI Bill (http://www.gibill.va.gov/gi_bill_info/history.htm), the number of Americans going to college surged. It was the only time when taxes on the rich were really significantly higher than taxes on the rest of us. It was the only time that the minimum wage kept pace (almost) with the cost of living. And it was the only time when most Americans felt confident enough about their economic prospects, and those of their nation, to support the taxes that built the postwar American infrastructure.

The entire artilce can be found at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102605216.html

[newtothegame]

The excerpt below is from the Washington Post website. The comments to this article at the website are pretty good too.
___________________________________________

....Because the nation's economy was growing handsomely, that means that the average income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent was growing, too -- from $17,719 in 1950 to $30,941 in 1980 -- a 75 percent increase in income in constant 2008 dollars....Since 1980, it's been a very different story. The economy has continued to grow handsomely, but for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, it's been a time of stagnation and loss. Since 1980, the share of all income in America going to the bottom 90 percent has declined from 65 percent to 52 percent. In actual dollars, the average income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent flat-lined -- going from the $30,941 of 1980 to $31,244 in 2008.

In short, the economic life and prospects for Americans since the Reagan Revolution have grown dim, while the lives of the rich -- the super-rich in particular -- have never been brighter. The share of income accruing to America's wealthiest 1 percent rose from 9 percent in 1974 to a tidy 23.5 percent in 2007.

Looking at these numbers, it would be reasonable to infer that when the Tea Partyers say that they want to take the country back, they mean back to the period between 1950 and 1980, when the vast majority of Americans encountered more opportunity and security in their economic lives than they had before or since. Reasonable, but wrong. As the right sees it, America's woes are traceable to the New Deal order that Franklin Roosevelt, working in the shadow of the even more sinister Woodrow Wilson, imposed on an unsuspecting people.

In fact, the New Deal order produced the only three decades in American history -- the '50s, '60s and '70s -- when economic security and opportunity were widely shared. It was the only period in the American chronicle when unions were big and powerful enough to ensure that corporate revenue actually trickled down to workers. It marked the only time in American history when, courtesy originally of the GI Bill (http://www.gibill.va.gov/gi_bill_info/history.htm), the number of Americans going to college surged. It was the only time when taxes on the rich were really significantly higher than taxes on the rest of us. It was the only time that the minimum wage kept pace (almost) with the cost of living. And it was the only time when most Americans felt confident enough about their economic prospects, and those of their nation, to support the taxes that built the postwar American infrastructure.

The entire artilce can be found at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102605216.html

ANYONE (including the post) can take ONE item and make it look as good or as bad as they wish. based on the excerpt your providing, you wish to spin it that the "right" wishes to take wages away from people.

Not even you could be so dim witted...could ya? Answer one question and you will get your answer....do you think the middle class is only made up of left wing people??? Well obviously NO! Therefore how can you...the post...or anyone else make a claim that the right wishes to somehow take people back to a period of stagnation where the american worker (both right and left) remain stagnant?

Next, You guys continually pound the right and how they wish to protect the RICH and the WEALTHY? Is it only right wing people that are rich and wealthy?
If so, I need to seperate myself from those like Soros...Gates....etc etc as I wish NOT to be in the same category as them when it comes to politics.

Being conservative has NOTHING to do with what a wage earner makes. It has EVERYTHING to do with WHO determines those wages. It should be whether you like it or not, between and employer and employee.

Being conservative is not about whether or not people help one another...its about BEING TOLD WHO I MUST HELP. (I mean time and time again its proven that those on the right DONATE much more then those on the left).

Do you really need a class on conservativism??? I would hope not but, with all of the mistruths you post, I am begining to think so!

[delayjf]

In fact, the New Deal order produced the only three decades in American history -- the '50s, '60s and '70s -- when economic security and opportunity were widely shared.

I would love to hear their rational for the above. With States on the verge of insolvency mainly due to state union pension obligations and SS in the hole it's in - how would you access the New Deal and its affects today.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's not a bad op-ed piece compared to similar pieces designed to send the same message about what a sham the Tea Party is, yet it's stuff I've read a billion times and like usual, it focuses on the effect and doesn't dare make the effort to approach the many, many causes -- using inferences and malleable data to "allow" the reader to draw his/her conclusion without challenging the reader to follow the timelines in a true historical context in order to give proper weight to the implied theoretical here.

But then to gob this gooey, undefined concept into some catalyst for explaining tea party sentiment or more accurately, again discrediting the people supporting it with what is certainly a more respectable method than interjecting race yet again... but...

Come on... I know these "enlightened" types feel the need to act as though their pieces should convey their own enlightenment, rather than make a true effort to enlighten the lemmings... but, let's put a little effort into the topic if you're going to approach it and try to engage me with a fully-factual presentation rather than another "What I Did On Summer Vacation (aka Reaganomic Death Trance and The New Deal in Forty-Five Words Or Less" style meandering through your super-evolved lobes.

It is an op-ed piece - I know - I get what I pay for. But as long as I'm reminding myself that its just an op-ed piece and the standards for true integrity in terms of supportive reasoning don't require the author to make me happy - readers that find it brilliant may also remind themselves of the same.

[NJ Stinks]

Lots of crying but no facts to back anything up. First the writer proves that most people were better off financially in the 50's, 60's, and 70's than they were in the next 30 years that began with Reagan. Then he states reasons why the middle class was better off - strong unions, the GI Bill, and substantially higher taxes on the rich.

You guys come back with zip. Newtothegame wants to know if I know what it means to be a conservative. Yea, I do. It means you are a maschotist if you are not in the highest tax brackets. I'm not spinning anything when I say most employers will give up as little revenue as possible to their employees. I'm not spinning anything when I say you can't get blood out of rock. If the rich do not pay their fair share in taxes like they did in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, there is not going to be enough revenue available to pay the country's debts. Not only does that hurt the country, it means the non-rich are going to have to pay more in taxes - especially real estate taxes - in order to maintain a decent standard of living in their communities. And no unions means what we have now - employees praying that they keep their paycheck and what's left of their benefits.

I've got news for you, Newtothegame. The rich right doesn't want to take us anywhere but where we are right now. They already achieved virtual stagnation for the majority while they just keep getting richer. All the rich right wants to do now is keep it going by keeping their tax rates (including and especially capital gains) where they are today. Who the hell do you think is financing all those anti-Dem commercials - people like you?

And Delayjf, you can look it up. People who retired by 1979 are mostly dead. That means they are no longer collecting a dime in state pensions or from social security and most of them haven't for a long time. That must mean something. Those dead people did not recently cause SS or their state budgets to tank. There must be other factors involved.

As for your post, John, you lost me. People who lived in the 50's, 60's, and 70's actually paid the price of the Second World War and Vietnam in the form of taxes but that middle class still made out better than middle class people in the last 30 years. How's that for "historical context"?

[sandpit]

That's really what's at the crux of the anger in America today, the divide that the majority of wage earners feel exists between them and the very well-off. Politicians and the lobbyists from both sides use their smokescreens to hide this from the voters while they continually fleece the people unwittingly. Some of them are getting caught, like that bunch of scumbags in Bell, Calif. We could see our version of the storming of the Bastille if the powers that be continue to try to beat down the masses.

[JustRalph]

Lots of crying but no facts to back anything up. First the writer proves that most people were better off financially in the 50's, 60's, and 70's than they were in the next 30 years that began with Reagan. Then he states reasons why the middle class was better off - strong unions, the GI Bill, and substantially higher taxes on the rich.

You guys come back with zip. Newtothegame wants to know if I know what it means to be a conservative. Yea, I do. It means you are a maschotist if you are not in the highest tax brackets. I'm not spinning anything when I say most employers will give up as little revenue as possible to their employees. I'm not spinning anything when I say you can't get blood out of rock. If the rich do not pay their fair share in taxes like they did in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, there is not going to be enough revenue available to pay the country's debts. Not only does that hurt the country, it means the non-rich are going to have to pay more in taxes - especially real estate taxes - in order to maintain a decent standard of living in their communities. And no unions means what we have now - employees praying that they keep their paycheck and what's left of their benefits.

I've got news for you, Newtothegame. The rich right doesn't want to take us anywhere but where we are right now. They already achieved virtual stagnation for the majority while they just keep getting richer. All the rich right wants to do now is keep it going by keeping their tax rates (including and especially capital gains) where they are today. Who the hell do you think is financing all those anti-Dem commercials - people like you?

And Delayjf, you can look it up. People who retired by 1979 are mostly dead. That means they are no longer collecting a dime in state pensions or from social security and most of them haven't for a long time. That must mean something. Those dead people did not recently cause SS or their state budgets to tank. There must be other factors involved.

As for your post, John, you lost me. People who lived in the 50's, 60's, and 70's actually paid the price of the Second World War and Vietnam in the form of taxes but that middle class still made out better than middle class people in the last 30 years. How's that for "historical context"?

The sad part is that I agree with much of what you are saying here. Not in principal, but I call em like I see em. This is the fault of the right/Repubs for allowing "our own" to get away with this. All in the name of Right versus Left. This is why I think the T party types actually exist. But they don't go far enough.......the castles of many many Repubs need to be stormed along with most Lefty institutions. There is a place in the middle and the rush to the top, left many of the good guys behind.

[newtothegame]

Lots of crying but no facts to back anything up. First the writer proves that most people were better off financially in the 50's, 60's, and 70's than they were in the next 30 years that began with Reagan. Then he states reasons why the middle class was better off - strong unions, the GI Bill, and substantially higher taxes on the rich.

You guys come back with zip. Newtothegame wants to know if I know what it means to be a conservative. Yea, I do. It means you are a maschotist if you are not in the highest tax brackets. I'm not spinning anything when I say most employers will give up as little revenue as possible to their employees. I'm not spinning anything when I say you can't get blood out of rock. If the rich do not pay their fair share in taxes like they did in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, there is not going to be enough revenue available to pay the country's debts. Not only does that hurt the country, it means the non-rich are going to have to pay more in taxes - especially real estate taxes - in order to maintain a decent standard of living in their communities. And no unions means what we have now - employees praying that they keep their paycheck and what's left of their benefits.

I've got news for you, Newtothegame. The rich right doesn't want to take us anywhere but where we are right now. They already achieved virtual stagnation for the majority while they just keep getting richer. All the rich right wants to do now is keep it going by keeping their tax rates (including and especially capital gains) where they are today. Who the hell do you think is financing all those anti-Dem commercials - people like you?

And Delayjf, you can look it up. People who retired by 1979 are mostly dead. That means they are no longer collecting a dime in state pensions or from social security and most of them haven't for a long time. That must mean something. Those dead people did not recently cause SS or their state budgets to tank. There must be other factors involved.

As for your post, John, you lost me. People who lived in the 50's, 60's, and 70's actually paid the price of the Second World War and Vietnam in the form of taxes but that middle class still made out better than middle class people in the last 30 years. How's that for "historical context"?

NJ, the problem with your post as well as the OP'ed piece is this is NOT the 50,s - 70's.
Too many things have changed.
A huge example is INDUSTRIALIZATION. We as a country, have almost no industrialization versus those time periods. OUTSOURCING is a huge problem.
Sure there are things that still apply.
But there is no difference from left or right in the terms of the "rich". You wish to cast the "rich right" in a bad light. So tell me how the "rich left" is better??? Please tell how Soros, and the other filthy rich on the left are helping us?
Were people better off then? From a wage standpoint (from the article) I would agree YES! But, again what has changed since those times?
Lets talk population! Lets talk Immigration! You have a huge swell in population in the U.S since then with a loss of Industrialization. Thats NOT a good combination.
Were there millions of illegal immigrants here in the fifties???
Was the U.S paying BILLIONS to foriegn countries in the form of aid?
Was Nafta in place then?
As I said, you can take any ONE piece of information and look at it however you wish. But your not getting the WHOLE picture.
We can all look back at the fifties and sixties and say what a great time it WAS. But its just that...WAS!
And to your comment about who is financing all those anti dem ads....well who is financing all those anti right ads?? Its a two way street. The problem you have yet to realize is I am not for the repugs either. I wish VITTER would get his butt kicked too. Problem is Melancon is even worse. So, when I cast my vote this Tuesday, I am left with ONE choice. Sorry ass choice none the less but for me, its better then risking a no vote (which in essence is a vote for Melancon).
My best hope is that CONSERVATIVES (tea party) members grab enough seats to make the INCUMBENTS realize that nothing is safe. I could care less if its dems or repugs (as I have said many times). If their name has an I behind it...they should be worried!

[delayjf]

Since 1980, the share of all income in America going to the bottom 90 percent has declined from 65 percent to 52 percent.

Could the above be true due to the fact - that since 1980, the top 10% were the force behind the economic expansion during the past 30 years???

[Hank]

Bingo. vitriol directed at Obama and Congress is presicely what their fascist corporate owners want.They are patsy's that do the biding of and take the heat for their owners. What does liberal or conservative rhetoric really mean, if the person spouting it is for sale?Take a look around,is the US a free country?Absolutely [b]NOT.The fascist have slowly but surely stripped us of all CIVIC freedom, they allow personal us freedom so that we feel free but decisions about war, foreign policy, health care taxes ect,are controled 100% by the corporatist.

[PaceAdvantage]

Bingo. vitriol directed at Obama and Congress is presicely what their fascist corporate owners want.They are patsy's that do the biding of and take the heat for their owners. What does liberal or conservative rhetoric really mean, if the person spouting it is for sale?Take a look around,is the US a free country?Absolutely [b]NOT.The fascist have slowly but surely stripped us of all CIVIC freedom, they allow personal us freedom so that we feel free but decisions about war, foreign policy, health care taxes ect,are controled 100% by the corporatist.Looks like you owe ol' GWB an apology then...NOW you tell us it's all about the fascist corp. owners... :lol:

[JustRalph]

Bingo. vitriol directed at Obama and Congress is presicely what their fascist corporate owners want.They are patsy's that do the biding of and take the heat for their owners. What does liberal or conservative rhetoric really mean, if the person spouting it is for sale?Take a look around,is the US a free country?Absolutely [b]NOT.The fascist have slowly but surely stripped us of all CIVIC freedom, they allow personal us freedom so that we feel free but decisions about war, foreign policy, health care taxes ect,are controled 100% by the corporatist.

very popular line of thought on the left now. Once the golden Halo over the chosen one's head turned to rust.........this was the progressive fall back position du jour. Instead of blaming themselves for who they supported, they blame everybody else......... by labeling them a Corporatist they fall back on the class warfare angle that plays so well with the left.

A week from tonight the left may find themselves wandering in a dark forest in despair. I personally don't think the right wins like the polls show, but if it happens........expect more of this for the next two years.

Just taking back the House will be enough. The rest is gravy. With the House oversight kicking into full swing, Eric Holder and Democratic Lawyers could be very busy the next two years. And that is a victory in itself. Gridlock is good at this point

[mostpost]

NJ, the problem with your post as well as the OP'ed piece is this is NOT the 50,s - 70's.
Too many things have changed.
A huge example is INDUSTRIALIZATION. We as a country, have almost no industrialization versus those time periods. OUTSOURCING is a huge problem.
Sure there are things that still apply.
But there is no difference from left or right in the terms of the "rich". You wish to cast the "rich right" in a bad light. So tell me how the "rich left" is better??? Please tell how Soros, and the other filthy rich on the left are helping us?
Were people better off then? From a wage standpoint (from the article) I would agree YES! But, again what has changed since those times?
Lets talk population! Lets talk Immigration! You have a huge swell in population in the U.S since then with a loss of Industrialization. Thats NOT a good combination.
Were there millions of illegal immigrants here in the fifties???
Was the U.S paying BILLIONS to foriegn countries in the form of aid?
Was Nafta in place then?
As I said, you can take any ONE piece of information and look at it however you wish. But your not getting the WHOLE picture.
We can all look back at the fifties and sixties and say what a great time it WAS. But its just that...WAS!
And to your comment about who is financing all those anti dem ads....well who is financing all those anti right ads?? Its a two way street. The problem you have yet to realize is I am not for the repugs either. I wish VITTER would get his butt kicked too. Problem is Melancon is even worse. So, when I cast my vote this Tuesday, I am left with ONE choice. Sorry ass choice none the less but for me, its better then risking a no vote (which in essence is a vote for Melancon).
My best hope is that CONSERVATIVES (tea party) members grab enough seats to make the INCUMBENTS realize that nothing is safe. I could care less if its dems or repugs (as I have said many times). If their name has an I behind it...they should be worried!
You say we no longer have the industrial base we had in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. What caused that? Did Americans suddenly stop buying manufactured goods? The industrial base shrunk because American manufacturers started shipping factories overseas. They were aided and abetted in this by Republican administrations which provided tax breaks to businesses which left the country instead of providing tax breaks to those that stayed.
This all meant that, not only did many workers lose their jobs, but also there were less jobs available for the workers which remained. That of course causes wages to become depressed. The same applies to the outsourcing of jobs in the service industry.
You talk about NAFTA. NAFTA was a bad idea. I thought it would be a good idea, because it was sold as a means of raising the world up to American standards. Instead it is lowering us to theirs. Bill Clinton was wrong to promote NAFTA, but don't forget the NAFTA negotiations were begun by Bush and more Republicans in Congress supported NAFTA than Democrats.

There has not been a huge swell in population since the 1980's. In fact the percentage gain has been smaller than any other period in our history.
Census Year
Total
Population
Increase
Increase
%
Urban
%
Rural
%

1790
3,929,214
-
-
5.1
94.9

1800
5,308,483
1,379,269
35.1 6.1
93.9

1810
7,239,881
1,931,398
36.4 15.4
92.7

1820
9,638,453
2,398,572
33.1 7.2
92.8

1830
12,860,702
3,222,249
33.4 8.8
91.2

1840
17,063,353
4,202,651
32.7 10.8
89.2

1850
23,191,876
6,128,523
35.9 15.4
84.6

1860
31,443,321
8,251,445
35.6 19.8
80.2

1870
38,558,371
7,115,050
22.6 25.7
74.3

1880
50,189,209
11,630,838
30.2 28.2
71.8

1890
62,979,766
12,790,557
25.5 35.1
64.9

1900
76,212,168
13,232,402
21.0 39.6
60.4

1910
92,228,496
16,016,328
21.0 45.6
54.4

1920
106,021,537
13,793,041
15.0 51.2
48.8

1930
123,202,624
17,181,087
16.2 56.1
43.9

1940
142,164,569
18,961,945
15.4 56.5
43.5

1950
161,325,798
19,161,229
14.5 64.0
36.0

1960
189,323,175
27,997,377
18.5 69.9
30.1

1970
213,302,031
23,978,856
13.4 73.6
26.3

1980
236,542,199
23,240,168
11.4 73.7
26.3

1990
258,709,873
22,167,674
9.8 75.2
24.8

2000
291,421,906
32,712,033
13.2 81.0
19.0

The above is from:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

% changes in bold.

[Mike at A+]

I'm wondering if foreign governments like Japan and Germany punish corporations like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Sony, BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Audi for sending millions of jobs to America?

[mostpost]

I'm wondering if foreign governments like Japan and Germany punish corporations like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Sony, BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Audi for sending millions of jobs to America?
I don't know, but I'd bet they don't reward them.

[Mike at A+]

I don't know, but I'd bet they don't reward them.
So when an American company does it, you consider "lack of punishment" to be a reward. But when a foreign company does it, "lack of punishment" is balanced out by "lack of reward". OK, I think I get it now.

[johnhannibalsmith]

there are some over-arching problems that unfortunately dominate where things are headed.

Roughly 2.5 billion low cost workers have come into the world economy in the last two decades as Eastern Europe, China, and India have opened up, and communications technologies have improved to the point of making things seamless.

Workers, normal everyday workers, the low and low-middle -- are screwed. There isn't a policy to fix it. Our low end was thrust up into the middle due to Europe and Japan being destroyed in WW2 and being forced to buy things from us, it gave us a golden era of widespread prosperity relative to other developed nations, because they were for a time, temporarily, undeveloped. We were left intact, unscathed, and got ridiculously wealthy, very quickly.

The tides have shifted back, closer to competetive parity when Germany and Japan rebuilt, and have now gone back over in the other direction, and that wealth is now being given to the new kids on the block, the new kids that have the temporary competitive advantage of billions of workers without expectations or protections. Hundreds of millions of every kind of worker, ready to go, cheaper than here. Hundreds of millions of hungry people looking to leave the farm -- just as bright and able as you, that consider our poor to be rich.

The Golden Age of our middle class may turn out to have been nothing more than a temporary bubble, caused by a strange confluence of world events.


This is from another thread, and I hope that chickenhead doesn't object to my interjecting it here and out of its context in the "Obama...spending" thread.

There have already been a few interesting posts that add some of that "historical context" (No, NJ, I was looking for much more). I like this topic as it pertains the issue of the Tea Party, which is where the original author seemed to be heading at the outset.

Maybe I misinterpreted the author's "thesis" thought in the piece, but it seemed to be alluding to the erroneous judgement of those aligning with the Tea Party on the constituent level that the Republican party was the appropriate representative of their true political will.

That concept is one of the few Tea Party criticisms that can be levied, in my opinion, somewhat effectively and convincingly. Still yet, the broader, objective position that incorporates the rebuttal position from a republican perspective makes it a truly substantive debate. When you then allow for the even more objective stances that look beyond legislative processes as catalysts for change, well, I don't know, it ceases to be a strictly political debate and more of a social dilemma. At this point, you have a shot at identifying some realities and can go about resolution without still being engaged in political debate, which means you can see.

Buried in the subconscious of this piece, as I read it, is essentially a repudiation of the attack stance that Tea Partiers are dressed down rich men conspiring on behalf of the GOP.

His commentary about the GOP's brand of "wealth redistribution" is a fairly effective one in that context.

The author seems to suggest that the Tea Party is the average worker and based upon the GOP's historical political tendencies, a party that has increased the wealth of the wealthiest at the expense of the least wealthy does not reflect their will.

Or perhaps the author is suggesting that the Tea Party is in fact just GOP shills and that is evidenced by this contradiction in identity.

Just the obvious implication? That Tea Party voters are woefully misinformed about history and don't even know themselves what they want?

My objection to the piece remains the same - I want more out of this topic if it's going to be a topic because it's a worthwhile topic, in my opinion. It's much broader than what Mr. Meyerson suggests and as a result, NJStinks can fit in a neatly packaged cylinder of GOP-WHOOP-ASS-IN-A-CAN.

We always hear the big talking points on the subject, all contained in Meyerson's piece - the New Deal, Reagan, SS Ins. Admin. - and we all know the straightforward, robotic reactions of the polar opposite sides to those textbook catalysts.

There's some awfully bright people with unique perspectives in here that a guy like me can learn something from on a subject like this.

Surely Boxcar can effectively pose the theory that middle class income has declined in that time span in part due to the social policies designed to leg up the needy being bastardized into a lifestyle itself that rewards underachievment... ;)

Thanks for the link by the way NJ - I hope this thread catches some legs.

[NJ Stinks]

Thanks for the link by the way NJ - I hope this thread catches some legs.

I knew somewhere, somehow I got something right. :)

[NJ Stinks]

NJ, the problem with your post as well as the OP'ed piece is this is NOT the 50,s - 70's.
Too many things have changed.
A huge example is INDUSTRIALIZATION. We as a country, have almost no industrialization versus those time periods. OUTSOURCING is a huge problem.
Sure there are things that still apply.
But there is no difference from left or right in the terms of the "rich". You wish to cast the "rich right" in a bad light. So tell me how the "rich left" is better??? Please tell how Soros, and the other filthy rich on the left are helping us?
Were people better off then? From a wage standpoint (from the article) I would agree YES! But, again what has changed since those times?
Lets talk population! Lets talk Immigration! You have a huge swell in population in the U.S since then with a loss of Industrialization. Thats NOT a good combination.
Were there millions of illegal immigrants here in the fifties???
Was the U.S paying BILLIONS to foriegn countries in the form of aid?
Was Nafta in place then?
As I said, you can take any ONE piece of information and look at it however you wish. But your not getting the WHOLE picture.
We can all look back at the fifties and sixties and say what a great time it WAS. But its just that...WAS!
And to your comment about who is financing all those anti dem ads....well who is financing all those anti right ads?? Its a two way street. The problem you have yet to realize is I am not for the repugs either. I wish VITTER would get his butt kicked too. Problem is Melancon is even worse. So, when I cast my vote this Tuesday, I am left with ONE choice. Sorry ass choice none the less but for me, its better then risking a no vote (which in essence is a vote for Melancon).
My best hope is that CONSERVATIVES (tea party) members grab enough seats to make the INCUMBENTS realize that nothing is safe. I could care less if its dems or repugs (as I have said many times). If their name has an I behind it...they should be worried!

Newtothegame, it may not matter to most here but the Democrats are the only ones who want to let the tax rates on the wealthiest expire. I haven't seen one Republican say as much. Also, Gates and Warren Buffet have said the rich should pay more. See link below:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/260603/bill_gates_and_warren_buffett_talk_with_unl_studen ts_about/

I'm not saying the Democrats are wonderful. I'm saying the Dems are the only major party that considers the plight of the most Americans and is willing to do something about it. Many here think I'm a simpleton because I believe that. That's OK with me.

Anyway, we're all reading the same PP's. The next time Republicans do anything that affects most Americans in a positive way without being a by-product of aiding the rich - let me know.

One other thing since you mentioned how much you don't want to vote for Vitter but can't help but do so. In my Congressional District, Adler (the Dem in Congress now) said he could not vote for the final healthcare reform bill. I e-mailed Adler and said if he doesn't, he would not get my vote in November. His office replied to my e-mail with a canned response I'm sure he sent to any pro-healthcare constituents saying he just couldn't do it in it's current form. Screw him. I'm voting Libertarian on Tuesday. (I can just see Adler if he was in Congress in 1935. "I'm for Social Security but it may become insolvent in 100 years." :rolleyes: )

[johnhannibalsmith]

... (I can just see Adler if he was in Congress in 1935. "I'm for Social Security but it may become insolvent in 100 years." :rolleyes: )

I'm not quite sure what the criticism is here other than you expected him to vote for the bill despite the fact that he saw legitimate problems with it. I commend you for holding to your pledge and voting Libertarian and I commend him for ignoring your threat if his rationale is genuine.

Would it really have been so bad if Adler had been around in 1935 to voice a concern that people may live a lot longer in a century and perhaps there was a better system to consider which would meet the same goal and NOT be insolvent?

To borrow from you: (shrug)???

[chickenhead]

This is from another thread, and I hope that chickenhead doesn't object to my interjecting it here and out of its context in the "Obama...spending" thread.

Just the opposite -- that post works much better in this thread than where I parked it. :)

For my own part, I'm skeptical that the past policy and its relation to past reality is much of a guide to current policy and its relation to current reality.

There is a saying something like: in a constrained system, a change to a variable only matters if it is the binding variable. So if your belt is too tight, loosening your tie and shoelaces won't make you feel much better. Or tightening your belt when your shows are falling off doesn't help you out much.

Lets say our government controls the belt, rest of world controls our shoelaces, "technology" controls all of our buttons, and we, as individual citizens, control the tie.

I think what the article is really asking, to use my lame analogy, is why do these people so adamantly demand for us to loosen the belt (smaller government), when during the prosperous days they yearn for the belt was actually much tighter (large government)? I don't follow the Tea Party or whatever, but a reasonable answer could be:

Because that belt is now the constraining factor in a way that it wasn't back in the good old days, even if it's already looser than it was back then. People might be wrong about past vs. present, and still be right about what needs to happen. If the belt feels tight, the belt feels tight.

Take our corporate tax rate. Did it matter in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Not much, our corporations took over the world, the rest of the world was in dark days. Now, does it matter a lot? Perhaps. The rest of the world has changed. Perhaps even now lower rates are too high.

Or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about, and they won't be happy if they get what they want, either. Cause it's really not the belt that's squeezing them, it's their shoes and their ties and their buttons. Beats me.

[NJ Stinks]

I'm not quite sure what the criticism is here other than you expected him to vote for the bill despite the fact that he saw legitimate problems with it. I commend you for holding to your pledge and voting Libertarian and I commend him for ignoring your threat if his rationale is genuine.

Would it really have been so bad if Adler had been around in 1935 to voice a concern that people may live a lot longer in a century and perhaps there was a better system to consider which would meet the same goal and NOT be insolvent?

To borrow from you: (shrug)???

First, I think Adler's most important consideration was that he may not get re-elected if he voted for the healthcare bill. A Republican held the seat he won in 2008 for 28 consecutive years. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Secondly, I think everything has to be in perfect alignment in order to reform anything as powerful as the medical industry. In other words, the Dems had to control both houses of Congress and the White House to get it done. That's about as rare as the eclipse of sun or something like that.

And finally, I believe that the most important thing was to just start healthcare reform. If things in the bill need to be amended, they will be amended. It happens all the time with tax bills. Why is this bill any different - I ask myself.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Why is this bill any different - I ask myself.

Well, really it is and you know that. Very few people have ever sat through a daylong televised summit about a piece of legislation and then for an encore, endured the C-SPAN broadcast of the official vote. I'd have to put this bill in a slightly different category than the bulk of what goes through congress.

Perhaps you are so accurate that everything had to be in perfect alignment - a position of untopplable dominance to get it passed - so man, why is it such a poor excuse for what it intended to accomplish? Really? This is what bothers me most about this Democrat controlled government - even more than the obvious idealogical disparities - when they has that position of strength, they didn't use it to do anything of overt substance for any group of citizen, much less all of them.

I don't support a single payer system in principal, but using their power, their dominance to press on with something tangible like that approach to reform, Dem leaders would have at least earned some respect from me that they stand for something other than self-preservation. But they didn't and they don't. Piss on any bullshit about trying to compromise with Republicans or whatever - they flat sold out like dogs and did what was expected - scored a (short lived) political victory with a big mess that will inevitably enrich whoever (whatever corporate/political influences) concocted this scheme to defraud.

[newtothegame]

You say we no longer have the industrial base we had in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. What caused that? Did Americans suddenly stop buying manufactured goods? The industrial base shrunk because American manufacturers started shipping factories overseas. They were aided and abetted in this by Republican administrations which provided tax breaks to businesses which left the country instead of providing tax breaks to those that stayed.
This all meant that, not only did many workers lose their jobs, but also there were less jobs available for the workers which remained. That of course causes wages to become depressed. The same applies to the outsourcing of jobs in the service industry.
You talk about NAFTA. NAFTA was a bad idea. I thought it would be a good idea, because it was sold as a means of raising the world up to American standards. Instead it is lowering us to theirs. Bill Clinton was wrong to promote NAFTA, but don't forget the NAFTA negotiations were begun by Bush and more Republicans in Congress supported NAFTA than Democrats.

There has not been a huge swell in population since the 1980's. In fact the percentage gain has been smaller than any other period in our history.
Census Year
Total
Population
Increase
Increase
%
Urban
%
Rural
%

1790
3,929,214
-
-
5.1
94.9

1800
5,308,483
1,379,269
35.1 6.1
93.9

1810
7,239,881
1,931,398
36.4 15.4
92.7

1820
9,638,453
2,398,572
33.1 7.2
92.8

1830
12,860,702
3,222,249
33.4 8.8
91.2

1840
17,063,353
4,202,651
32.7 10.8
89.2

1850
23,191,876
6,128,523
35.9 15.4
84.6

1860
31,443,321
8,251,445
35.6 19.8
80.2

1870
38,558,371
7,115,050
22.6 25.7
74.3

1880
50,189,209
11,630,838
30.2 28.2
71.8

1890
62,979,766
12,790,557
25.5 35.1
64.9

1900
76,212,168
13,232,402
21.0 39.6
60.4

1910
92,228,496
16,016,328
21.0 45.6
54.4

1920
106,021,537
13,793,041
15.0 51.2
48.8

1930
123,202,624
17,181,087
16.2 56.1
43.9

1940
142,164,569
18,961,945
15.4 56.5
43.5

1950
161,325,798
19,161,229
14.5 64.0
36.0

1960
189,323,175
27,997,377
18.5 69.9
30.1

1970
213,302,031
23,978,856
13.4 73.6
26.3

1980
236,542,199
23,240,168
11.4 73.7
26.3

1990
258,709,873
22,167,674
9.8 75.2
24.8

2000
291,421,906
32,712,033
13.2 81.0
19.0

The above is from:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

% changes in bold.

Population numbers are askew....as the census does not (last I checked) count illegals.

[mostpost]

Population numbers are askew....as the census does not (last I checked) count illegals.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/censusandaliens.htm
Who the Census Counts Now and Why
As currently required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau attempts to count all persons in the U.S. living in residential structures, including prisons, dormitories and similar "group quarters" in the official decennial census. Persons counted in the census include citizens, legal immigrants, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal (or undocumented) immigrants.

By law they are counted. Of course, how many actually get counted is a matter of conjecture. The figures I presented include illegal aliens. I don't think the census taker asks whether you are illegal.

Hey, I have a question for you. It seems you always post at night, and you live in Louisiana. Are you a vampire???

[newtothegame]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/censusandaliens.htm


By law they are counted. Of course, how many actually get counted is a matter of conjecture. The figures I presented include illegal aliens. I don't think the census taker asks whether you are illegal.

Hey, I have a question for you. It seems you always post at night, and you live in Louisiana. Are you a vampire???

LOL sometimes it feels like I am. But, no...reality is graveyard shift for about ten years now.

[mostpost]

LOL sometimes it feels like I am. But, no...reality is graveyard shift for about ten years now.
Many years at the PO I started at 4AM. Hated it!!! I was not my normal charming delightful self. Worst was my second or third year; starting times were:
Midnight Monday
Off Tuesday
4Am Wednesday Thursday and Friday
9AM to 7PM Saturday with a two hour lunch
Off Sunday
Impossible to develop a rhythm. Impossible to do anything on a Saturday night or a Sunday Evening.

[NJ Stinks]

Perhaps you are so accurate that everything had to be in perfect alignment - a position of untopplable dominance to get it passed - so man, why is it such a poor excuse for what it intended to accomplish? Really? This is what bothers me most about this Democrat controlled government - even more than the obvious idealogical disparities - when they has that position of strength, they didn't use it to do anything of overt substance for any group of citizen, much less all of them.

I don't support a single payer system in principal, but using their power, their dominance to press on with something tangible like that approach to reform, Dem leaders would have at least earned some respect from me that they stand for something other than self-preservation. But they didn't and they don't. Piss on any bullshit about trying to compromise with Republicans or whatever - they flat sold out like dogs and did what was expected - scored a (short lived) political victory with a big mess that will inevitably enrich whoever (whatever corporate/political influences) concocted this scheme to defraud.

The problem is the Blue Dog Dems. They are not really Dems at all. I wish they weren't allowed to run as Dems and receive Dem funding. At least that way the Democratic party would know where it really stands in Congress.

[JustRalph]

The problem is the Blue Dog Dems. They are not really Dems at all. I wish they weren't allowed to run as Dems and receive Dem funding. At least that way the Democratic party would know where it really stands in Congress.

we got em too........RINO's