THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[hoosier]

I am simply not wrong, I have pointed out more examples of goods that are available to all classes now that didn't even exist in the past than I can count. You are trying to say that because the tv of today is 60" and the past was 24" and the cost comparison is that the 60" is a bit more that the cost of living has gone up. Lately we are having a little bit more of a problem because oil is skyrocketing due to global demand and that is causing inflation on the low end (this I agree with, but it is a very recent problem).

Overall, affordability of basic needs is getting easier and easier, you are simply raising the bar on basic needs to try and claim its getting more expensive. And I am very open to other models, please present one and I will be happy to consider/discuss it.

You are consistently confusing income disparity and poverty with technological advances. The measuring of poverty has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the level of technological advancement of a given society. You can have a technologically primitive society with very little income discrepancy and little poverty, and you can have a technologically advanced society with vast disparities and high levels of poverty. And sometimes poor people go out and buy plasma TVs too.

Your claim that basic needs are becoming more and more affordable (presumably you mean for those in lower income brackets) is simply wrong. Take a few minutes to compare inflation and middle class wage increases in this country over the past three decades. You'll see that the price of milk has increased far more than wages. That means that basic necessities are becoming MORE EXPENSIVE for middle and lower class families.

[bobblehead]

I'm not making any such confusion. I readily admit income disparity, but I reject it has anything to do with poverty. The left continually tries to redefine rich/poor and middle class and poverty.

According to the SHCIPP bill you are "poor" if you make 54k a year. According the tax rebate you are "rich" if you earn over 75K a year, not a lot of room for a middle class when you define it that way.

I am telling you that meeting basic needs is easier today than it ever was, but our definition of basic needs is changing. Food, Shelter. Not many people who actually want to acheive these things don't. I could add a lot to that list that almost every american can afford, but those are the two essential needs.

I disagree that you can have a technological primitive society with little poverty...it just ain't so. Our "poor" would be rich by standards in many many cultures. You are saying because our rich are getting filthy rich by definition our poor are getting poorer, I reject that. I go further by saying I'm not aware of any system that can close that gap without stifeling technological innovation and will to create, if you are, I'm all for listening.

Your, and the lefts, definition of poverty is the lowest income brackets. By that very definition there will always be poverty. My definition of poverty is people dying from disease, unable to get nutrition and clean water. By my definition we have done a good job(not perfect) of stamping out poverty.

Again, if you want to close the income gap, I'm all for hearing solutions. I'm not aware of one, that doesn't basically leave the poor where they are at while hurting the rich, maybe you are, but you haven't stated one.

One more thing, milk is a very bad example, the gov't has its regulatory and subsidizing hands all over that industry. And gas is another bad example, as gov't has done everything it can to stifle adding to the supply of something where the global demand is increasing. I agree that in the last 2 years the middle/lower class is getting squeezed by high oil that is bleeding into everything else since our economy is energy based, but again, that is recent, not historical. Historically gas has come down in terms of affordability, as has most basic food essentials. Housing has gone up more recently, but historically it was stable with inflation. Only when the gov't wanted every american to afford a house so they loosened lending standards thru gov't programs (thus forcing other lenders to compete) did we have an artificial boom. Incidentally the people hurt most by the housing bust were the lenders, or the rich as the left would say. In some cases others were hurt, people who got into their first home at the height of that market, especially if they put anything down (most didn't) who now have trashed credit.

[Scott Campbell]

And sometimes poor people go out and buy plasma TVs too.

Huh?

[Scott Campbell]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.

I imagine it does appear like a fantasy world to some. Many others are able to make it a reality through smarts and/or hard work. I've heard lots of excuses why the poor can't compete, but I just don't buy it. For most it's not that they can't compete, it's that they won't compete. I believe that poverty for most is a choice that could have been avoided. Are there unfortunate sob stories out there that are the exception - sure. Absolutely. But I believe that most of the poor are simply economic underachievers. Their stories are primarily ones of unfulfilled potential.

I don't believe we should encourage and enable underachieving by subsidizing sub par performance with bloated government entitlement programs organized by inept social tinkering DoGooders crying "it's not fair", "it's not their fault", "the fat cats are screwing the little guy"...blah, blah, blah. These people seem to lose sight of making things better in lieu of an unrealistic goal of fairness.

Well life ain't fair.

[MJZiggy]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

Perhaps you would like to point out sonme of that "truth"--but, I say again, you won't because you can't. It doesn't exist.

How can you say it's not true without doing their interviews talking to the people that they know and doing their research. Did the AF not just fire two officers for nuclear screw ups? I'm betting that story was accurate.

I've read tons of articles that pertain to things I'm working on and most of it is pretty accurate. On the other hand, there was a simple story about a pair of loose dogs that killed a cat I had that had several mistakes. What I'm saying is that while it ain't perfect, they have better access to what's going on than you do. It's their job to report the news. As in what was said and done by who and to whom. I don't think they're all sitting around the newsroom during the day trying to figure out how o be as biased as possible because they'd lose all creibility (and circulation).

[Scott Campbell]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

Perhaps you would like to point out sonme of that "truth"--but, I say again, you won't because you can't. It doesn't exist.

How can you say it's not true without doing their interviews talking to the people that they know and doing their research. Did the AF not just fire two officers for nuclear screw ups? I'm betting that story was accurate.

I've read tons of articles that pertain to things I'm working on and most of it is pretty accurate. On the other hand, there was a simple story about a pair of loose dogs that killed a cat I had that had several mistakes. What I'm saying is that while it ain't perfect, they have better access to what's going on than you do. It's their job to report the news. As in what was said and done by who and to whom. I don't think they're all sitting around the newsroom during the day trying to figure out how o be as biased as possible because they'd lose all creibility (and circulation).

I've seen plenty of biased news reporting - slanted both ways. Check out Fox if you'd like yours sprinkled with a heavy dose of the conservative agenda.

[hoosier]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.

I imagine it does appear like a fantasy world to some. Many others are able to make it a reality through smarts and/or hard work. I've heard lots of excuses why the poor can't compete, but I just don't buy it. For most it's not that they can't compete, it's that they won't compete. I believe that poverty for most is a choice that could have been avoided. Are there unfortunate sob stories out there that are the exception - sure. Absolutely. But I believe that most of the poor are simply economic underachievers. Their stories are primarily ones of unfulfilled potential.

I don't believe we should encourage and enable underachieving by subsidizing sub par performance with bloated government entitlement programs organized by inept social tinkering DoGooders crying "it's not fair", "it's not their fault", "the fat cats are screwing the little guy"...blah, blah, blah. These people seem to lose sight of making things better in lieu of an unrealistic goal of fairness.

Well life ain't fair.

Kind of like the homeless and the ununsured, huh? Some people just want to live that way....

[Scott Campbell]

Kind of like the homeless and the ununsured, huh? Some people just want to live that way....

Leave the sarcasm to the pros junior.

[bobblehead]

Kind of like the homeless and the ununsured, huh? Some people just want to live that way....

The liberals passed laws so that we couldn't commit people who weren't "right" against their will....even though being pretty messed up in the head renders them incapable of doing whats in their best interests. This is a heavy percentage of the homeless.

As for the uninsured, again, over-regulation, the HMO tinkering, these things have been messing with the system since 1973 and the uninsured and the cost of medicine has been rising every since. Ted Kennedy has been tweaking his version of medicine for 35 years, and what does he do when he gets sick....he sure as hell doesn't go to an HMO approved doctor in the system he helped create.

Our health care system is a mess because they(kennedy more than any other) can't keep their hands off of it. I really don't want them to take the final step, but I guess it really doesn't matter much at this point, we common sense conservatives have lost the debate. Each step they take moves us closer to socialized medicine and we haven't even stopped that muchless turned it back in the right direction.

Its humerous though really that they mess it up and then use the excuse that its messed up to get more involved thus messing it up more and over and over, and very few people will stand up and say "for christ's sake keep your hands off the medical industry"

[the_idle_threat]

There are many ways of measuring income and wealth disparity, and I'm not aware of ANY metric that would refute the claim that income disparity has GROWN under Dubya instead of declining. In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

Your logic is faulty. Even if the income disparity between rich and poor has grown, that does NOT mean the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or more numerous.

Let's take an example. Say a poor person makes $20K per year, and a rich person makes $100K per year. If BOTH incomes increase by the same percentage, let's say 10%, then the poor person is now earning $22K and the rich person $110K.

HOLY SHIT... the DISPARITY between rich and poor is growing! It was a difference of $80K before, and now it's $88K! And yet both the "rich" and "poor" got richer.

"Poor" wages have to increase at a much higher rate than "rich" wages in order for the disparity to even stay the same, much less narrow. Since this is unlikely to happen, the gap will continue to widen in positive economic times no matter what we do. The only cure would be to avoid positive economic times. And, of course, the gap will narrow in poor times, since a decrease will drop higher earners more than lower earners, who have less room for adjustment, and also have minimum wage serving as a wage floor.

And my bottom line all along has been, so what if this happens?

I've not heard an argument yet why the income gap even matters. If we want to focus on things like unemployment numbers or amount of people using social services like food stamps and food pantries, then we're looking at indicators of poverty. The income gap between highest and lowest earners does not measure poverty. Poverty is not defined as how much I have versus how much you have---it's whether I have enough to meet my basic needs. What you have is irrelevant.

[bobblehead]

Idle did you copy part of my post from the other thread, or basically cut and paste a bunch of my posts You could be my long lost sibling.

Take it a step further, if 20K goes up 10% and 100k goes up 5% the disparity widens, but in fact the 20k actually increased more, not in real dollars but in % it did. It would have to be more like 10% vs. 2% to stay the same and that just isn't going to happen. If both workers are helping their employees make money, odds are the 100k employee had more of an impact on his employer, so I ask...who is gonna get a bigger raise in real dollars?

Anyway, I respect the lefts point of view, they are more interested in equality of outcome than they are in progressing the world, that is a valid thing to want, but to say I want that, and an increasing standard of living...it just ain't gonna happen. I want to see our best thinkers....the few who can make this world better get rewarded for doing things like providing clean water for every person in africa. I don't want to see a world where we all live in parity at a level much lower than it could be if we just unhandcuff the few who make it better. The bill gates, steve jobs, dean kamens, ray kurzweil, robert freitas. These are the great minds of our times, now get the hell out of the way and let them make our lives easier.

[Scott Campbell]

I've not heard an argument yet why the income gap even matters.

They seem to find it very useful as a divisionary tactic, or when pandering to the poor.

[Scott Campbell]

Brazenly stolen without permission from RG:


Bar Stool Economics -->-->-->

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings."I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!""Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

[Partial]

My dad forwarded me an email the other day about we as workers have to take drug tests to have a job and earn our income, yet you do not need to take one to receive welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, etc.

How many people wouldn't be able to collect an unemployment check if they did a weekly piss test? I'd guess that number cuts in half at least.

[MJZiggy]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?