On May 15 the Dept of Labor
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm told us that "Real average weekly earnings fell by 0.5 percent from March to April after seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. A 0.3 percent decline in average weekly hours and a 0.5 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) were partially offset by a 0.2 percent rise in average hourly earnings." But we are already being fed economic commentary about how, except for the lack of job growth, the Bush economy is as good as and in some ways better than the prior Clinton economy - and no Dem candidate response.
Perhaps a few factoids should be recalled by our economic writers as they claim "full employment" and rising productivity under Bush - like the fact productivity appears to rise whenever you understate inflation, so that Bush's 2.7% average annual increase may not be all that comparable to Clinton's first 6 year 1.6% average. Growing the economy without stealing from our grandkids via an exploding national debt is the goal, but Bush's numbers are being purchased by selling our grandkids future. Indeed Bush's failures are now called by the media "issues he failed to resolve" - like the fact the tax cut for the rich that gave us $500 billion deficits/increases in the national debt every year since 2001 starts to really explode in the near future, while the health care payment problem that can only be solved by single payer national health has been made worse by forcing costs onto the "savings" of individuals as employer paid insurance costs dies under Bush. Then, rather amusingly, our economic writers fault him for not curing a problem that most likely does NOT exist - Social Security - and ignore the fact that Bush's tax cuts for the rich has not cut the main income tax on the poor and middle class - the payroll tax. Which is an even more amazing fact when you note that a simple removal of the Social Security payroll tax wage cap, despite our then paying out huge benefits to the rich --would allow the rate for OASDI to drop from 12.4 % split between employer and employee, to 10.4%. Our media writers in business do the same GOP script of the day regurgitation that our media writers in other areas do - and the first debate had no economic questions - why.
Household net worth as measured by the Federal Reserve is up 39.7 percent so far under Bush, compared to the 61.3 percent increase in the first 6 years under Clinton, and in job growth Bush's to date 5.2 million jobs is tiny compared to Clinton's 18.6 million jobs in his first 6 years - and those Clinton jobs did not count the Bush pretend jobs (called "birth/death adjustment" that is said to capture new "at home companies" that are not "yet" captured by the DOL surveys).
And most telling of all is the fact that the first 6 years average quarterly growth in real average wages is 0,5%, compared to Clinton's 0.8% - and Bush's number is aided by those questionable low inflation numbers. Income inequality is the one area that Bush increased much more than Clinton, with the share of national income earned by the top 20 percent of U.S. households growing to 50.4 % in 2006, up from 45.6% 20 years ago, with the bottom 60% - can we say middle class- share dropping from 29.9% 20 years ago to 26.6% in 2006. Indeed, the number of Americans living in poverty rose to 37 million in 2005, or 12.6 percent of the population, up from 32.9 million, or 11.7 percent, during Bush's first year. Under Clinton, poverty rolls fell to 35.6 million in 1997, or 13.3 percent of the population, down from 39.3 million, or 15.1 percent, in 1993.
Will our candidates educate the public on the above facts?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
