Quote:
Originally Posted by TropicCat
Citing a Conservative web site article as "gospel" is just so typical. This is one more attempt to rewrite history in order to "establish" a Bush legacy. This wasn't even a good effort at revisionist writing. You just can't tell 300 million people they're better off when they are not.
"This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007"
The Bush economy benefited only the wealthiest Americans. By all measures, the only way to demonstrate income growth was by citing growth in the stock market, which ignores the fact that 10 percent of Americans own 80 percent of all stocks.
"From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent"
Patently False. This is the figure which forgets to include real inflation during the period. Incomes decreased during this period for all but the wealthy. At the same time the Bush tax cuts contributed to the largest budget deficits in our history Never has so much... benefited so few.
I'll stop here. This article is a self serving bunch of crap which is completely out of touch with facts and just wasn't worth commenting on in the first place. |
WoW!
Same old crap, different thread!
While ten percent of the populace may own eighty percent of the stock, the vast majority of American's own stock of one sort or another. It might be better looked at by saying that, while the vast majority of Ferrari's are owned by the rich, the vast majority of American's own an automobile of some sort. And their reliance on that automobile may, in fact, be greater than the rich person's on the Ferrari.
I'm hardly wealthy but I can state that my "real" income has increased greatly since the year 2000. I'd be interested in the experiences of other sailnetters in this regard because something just doesn't smell right about the "facts" posted by TropicalConfusion above.
Anyone whom reads RealClearPolitics with an open mind is going to have a hard time calling it a conservative web-site. The only thing conservative about it appears to be that the majority of it's readers are conservative, as evidenced by the most popular articles listing. We have to take any conclusions drawn from that fact with a grain of salt due to the liberal reading deficiency. It's not that liberals cannot read, though actual cognition remains questionable, it's that they see no need to read, their minds being already made up on most matters. That they even read originally in making up their minds on those matters remains doubtful due tio their tendency to allow emotion to overrule rational thought. (g)