Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Let me get this right: Bush has presided over a recession, he has watched American jobs get outsourced overseas without taking any action, and now we find out that even the folks who do have jobs are earning less under him.

But the Repubs want us to believe his policies are best for the economy. Gimme a break.


From The New York Times:

The overall income Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the modern tax system was introduced during World War II, newly disclosed information from the Internal Revenue Service shows.

The total adjusted gross income on tax returns fell 5.1 percent, to just over $6 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average incomes declined even more, by 5.7 percent.

Adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, according to the new I.R.S. data.

While the recession that hit the economy in 2001 in the wake of the market plunge was considered relatively mild, the new information shows that its effect on Americans' incomes, particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum, was much more severe. Earlier government economic statistics provided general evidence that incomes suffered in the first years of the decade, but the full impact of the blow and what groups it fell hardest on were not known until the I.R.S. made available on its Web site the detailed information from tax returns.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/bu...yOeKU+WXmqtz+A

Originally Posted by dennis_t The overall income Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000,

In 2000? Hmm...Economies are cyclical, and occurrences generally take time to make their full effects shown. Since GWB took office in January 2001, obviously he had to clean up someone else's mess. OR deal with the aftermath of an artificially inflated bubble bursting. Again, which takes time.

Originally Posted by dennis_t While the recession that hit the economy in 2001 in the wake of the market plunge was considered relatively mild, the new information shows that its effect on Americans' incomes, particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum, was much more severe.

Again, feeling the effects of all that bubble. All the people those cool cyber-companies and dotcoms that handed out stock certificates like toilet paper, all those bigwigs at the top running the scams, started making less money.
And wait a minute:
"particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum"

Doesn't that mean 'the rich'? So the rich felt the impact of the market plunge. That's a good thing, right, since it's bad to be rich, and the rich should be punished?

Anyway, agree or disagree with GWB's economic policies, don't try to blame him for something that was well on its way before he even became president.
That's like a first shift clerk yoinking 200 bucks out of the register, then as soon as second shift comes in, the register gets audited and 2nd shift guy gets blamed.

Originally Posted by dtcarson In 2000? Hmm...Economies are cyclical, and occurrences generally take time to make their full effects shown. Since GWB took office in January 2001, obviously he had to clean up someone else's mess. OR deal with the aftermath of an artificially inflated bubble bursting. Again, which takes time. Again, feeling the effects of all that bubble. All the people those cool cyber-companies and dotcoms that handed out stock certificates like toilet paper, all those bigwigs at the top running the scams, started making less money. And wait a minute: "particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum" Doesn't that mean 'the rich'? So the rich felt the impact of the market plunge. That's a good thing, right, since it's bad to be rich, and the rich should be punished? Anyway, agree or disagree with GWB's economic policies, don't try to blame him for something that was well on its way before he even became president. That's like a first shift clerk yoinking 200 bucks out of the register, then as soon as second shift comes in, the register gets audited and 2nd shift guy gets blamed.

Bush has had a full term in office, dtcarson. When does the shaky economy start being his fault? And why does Clinton never receive credit from the Republicans for an economy that boomed through his entire second term?

[quote="dtcarson"]

Originally Posted by dennis_t The overall income Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000,

In 2000? Hmm...Economies are cyclical, and occurrences generally take time to make their full effects shown. Since GWB took office in January 2001, obviously he had to clean up someone else's mess. OR deal with the aftermath of an artificially inflated bubble bursting. Again, which takes time.

[quote="dennis_t"]

While this was true 50 years ago, technology has improved to the point where changes in economic policies can be felt immediately. It takes days, not years, for policy shifts to start having an effect. The article stated that the drop started in 2001 and continued through 2002. No data was available after that date, but I bet we'd see the same trend. This all took place under Bush's watch and was a result of his misguided policies.

Originally Posted by dennis_t Bush has had a full term in office, dtcarson. When does the shaky economy start being his fault? And why does Clinton never receive credit from the Republicans for an economy that boomed through his entire second term?

The article you quoted refers to old reports, 2001 and 2002, where a recession began 2000/2001 and of course the attacks in 2001 which had an unprecedented impact on the economy of both the country and the us.
Shaky economy? Perhaps then, no longer:
"solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers'
"average earnings of rank-and-file private-sector workers have increased since Bush took office"
"Since Bush took office in January 2001, average weekly earnings of private-sector production workers have gone up nearly 8 percent"
more there: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208

from 10/31/03: "Real GDP grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate, the highest growth rate in 19 year" http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/...h-545559.shtml

"non-farm payrolls that have grown by 278,000 jobs since July, the best stretch of job growth since late 2000."
"the tax cuts were clearly of some benefit"
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/19/news...election_sotu/

"46 states saw falling unemployment rates over the last year"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-address_x.htm

as of 5/27/04:
Inflation CPI decreased by .2% in April 2004
Unemployment 5.6 % in May 2004
Real GDP + 4.4% annual rate of increase 1st quarter, 2004
Productivity + 6.8% annual rate of increase 2nd quarter, 2003
International Trade The trade deficit increased in July.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/in...m?lesson=EM219

The unemployment rate as of May was 5.6%, less than it was at the same period of Clinton's first term.

I admit that 2000-2002 were quite 'shaky.' And certainly there's room for improvement in any economy. Re: Clinton; I think that the--any-- president only has tangental impact on some aspects of the economy. he can't wave a wand and say 'Everyone do well now!' And economic policies sometimes take time to cycle through and show effects. So in general I don't lay 100% of the blame, or the praise, on a president. [I personally think a majority of the 'boom' in the 90's was due to vastly overvalued dotcoms, and that overall, only the company founders who took the money and ran really benefited long term.]

I know MY job didn't get downsized out until the economy took a further dump after 9-11, which did happen during Bush's term, which happened paritally because of his and his administration's refusal to take terrorism as seriously as Clinton's administration. And his actions since then have certainly done little to help.

Bush has plenty of blame to shoulder for this economy... even if he inherited some problems (like a huge surplus...) he has to face what he's made of the situation.

I disagree with the idea that only company founders benefitted from the boom in the 90s. Everyone in the tech sector got great salaries and never had to look long for work.

My salary went up...I'm not complaining..

This falls under the catagory of "everyone should make the same amount of money" or "everyone is owed the same level-of-living". Socialist Marxism is what you call it.

This is capitalism...when are people going to realize this?!

The government cannot create jobs, wealth. It can encourage conditions to some extent. Let's not get into the outsourcing thing since it's be debunked contrary to popular belief.

If you're the owner of X business - have X number employees - and business is going sour? what do you do to keep your business afloat? Give everyone a raise? Hire more people?

If you don't like your job, not making what you deserve...get a new job, train to learn a new skill or enhance what you have. move to a new location, start your own business.

This is America, damn it. It is what YOU make of it...no one owes you a damn thing.

Originally Posted by Sheik Rattle Enroll I disagree with the idea that only company founders benefitted from the boom in the 90s. Everyone in the tech sector got great salaries and never had to look long for work.

How are they doing now, now that Pets.com doesn't neet 16 Webmasters?
[Serious question. I know a lot of people who were in the 'tech sector' and are now working for 1/2 the salary, if that.]

This is the most uneducated group of armchair economists I think I've seen and all have a partisan agenda to boot. I wouldn't touch this piece of garbage with a rotting trout.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark This is the most uneducated group of armchair economists I think I've seen and all have a partisan agenda to boot. I wouldn't touch this piece of garbage with a rotting trout.

Thanks for making the time to post in a thread to tell us you were not going to post.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark This is the most uneducated group of armchair economists I think I've seen and all have a partisan agenda to boot. I wouldn't touch this piece of garbage with a rotting trout.

Except to poke your head in long enough and say just enough to express, "Hey! I'm an ass!"

Pitching in just to say you are not pitching in undermines any credibilitiy or respect you have in your own forum threads.

This artile largly refers to the growing trend of those that get paid with stock options and or derive some of their income fromt he stock market.

I didn't see were average joe's actual wage was going down.

Since you have to report your investments and any gains/losses on your tax return...that's figured into your AGI.

This is a "big whoop" issue.

The stock market is NOT A GAURUNTEE. There is no federal backing for your investment if an investment goes belly up. If you want a safe investment...a savings account works well, maybe bonds.

Another thing to remember abotut the stock market...even though you may have bought stocks at $X and now is trading lower than what you bought it at...you havent' technically lost anything. You still have that stock (number of shares)...if you just wait it out...it may go back up and you'll be in the black. You only take a loss if you sell at lower than what you bought it at.

Most people are in the stock market for the long term. and chances are...your investments (if managed properly) will go up over 10-20-30+ years when you're ready to withdraw.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark This is the most uneducated group of armchair economists I think I've seen and all have a partisan agenda to boot. I wouldn't touch this piece of garbage with a rotting trout.

I am certain you will chime in once the RNC e-mails you their talking points on this latest embarrassment to the Bush Administration.

Originally Posted by mcwilliams132 Most people are in the stock market for the long term. and chances are...your investments (if managed properly) will go up over 10-20-30+ years when you're ready to withdraw.

Which is exactly the way it should be. I think part of the 'boom' and subsequent bust was due to the change in thinking, from 'long term investment in companies you like' to the easy access of instant/day trading and the thought of 'how can I turn this 10k into 150k by noon today?' [I do like e-trade things, because they make investing easier for the 'common man' without a lot of assets.] The stock market isn't supposed to be a roulette wheel. "over the long run, the stock market will climb and climb faster than almost any other traditional investment."

Dude, I am on the cusp of the AMT, so my income certainly didn't shrink.

CTL

Originally Posted by mcwilliams132 This artile largly refers to the growing trend of those that get paid with stock options and or derive some of their income fromt he stock market. I didn't see were average joe's actual wage was going down. Since you have to report your investments and any gains/losses on your tax return...that's figured into your AGI. This is a "big whoop" issue. The stock market is NOT A GAURUNTEE. There is no federal backing for your investment if an investment goes belly up. If you want a safe investment...a savings account works well, maybe bonds. Another thing to remember abotut the stock market...even though you may have bought stocks at $X and now is trading lower than what you bought it at...you havent' technically lost anything. You still have that stock (number of shares)...if you just wait it out...it may go back up and you'll be in the black. You only take a loss if you sell at lower than what you bought it at. Most people are in the stock market for the long term. and chances are...your investments (if managed properly) will go up over 10-20-30+ years when you're ready to withdraw.

Not exactly. While the stock market is part of this picture, an equal part is the loss of high paying jobs lost due to the recession.

Originally Posted by dtcarson How are they doing now, now that Pets.com doesn't neet 16 Webmasters? [Serious question. I know a lot of people who were in the 'tech sector' and are now working for 1/2 the salary, if that.]

Badly. My point was just that everyone in tech benefitted in the 90s, not that they didn't get screwed when the economy bombed. I know I couldn't find work for awhile but I've got a sweet contracting gig right now.

Oh, okay. That makes sense [unfortunately].
But that's not unusual--that has happened multiple times in the past, maybe not with the stock market, but with various industries, so that's a side effect of innovation/growth/changes. Henry Ford's assembly line put a lot of people out of work, I'm sure.
side note: i think I've asked you this before: is your name from 'Sonic Disruptors', or somewhere else?