|
DarkSteven -> RE: The Economy, some good news (8/27/2008 8:05:31 PM)
|
What a pile of crap.
The Pie Got Bigger
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: Average U.S. income fell when George Bush took office in 2001. Naturally, Democrats and the media unfairly blamed him for it. But now Americans are better off than when Bill Clinton was president.
I don't recall anyone blaming him for what happened when he took office. Matter of fact, I recall him claiming 9/11 was really Clinton's fault. Bush has been VERY adept at avoiding blame for his own policies.
What is meant by "When Clinton was President"? I'm positive we're better off than when he TOOK office, but not sure we are than when he LEFT office.
Read More: Economy
According to the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service, average adjusted gross income in 2006 hit $58,029 in 2006 dollars. It was the first time that average income had exceeded the peak year of 2000, the year before incomes began to decline. The average income in 2006 was 1.2%, or $739, higher than in 2000, when incomes were swollen by capital gains from a roaring market, and $1,369 over the 2005 average.
Translation - since Bush took office, incomes dropped and it took six years to recover. Also, when you look at the chart, it is not clear that results have been adjusted for inflation.
We've heard a lot about how Bush has mismanaged the economy, but there's no evidence of this. In fact, incomes began growing in 2003 after falling in 2001 and 2002 and have trended upward every year since. The small bump in 2003 was followed by gains of $2,291 in 2004 and $2,210 in 2005.
[image]http://ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues02082708.gif[/image]Meanwhile, there's been only one quarter of negative GDP growth, the fourth quarter of last year, which was preceded by two quarters of 4.8% gains.
It can hardly be argued that Bush is responsible for falling incomes in 2001 and 2002, or that he's been a poor steward of the economy.
Why not? He pushed through tax cuts that swelled the deficit. Did they have no effect?
He inherited a decline that began on Clinton's watch with negative growth in the third quarter of 2000 and again in the first quarter of 2001.
Agreed. Clinton's economy could not be sustained and was followed with some declines. But the economy sure did well before that.
A stock market crash and the 9/11 attacks hit incomes hard, as did a series of Fed rate hikes. The effects of the resulting slowdown continued until Bush's economic policies, especially his tax cuts, kicked in.
Huh? A stock market crash and Fed rate hikes were unrelated to Bush's policies, but the tax cuts boosted the economy and he IS responsible for that? Sorry, but you can't take credit for the positives and refuse to take responsibility for the negatives.
Thanks to a growing economy, Americans' real disposable income has increased every quarter but two from the beginning of 2003, when Bush's policies started going into full effect, to the first quarter of 2007. Some of the growth was remarkable, including a 7.5% jump in the fourth quarter of 2004 and a 6.3% increase in the third quarter of 2003.
So who gave the author the right to ignore the awful years of 2001 and 2002, when Bush began tax cuts? Why did it take three years for his policies to "take full effect", or was that an excuse to call a mulligan on a 10% drop in presumably inflation non-adjusted earnings?
In November, voters will pick a candidate to replace a president who did an exceptional job of steering the economy through tough circumstances, but hasn't gotten a shred of credit for it. The best choice is the man who's more interested in increasing income than redistributing — and ultimately shrinking — it.
Sorry, IBD, but neither candidate will increase income. Bush spent us all into a hole that will only be resolved by higher taxes or hellacious inflation.
BTW, I'd like to see the above statistics done by MEDIAN income instead of mean. The mean income is skewed by the growing income disparity under Bush.
|
|
|
|
