Let's have that political discussion.

[Ikpeip]

-The study concluded specifically from both Reagan's 86 tax cuts and the Bush Tax Cuts that no economic benefit came from them for the country. Both tax cuts were not offset with government spending drops which in short reduced the ability of the government to change course when the economy did fall into recession. little economic growth resulted from specifically lowering taxes on the highest bracket instead it showed increased investment in overseas accounts and in non-corporate investments (bonds, mutual funds, trusts) by the top 5%. This had the result of freezing large amounts of capital out of the U.S. Economy. The result of a 5 fold increase in wealth for the top 1% and a shrinking of 1/3 of the U.S. middle class is what happened. As the rich paid less taxes their tax burden moved to the middle class and specifically payroll taxes on the working poor.

-Only right wing nutjobs think that Nobel Prizes are given out for political reasons. What you're actually seeing is political leadership and scientific research being recognized that you disagree with politically but the rest of the world sees as politically neutral but influential for the benefit of mankind. You've been given delusional information and you've swallowed it. You can quote right wing conservative leaning opinion papers like 'The Telegraph', and 'Money Watch' if you want but they have a clear conservative agenda. 'United Liberty' and 'Times Watch' have about as much to do with journalism as Stormfront, Glenn Beck's Daily Newsletter or Fox News. And before you attack 'The New York Times' and look like even more like a wing-nut for the right, you should realize that 'The New York Times' is considered the best newspaper in the world and the most respected news source in this country since Cronkite died. You're disagreement with Krugman and the Times is simply your spoon fed dogma from sources like Fox News coming back up.

-Responsible workplace regulation which your right wing lobotomized thought process calls burdensome is exactly one of the reasons why that clothes company in that article you cited moved back to N. Carolina rather than continuing in India and Bangladesh, and why they've put in state of the art air cleaners and workplace spaces. Without those positive government regulatory developments over the past 100 years the manufacturing center you work in would be inhumane for the workers just like most of the other 3rd world countries that company fled.

-"Theft against productive members of society", what a joke. Most of these companies are owned by the inheritors of wealth or the money men who are also the inheritors of wealth from their parents. I can't imagine a less productive member of society than these Trust fund perma-children of the 1% you keep voting for. Even look at Bayard Winthorp's family from that clothing company you gave us. It's not like he started with nothing and worked himself up by his bootstraps.

You're talking about the working poor here. You don't know these people. What you call theft is allowing people to live in decent housing and allowing them to have a decent retirement when they reach old age. You call that theft for some bizarre reason when it's actually investing their lives and labor into this country. How you can call them unproductive is beyond me and I've got as much skin in the game as anyone.

Look at your leaders on the right. So few of them have actually built their money and lives for themselves. Look at your last 3 presidential candidates. Mitt Romney inherited millions and a contact list from his parents and wanted for nothing. McCain is the grandson of a Mississippi Plantation owner which held 120 slaves at it's height (see the article from your very own Telegraph), and George W. Bush is the Grandson and Great Grandson of 2 industrialists. His grandfather was one of 7 directors of a bank that was seized during WWII for being controlled by Nazi Supporter Fritz Thyssen under the 'Trading with the Enemies Act'. Bush himself was fed by his father's friends and business contacts to make his millions. All of these men inherited their wealth and contacts and invented and produced nothing.

As Balzac once said "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."

Your kidding yourself if you think Claeyt is anything but poor and uneducated. He is fighting for what he believes will help future generations avoid the outcome of his own ineptitude. A misplaced effort sure, but I wouldn't go as far to say that his political agenda is outside of his own immediate sphere of knowledge and experiences and therefore, he very much has skin in this "game" he is playing and system he is abusing. It is his beliefs and attitude that have secured his place in the lower class and it is his place in the lower class that feeds his beliefs and attitude. A vicious circle that unfortunately will perpetuate itself and we will be forced to listen to it until he no longer prioritizes his welfare check to pay his internet bill.

I'm neither poor nor uneducated. You couldn't have gotten it more wrong Chief. Even from the personal details I've given you here on the forum you should be able to figure out I've got at least a masters. I work in the private sector. I'd be considered upper middle class but definitely grew up in the lower middle class.

So your position, in a nutshell:
-The only thing you can hit Reaganomics on is increased wealth disparity, although you're unable to provide a CBO source you keep referring to (I'm still not sure if you don't understand what you're linking and honestly believe it backs up your claims, or are just lying). You're conceding that Reagan's policies led to increased economic growth, real median family income growth, lower interest rates, inflation, and unemployment, and yet claim they didn't work "because it's settled"
-You agree with left-wing sources, which makes them more credible. I agree with right-wing sources, which makes me crazy
-The central bedrock for your political philosophy is that your views are mainsteam, so they must be right. Despite the obvious fallacy here, you're (once again) mistaken in your beliefs. The vast majority of Americans want smaller government, as shown by several polls, and your assertion (made without anything to back it up) that small government advocates belong to some extreme political philosophy is just wishful thinking. Likewise, your support for a strike on Syria was a position held only by the fringe left, yet you won't find me arguing against it on the basis that it's not popular (I will, however, argue against it on the basis that it is a waste of life and resources, and would not accomplish anything productive)

You remain completely unable to refute the data laid out for all to see. Your economic policies lead to ruin, and are immoral. Despite being a NVA member of society, you advocate stealing from others rather than giving up something yourself. You're a hypocrite, and your entire argument rests on trying to achieve truth through repetition. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Claeyt]

So your position, in a nutshell:
-The only thing you can hit Reaganomics on is increased wealth disparity, although you're unable to provide a CBO source you keep referring to (I'm still not sure if you don't understand what you're linking and honestly believe it backs up your claims, or are just lying). You're conceding that Reagan's policies led to increased economic growth, real median family income growth, lower interest rates, inflation, and unemployment, and yet claim they didn't work "because it's settled"

Your going to link to the Cato Institute as a reliable non-partisan source.
They're stated mission is to promote Free Markets, Limited Government and Libertarian Policies by promoting studies that support those goals.

I linked to the CBO source for both the 2007 analysis on the short term gains and long terms faults of Reaganomics and alsot the CBO's response to Sen. Max Baucus in 2013 in review of the income diparity created by Reaganomics and the Bush Tax Cuts.

Here's the PDF file for the 2007 study including the long term economic data in it's entirety
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Here's the PDF file for the 2013 review in it's entirety
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884/12-23-effectivetaxrates_letter.pdf

-You agree with left-wing sources, which makes them more credible. I agree with right-wing sources, which makes me crazy

The CBO isn't a left-wing source and only the American Right thinks that the 'Washington Post' and 'The New York Times' are left wing sources. The rest of the world views them as moderate, non-partisan, middle of the road sources. This is why the American Right is so out of touch with the rest of the country and the rest of the world, and why your views are so backwards.

-The central bedrock for your political philosophy is that your views are mainsteam, so they must be right. Despite the obvious fallacy here, you're (once again) mistaken in your beliefs. The vast majority of Americans want smaller government, as shown by several polls, and your assertion (made without anything to back it up) that small government advocates belong to some extreme political philosophy is just wishful thinking. Likewise, your support for a strike on Syria was a position held only by the fringe left, yet you won't find me arguing against it on the basis that it's not popular (I will, however, argue against it on the basis that it is a waste of life and resources, and would not accomplish anything productive)

My views are mainstream in this country and internationally in most cases. You've been fooled into thinking and believing that your views are somehow part of the mainstream. They're not. Pull the lies out of your ears Paul.

Again you're quoting right wing sources that are completely fictitious:

CNS or Conservative News Service "The Right News, Right Now"
Red Alert "Red All Over" (funded by the Koch Brothers and Big Oil)
FreedomWorks "Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom, Now" (again, funded by the Koch Brothers)

These aren't news sources. They're jokes, and politically funded smear studies to confuse the real science. They're as legitimate news sources as the Onion, or Fox News. They're stated partisan rags that have no reason to exist except for right wing lunatics to post on internet forums to try and trick people into believing that they actually have an argument against the world.

The vast majority of Americans do not want a smaller government, or libertarian government, or anything the Republicans want in most cases these days. Those are all lies that those same Right wing ad campaigns you quoted as sources have been feeding you and America for the last 10 years. The only difference is that you believed those lies.

The vast majority of Americans want Effective, Useful government, Social Security, Medicare, responsible gun control and cheaper health care. A majority of Americans like the individual actions within Obamacare but because they don't understand it completely and because of the Right wing nut jobs screeching about it being the end of the world they worry about it as a whole. A majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the House of Representatives (fully 1.4 million more votes for Dems this last election) but because of gerrymandered districts, voter suppression, and voter ID rigging the Republicans were able to hold on to one seat of government by their fingernails.

Yes I supported going to war with Syria over it's use of chemical weapons in the deaths of over 1000 people. Most Americans are sick of war, and are leery of war advocated for the end of chemical weapons after they were flat out lied to by the Bush Administration about WMD's in Iraq. I don't think most Americans understood the importance of us taking a stand against their use in Syria and what it meant for the Syrian civil war and also our history of arming dictators with non-WMD weapons while they were using WMD's on their own people and in war (See Saddam Hussein in the 80's, Rumsfeld, and the Reagan administration). By attacking the Assad regime Obama would have made it impossible for America to ever again support a government that used chemical weapons.

I think Kerry and Obama pulled the quickly mandated chemical weapons treaty with Syria and Russia out of their ass and got lucky in the extreme. The whole thing could turn out for the best in the long run. We've gotten Assad to sign the chemical weapons ban, agree to give up his WMD's quickly (fingers crossed) and be done with it by next summer if all goes well, all while staying out of one of the worst civil wars of the last 20 years.

You remain completely unable to refute the data laid out for all to see. Your economic policies lead to ruin, and are immoral. Despite being a NVA member of society, you advocate stealing from others rather than giving up something yourself. You're a hypocrite, and your entire argument rests on trying to achieve truth through repetition. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

The CBO IS the data and the fake data laid out by those jackass nut job news sources from the right you posted isn't even close to refuting anything. The rest of your ***** is just yelling into the wind.


...and always remember that it's been the Republicans who've supported the continuous war machine that is America at this point in time. Just because the Libertarian wing finally sees this doesn't make it any less Reagan's fault in how the country got here as a war mongering mega-bank.

Just so we're clear on your sources. Fully 3 out of 4 of your fake right wing sources used here to attempt to argue against the CBO study were created and are funded by the Koch Brothers. (Cato Institute, FreedomWorks, and Red Alert) You realize that right Paul?

[Ikpeip]

You can only attack the sources, and not the data. You still haven't shown anything disproving what has been asserted regarding the success of Reaganomics. "Only you people think..." is not an effective debate tool. Just because the data is being shown to you by someone you don't like, doesn't invalidate it. The reason you can't effectively debate it, is because you've got nothing.

-Income disparity is not a metric of economic growth

-The article you link states "the rich" are increasing in their share of overall wealth. This still is not an indicator of economic growth or health. In your world it'd be better if we were all paupers, as long as we were all equally destitute.

For the third time, your CBO link (which, for the first time in this thread, actually links to the data you claim it does) showing an increase in income disparity does not reflect at all on the health of the economy, or the amount of economic growth. You have been unable to provide any reason why it should be considered as such. Metrics such as real median income, interest rates, and unemployment rates do - and these all display the success of Reagan's economic policies.

Likewise, the link on effective tax rates for the last three decades does not lead to the conclusions you're trying to make. The effective tax rate being lower today than during Reagan's presidency, does not mean that his tax cuts were ineffective. It's a clear-cut fact that the tax cuts lead to a stronger economy. Again, the data is there for all to see, and you can not refute it. Why do you insist on living in a fantasy world?

You rant on for several paragraphs in which you make many claims, but offer no supporting evidence.

Your spamming of emoticons, and garish oversized text only serve to underscore the triviality of your position and your desperation to create a distraction.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Claeyt]

You can only attack the sources, and not the data. You still haven't shown anything disproving what has been asserted regarding the success of Reaganomics. "Only you people think..." is not an effective debate tool. Just because the data is being shown to you by someone you don't like, doesn't invalidate it. The reason you can't effectively debate it, is because you've got nothing.

What data? You mean the made up stories from the fake right wing "news" sources you gave us. The data is in the CBO study. It shows median household income falling due to the wrong headed idea that lowering taxes on the rich will drive wages up for everyone. It shows the middle class income bracket shrinking by 1/3. It shows everyone but the richest Americans actually losing buying power over almost 30 years. These are all indicators for recession determination and economic health. It's not that your crazy sources funded by the Koch brothers are wrong it's that they're made up and manipulated. They're not data. The CBO study is data and it shows middle class income falling over the last 30 years and the overall economy not responding to tax cuts. It also shows that while Reaganomics stimulated investment it didn't stimulate it in corporate investment or new jobs. It stimulated bond investment, inflation reduction, and movement of money overseas. Reagan's economy boost is a myth.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-03/opinions/35443389_1_tax-rate-reagan-tax-payroll-tax

-Income disparity is not a metric of economic growth

-The article you link states "the rich" are increasing in their share of overall wealth. This still is not an indicator of economic growth or health. In your world it'd be better if we were all paupers, as long as we were all equally destitute.

Falling income and the shrinking of the middle class are absolutely a metric of economic growth and median household income loss.

For the third time, your CBO link (which, for the first time in this thread, actually links to the data you claim it does) showing an increase in income disparity does not reflect at all on the health of the economy, or the amount of economic growth. You have been unable to provide any reason why it should be considered as such. Metrics such as real median income, interest rates, and unemployment rates do - and these all display the success of Reagan's economic policies.

For the third time the CBO link absolutely shows falls in economic indicators and median income and blames it on Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Median income decline and the 1/3 loss to the middle class tax brackets absolutely reflect the overall health of the economy and the amount of economic growth. It should be considered as such because median income and household income are both indicators for economic growth. They're included in the GDP, the Consumer Price Index and the Personal Consumption Report all of which are used to show if there's economic growth or recession in this country.
Real median income is now down to pre-Reagan numbers, interest rates are at historic lows due to the Fed trying to help the economy, and as you can read in the Washington post article above that the average unemployment rate of the seventies was better than that of the 80's and Reagan's supposed large unemployment drop came before his tax plan even took effect and was smaller than Clinton's in the 90's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us/recession-officially-over-us-incomes-kept-falling.html

Likewise, the link on effective tax rates for the last three decades does not lead to the conclusions you're trying to make. The effective tax rate being lower today than during Reagan's presidency, does not mean that his tax cuts were ineffective. It's a clear-cut fact that the tax cuts lead to a stronger economy. Again, the data is there for all to see, and you can not refute it. Why do you insist on living in a fantasy world?

You're the one living in this fantasy world. The CBO study also shows income growth and personal consumption rates which do prove my argument.

As for whatever data you see on the Wikipedia page:

The 8 out of 10 Niskanen/Moore study's economic indicators that Reaganomics met are not the full GDP indicators. Niskanen and Moore both worked in the Reagan administration and are considered the architects of Reaganomics and Niskanen actually works for your favorite Koch brother funded right wing fictional study factory, the Cato institute.

The table in the analysis actually shows wage stagnation for everybody but the obscenely rich.

Besides the quotes form the Heritage foundation which is now led by the father of the Tea Party, Jim Demint let's look at some of those other quotes about Reaganomics from Wikipedia:

"The Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reduced nominal rates on the wealthy and eliminated tax deductions, while raising tax rates on lower-income individuals.The across the board tax system reduced marginal rates and further reduced bracket creep from inflation. The highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) received a tax break, restoring a flatter the tax system. In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report characterized the effective rise in the AMT for individuals as a problem with the tax code. Through 2007, the revised AMT had brought in more tax revenue than the former tax code, which has made it difficult for Congress to reform." [During the Recession]

"Economist Paul Krugman argued the economic expansion during the Reagan administration was primarily the result of the business cycle and the monetary policy by Paul Volcker. Krugman argues that there was nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan because unemployment was reducing from a high peak and that it is consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases if inflation remains low."

"The CBO Historical Tables indicate that federal spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three-fold increase."

Besides Stephen Moore and the Heritage foundation quotes I don't see much good said about his policies. Are you sure you want to use the page for your argument.

Your spamming of emoticons, and garish oversized text only serve to underscore the triviality of your position and your desperation to create a distraction

I do it to piss you off.

[MagicManICT]

It's late and haven't read through everything posted but wanted to say a couple of things.

1. Thanks for the extra reading material. I prefer non-fiction as it's something I can wrap my head around easier. I'm a bit dense when it comes to reading between the lines. The only question would be how much prior knowledge is needed. I can read most scientific papers because I've had a wide variety of background. I might not be able to work out all the math or know all the techniques described, but I can easily find them. Business, on the other hand, I've not had as much experience with and economics is really weird. It's a cocktail of sociology, statistical analysis, and voodoo.

2. Labor: I completely agree, however, that's the point of "we all lay down" or at least enough people capable of doing the job that it doesn't matter. Companies have products to sell. Without those things, they go bankrupt. If a boss is so willing to say "to hell with it", they're not going to stay in business long. If they reached a point where they need to hire extra help, and enough of it that a labor strike will hurt, they can't do anything but negotiate. It's how labor unions gained the power they have. It's why we have a large middle and working class instead of upper class and the poor. (FYI, many of the upper class would love to see us go back to the upper/ruling class and the rest of us basically be slaves of one sort or another.)

3. I find most of the left talking heads about as intellectually honest as the right's. Comedy is more polarized than religion without the fervor and fanaticism (for the most part). Mix in comedy and politics, and you're asking to piss off 80% while entertaining only about 5% of the remaining people. Only a few comedians have been able to do it successfully (ie entertain enough people to not get a bunch of outright haters), but then they just aren't as funny as the guys (and gals) willing to go to the extreme.

4. We are all slaves. Obligation makes it so. While we may not be defined as a slave workforce tied to land or master, how many people in the US are stuck at a job because leaving would mean a cut in pay, loss of benefits, or other hardship that isn't affordable? What about other "rich" countries? (I won't mention the rest of the world as it only gets worse outside the major industrial powers.) When one no longer can make choices such as where to work or where to live, then it's starting to sound a lot like true slavery. (If you have to live in the same slummy hood, be it one location or another, they're all just the same, whether it's east LA, southside Chicago, etc.)

Now, I'm sure I'll read the rest of the thread and see some responses already with answers I'm duplicating, but maybe not.

[wormcsa]

I really should never have clicked "display this post...."
There are so many factually inaccurate assertions in Claeyt's recent Marxist rant that I really don't know where to start. I will just take one assertion because otherwise it would be merely an exercise in repetition...

Real median income is now down to pre-Reagan numbers

Claeyt included this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_re ... -_2011.PNG as proof. There are three immediate objections one can raise:
-The first, as usual, the graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_re ... -_2011.PNG) doesn't show what Claeyt says it says. The end point for "all races" is 2011 at $50,054. At no time in the period of "pre-Reagan" is a greater number shown. A normal person would feel humbled by his inability to read a graph, but Claeyt will no doubt consider the point moot, change topic, and spam 5 more links that also don't say what he claims.
-Two, President Reagan left office in 1988. Your faulty analysis (as demonstrated above by your inability to read a graph) of the US economy between 1980 and present, even if true, does not logically link to "Reaganomics." You do understand that there were other things going on in the US and global economy while Reagan was president, let alone what occurred in the next 25 years, when someone else was president, right?
-The third objection is that "household income" is a dishonest metric. Between 1967 and 2011, the average size of a "household" shrank. There are far more single parent households today than there were in 1967. In 1967, a husband and wife each making $25,000 a year would have a household income of $50,000. Today, a divorced couple each making $25,000 a year would each separately have a household income of $25,000. So why not use "median income?" Because Claeyt's side argue like lawyers, not scientists. A scientist looks at the best available data, forms a hypothesis, and then meticulously tries to disprove himself. When he finds himself unable to disprove his hypothesis, it becomes a "theory." Demagogues such as Claeyt start with a theory, and then go looking to twist data to support their a priori beliefs. Once they find a few slivers of evidence, they declare it "proven."

I will also mention in brief:
-Paul's "Reaganomics" link clearly shows that the issue is not "settled," but rather open to intelligent debate, and that most serious economists see it as a mixed bag. That you read the article and claim it "settled," only demonstrates your inability to read text as well as graphs.
-Krugman won his Nobel prize for something unrelated to his Keynesian macro economic theories and political activism. Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize as well, and basically advocated the opposite of everything Krugman stands for today. Friedman also gave "Reaganomics" high marks. The point isn't that Krugman is wrong and Friedman is right, but that winning a Nobel prize does not infer infallibility in unrelated topics.
-And seriously, I am no fan of Fox News but claiming they are equal to Stormfront? So everyone who disagrees with you is a white supremacist? Go ***** yourself.

[wormcsa]

1. Thanks for the extra reading material. I prefer non-fiction as it's something I can wrap my head around easier. I'm a bit dense when it comes to reading between the lines. The only question would be how much prior knowledge is needed. I can read most scientific papers because I've had a wide variety of background. I might not be able to work out all the math or know all the techniques described, but I can easily find them. Business, on the other hand, I've not had as much experience with and economics is really weird. It's a cocktail of sociology, statistical analysis, and voodoo.

Although "The Road to Serfdom," is an excellent book, it is quite a heavy read. I would suggest Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," as a very clear understandable introduction to how conservative libertarians view the world. He wrote the book based on his 1980 TV series of the same name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4 Even if it doesn't convince you, it is useful to understand how the other side sees it.

[Claeyt]

Real median income is now down to pre-Reagan numbers

Claeyt included this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_re ... -_2011.PNG as proof. There are three immediate objections one can raise:
-The first, as usual, the graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2011.PNG) doesn't show what Claeyt says it says. The end point for "all races" is 2011 at $50,054. At no time in the period of "pre-Reagan" is a greater number shown. A normal person would feel humbled by his inability to read a graph, but Claeyt will no doubt consider the point moot, change topic, and spam 5 more links that also don't say what he claims.
-Two, President Reagan left office in 1988. Your faulty analysis (as demonstrated above by your inability to read a graph) of the US economy between 1980 and present, even if true, does not logically link to "Reaganomics." You do understand that there were other things going on in the US and global economy while Reagan was president, let alone what occurred in the next 25 years, when someone else was president, right?
-The third objection is that "household income" is a dishonest metric. Between 1967 and 2011, the average size of a "household" shrank. There are far more single parent households today than there were in 1967. In 1967, a husband and wife each making $25,000 a year would have a household income of $50,000. Today, a divorced couple each making $25,000 a year would each separately have a household income of $25,000. So why not use "median income?" Because Claeyt's side argue like lawyers, not scientists. A scientist looks at the best available data, forms a hypothesis, and then meticulously tries to disprove himself. When he finds himself unable to disprove his hypothesis, it becomes a "theory." Demagogues such as Claeyt start with a theory, and then go looking to twist data to support their a priori beliefs. Once they find a few slivers of evidence, they declare it "proven."

I will also mention in brief:
-Paul's "Reaganomics" link clearly shows that the issue is not "settled," but rather open to intelligent debate, and that most serious economists see it as a mixed bag. That you read the article and claim it "settled," only demonstrates your inability to read text as well as graphs.
-Krugman won his Nobel prize for something unrelated to his Keynesian macro economic theories and political activism. Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize as well, and basically advocated the opposite of everything Krugman stands for today. Friedman also gave "Reaganomics" high marks. The point isn't that Krugman is wrong and Friedman is right, but that winning a Nobel prize does not infer infallibility in unrelated topics.
-And seriously, I am no fan of Fox News but claiming they are equal to Stormfront? So everyone who disagrees with you is a white supremacist? Go ***** yourself

.

Hey welcome back Wormsca. Alright the debate continues, yay.

It's like you guys haven't even read the CBO report, so here it is a third time.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

As you can see from the CBO report quote, Middle class income shares of overall income fell 7% since 1979. The lowest 80% of workers saw their overall income share reduced by half, this is known as 'The Great Divergence'. Real Median income has been falling throughout the last 14 years especially.

The graph you show from my supporting material shows income by race. It isn't adjusted for the massive growth in the richest Americans although it does show that we've fallen to 1989 levels in un-adjusted income. When you adjust for the massive income growth for the richest tax percentiles and take them out you can see the fall of middle class wages to pre-Reagan amounts.

The Resulting Shift in Income Shares

As a result of that uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the
population in households with the highest income more has doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined (see Figure 3 on page 6). The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8 percent in 1979 to
over 17 percent in 2007. The share received by other households in the highest income quintile was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35 percent to 36 percent. In contrast, the share of after-tax income received by the 60 percent of the population in the three middle-income quintiles fell by 7 percentage points between 1979 and 2007, from 50 percent to 43 percent of total after-tax household income, and the share of after-tax income accruing to the lowest-income quintile decreased from 7 percent to 5 percent. By 2005, the share of total after-tax household income received by the 20 percent of the population with the highest income had exceeded the share received by the remaining 80 percent. In 2007, those shares were 53 percent and 47 percent, respectively. In 1979, the top 1 percent received about the same share of income as the lowest income quintile; by 2007, the top percentile received more than the lowest two income quintiles combined.

-Divorce is actually way down over the last 20 years. Unmarried couples living together count as 1 household by the CBO and the US Census.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

-Yes there are more single parents and unmarried couples but I doubt their significance to the real household income as they would have just been included as single person households before. They may have a slight influence on household income if not factored in but they don't have much influence on any of the average income amounts.

-Yes Reaganomics wasn't the only thing affecting the economy, but even Friedman says it was one of the most influential aspects to the American economy over the last 25 year, especially when you factor in the very Reaganesque Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy. The CBO evaluated the Reagan tax ideas especially. That's how we got onto this topic. We're discussing The aspects of Reaganomics as an idea within American politics and policy.

-The issue was settled by the CBO study. Reaganomics and progressive income tax breaks for the wealthy do not work.

-You'll notice I didn't debate Friedman's importance to the debate, nor did I include him with the Koch brother funded Niskanen and Moore.

-The only difference between Fox News and Stormfront is that Fox News is a propaganda machine for rich white men, and Stormfront is a propaganda machine for white men. Stormfront is just more truthful and honest about what they represent.

I mean seriously..... How many white blonde women can you pour into a news desk without looking like an Aryan rights group.

http://mypolitikal.com/2012/08/26/why-are-all-the-females-at-fox-news-blonde/

[jwhitehorn]

-Divorce is actually way down over the last 20 years. Unmarried couples living together count as 1 household by the CBO and the US Census.

God dammit you are so ***** stupid. Do you ever bother to vet information and its sources before regurgitating it?

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

[Claeyt]

-Divorce is actually way down over the last 20 years. Unmarried couples living together count as 1 household by the CBO and the US Census.

God dammit you are so ***** stupid. Do you ever bother to vet information and its sources before regurgitating it?

What the ***** are you talking about? I gave 2 sources saying Divorce rates are down. Here's another one.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/05/19/divorce.rates.drop/index.html

Here's the Census definition page. Why don't you look up household.

http://www.census.gov/cps/about/cpsdef.html