<<the author and his panel are starting with old numbers>>

Since 2005 data is the latest available, they’re the only numbers you, I, or anyone else has to go by.

<<Just those two years difference in basic population numbers, and for the years that we’re actually talking about…make a huge difference.>>

Which implies you’re informed by newer data.  Please cite.

<<And then, there’s the everyday data that tells us as well, that proves an opposite result.>>

No.  Anecdotal data is essentially useless.  What counts are the actual numbers.

<<I also didn’t see any numbers from the study that I would expect to see in such a project, such as the unemployment rates, the medium incomes, the demographics, and a full explanation of the methodology.>>

That’s because you didn’t read the study.  It’s based on DATA… which includes those figures (unempl., median incomes, etc...)

<<And, yes…I think I’ve seen a few floating around, that are more or less still “in the making”. (Various theses and dissertations in the works). >>

This one’s real - and finished.  Those are the only kind I pay attention to.

<<Still, I’ll check around for you, and see if I can find something in our digital library.>>

Great - I’m still waiting.

<<Cheney has locked everything up, and what’s left is a horrific mess, of mostly propaganda. When we actually try to get to real answers on any number of things, the documents come up missing or redacted, or just plain locked-up. Or maybe burned, or maybe erased into cyberspace.>>

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

#89320 by Marshall on 7/25 at 2:19 am

• Cyrena - FYI: the WP has the reputation of being a left leaning newspaper.
• But no matter.  The Rose study is from May 2007 using the latest data available, so your criticism of stale data is baseless.  If you’d read the caption on the graph, you’d have seen that it is in fact based on the study.
I agree that the WP was at one time, a left-leaning newspaper. That changed, back when our 4th Estate was hijacked, along with the rest of our government. And, it’s been sad, because I used to enjoy that paper. Even now, they DO still run the occasional excellent investigative posts, (like Walter Reed and the Cheney chronicles) but over all, the WP has truly disappointed me, and I can’t even bear to watch Tim Russert for the past several months. So, times have changed, and the propaganda appears pretty much everywhere, mixed in with the occasional “real picture”. But, not often…not in our MSM, and we have to count the WP among them, left-leaning or not.

As for the data…I noticed, (from the caption on the graph) that it was indeed a May 2007 publication. (that would make it good, very recent). I also noted that it cited a U.S. Census Population Survey from -2005-. That means the author and his panel are starting with old numbers, before they even get the study going. So, my criticism of 2005 statistics in a 2007 Study is NOT baseless. It’s what conscientious researchers pay attention to. Just those two years difference in basic population numbers, and for the years that we’re actually talking about…make a huge difference.

And then, there’s the everyday data that tells us as well, that proves an opposite result.

I also didn’t see any numbers from the study that I would expect to see in such a project, such as the unemployment rates, the medium incomes, the demographics, and a full explanation of the methodology. THAT would be a “study”.

And, yes…I think I’ve seen a few floating around, that are more or less still “in the making”. (Various theses and dissertations in the works). To do a REAL study, (that charts the past 6 years or so as a trend) it gets involved. And, I admit that I generally leave it up to others now, to do the work. But, only because I’ve had to do it myself enough times, that I can now look at it, and know how scientifically valid it’s likely to be.

Still, I’ll check around for you, and see if I can find something in our digital library. I’m sure lots of folks must be trying to put many of these studies together, but are running up against the same problems that all scholars have these days. Cheney has locked everything up, and what’s left is a horrific mess, of mostly propaganda. When we actually try to get to real answers on any number of things, the documents come up missing or redacted, or just plain locked-up. Or maybe burned, or maybe erased into cyberspace.

These are troubled times. Some folks still don’t get that. I’ll check now.

#89311 by cyrena on 7/25 at 12:42 am

Cyrena - FYI: the WP has the reputation of being a left leaning newspaper.

But no matter.  The Rose study is from May 2007 using the latest data available, so your criticism of stale data is baseless.  If you’d read the caption on the graph, you’d have seen that it is in fact based on the study.

The author was a member of Clinton’s economic team and is hardly a rightwardly biased source.  But the data speaks for itself.  If you’d bother to read the study, you’d find that there are numerous findings, not all good, but it’s clear that your contention about a middle class trend towards poverty is wrong.

Tell you what though.  If you want to dispute this, then go ahead and cite your source that proves otherwise.  I’m sure you’re basing your claim on actual data, because to do otherwise would make it just your opinion.

#89288 by Marshall on 7/24 at 10:16 pm

Marshall, I actually took a moment to look at the graph, even though I could tell from the link, that it was from the WP, already making is “suspect” in my mind.

I linked to the graph first, saw it as the propaganda that it is, (and nothing close to an actually study) and that the stats he’s using are 3 years old.

So, there was no point in reading the article.

Because, this is all bullshit, and doesn’t even come close to reflecting the financial well-being of the majority of the population.

For the masses, we are in the same shape we were in the lead-up to the depression. You will find yourself in desperate straights, if you actually believe this.

Sorry, no corrections offered on this one. I’m still into verifiable science...this is a joke.

#88773 by cyrena on 7/22 at 10:49 pm

I said: “more previously middle class have moved up into wealthy class than have moved down into poverty.”

You said: “Marshall, this is a bi-polar, bald-faced lie, and I’m sure you know it. The middle class has shrunk downward,(drastically) ...you’re full of shit.”

I respond by posting the data to substantiate my claim.  This graphic from the Washington Post illustrates one of the many conclusions of a recent study from Stephen Rose (who served on Clinton’s economic committee) based on current population survey data.  Notice that the middle class has shrunk UP, not down.  This is a fact - no disputing it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2 007/05/30/GR2007053000068.html

And here’s the Post’s Pearlstein piece with more detail on the study:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2 007/05/29/AR2007052902001.html

#88775 by waxman on 7/22 at 11:03 pm

Waxman - now you and Cyrena can stand corrected.

Skruff Thanks

skruff
I had no idea that you were Exxons’ spokesperson,not that it would have made any difference.
If they are making 7 cents/gallon profit and can rack up 9 billion in profit in 3 months, methinks someone is cooking the books,like that other great Houston based company that cared so well for its employee’s and retiree’s...you know, Enron?

I guess we would have to confiscate all inheritances too.

I forgot, what do we do about the lottery ?

But of course Skruff, we would simply stipulate it as part of the tax law.  This will truly be a paradise.

Well it just came to me.  The democrats outnumber the republicans and control congress.  Its very simple, they use there domination of the voting booth to raise the tax rate on all income above $100,000 to 100 %.  WOW. Imagine the president of Exxon (and Oprah) having to give all of those millions to the government and reduced to living on $ 100,000.  This would be democracy at its finest.  All the social programs would become instantly affordable.  All the class envy would dissapear. Just think, with all this extra revenue the feds could refund enough to everyone else to make sure they make $100,000 also.  We would all be equal, finally.

What are we waiting for ?

ADAM SMITH QUOTES THAT YOU WON’T HEAR RICH CONSERVATIVES REPEATING !!!

Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind”: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other People.” He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence “unless government takes pains to prevent” this outcome, as must be assured in “every improved and civilized society.” It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces.
The masters of mankind in Smith’s day were the “merchants and manufacturers,” who were the “principal architects” of state policy, using their power to bring “dreadful misfortunes” to the vast realms they subjugated and to harm the people of England as well, though their own interests were “most peculiarly attended to.”

I am perfectly content to see Bill Gates or some other entrepreneur make millions or even billions off their idea, service or invention.
But when Exxon Mobil can post 9 billion in profits for just 3 months, that’s obscene. Had they been able to post that profit without doubling the price at the pump, I’d be less concerned.
But facts are facts. They got the word from the Shootist in the oh so secret energy meeting at the beginning of this administration that all checks were going to be removed. Soak the public for all you can and don’t forget who is making it possible for you to do that when it comes time to “donate”.

Cyrena, your last line sums it up perfectly.  We, not me.  That’s what we’re short on.

To my detractors (and thank you for being reasonably civil), I have no desire to cap your achievements or put a ceiling on the wealth you might acquire.  All I ask is that your rising tide lift more than one boat.  In a balanced system, that would happen naturally, but unfortunately, the people making the rules (or - since we do have a democracy, the people entrusted to writethe rules down) have apparently decided that every dollar someone else has is one less dollar for them, and they need to recoup the loss....any which way they can.  That’s what I want to CHECK - the ability of the affluent to manipulate our systems for their own gain, to serve their agendas.  That doesn’t make me antu-freedom, it makes me anti-unbridled-greed.

#88806 by farmertx on 7/23 at 5:36 am

You said in all in this one farmertx, and especially since no reasonable citizen expects any massive “redistribution” of the wealth. That will never happen, and it isn’t required.

But, without a doubt, we do need to work a major re-alignment, because the imbalance that has been created, has the same inevitable consequences. It’s like anything else that becomes so drastically out of balance...it crashes. Whether it’s an airplane, or the human body, or the economy....it crashes.

Our human society system is no different, wherever on the planet that society exists. We have to exist as a unit, and there has to be some balance within that unit, for the entire thing to survive.

That’s the part that Michael Moore was pointing out, and that I’ve patiently tried to enter into the consciousness of some of my own former colleagues..right there in Texas.

It HAS to be about “we” over “me”, or we simply will all fail.

Can anyone believe this mouth breather has ever read Adam Smith, let alone Marx? this reminds me of when that idiot Reagan told Gorbachev his ‘favorite writer’ was Dostoyevsky. Please. None of these idiots has opened a book since Dr Suess, which was obviously lost on them as well.

#88911 by Inherit The Wind on 7/23 at 2:21 pm

....."Is it my imagination or does Mitt Romney look like he MUST be John Kerry’s moronic younger brother?”.....

Wind, it’s your “imagination”.

This is what we’ve been trying to point out.

Given the Latter Day Saints history of polygamy, why would the Stormin’ Mormom object to a communal lifestyle?  Mitt, what would Joseph Smith do?

Hillary Clinton is a Marxist corporate lawyer
LOL

Why would anyone take seriously anything any candidate says about another candidate, no matter who they are?
The scariest thing about candidates bashing each other is that they only do it because so many of us plebes eat it up.

Why the FUCK do these uneducated ROBOTARDS keep getting way with murder?

This moron, this idiot, this sniveling, holy-tightie whitie wearing, knuckle dragging Neanderthal has NEVER read Marx nor Adam Smith. WTF right does this braying JACKASS have to talk about EITHER? NONE.

Is this Jackass fooling ANYONE? This MORON is WAY over his head. Adam Smith was a classical liberal (in the Rousseau-ian sense) and would be ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE at the current capitalist ecomomy we have.

Unprecedented leaps in the numbers of American billionaires and the increases the oil industries and defense contractors are reaping.
While this is happening a second class society with individuals earning below the poverty line, no health insurance, no hope. 
Mr. Romney calls himself a man of faith?  Mr. Romney calls Ms. Clinton a Marxist? 
Mr. Romney is callous, uncaring, and an elitest with no moral compass. 
America’s very roots, are epitomized in the statement read as one enters the harbor in New York.  Give me your poor..we are to help the poor.  Wake up America, we are on the decline and it is because we do not remember what is important.  “Do justice, show mercy, walk humbly..”

For those of you who don’t have any stocks or bonds or tax credits.

There are two Americas, the one you think you live in and the one you actually live in.

You have and are now, being sold a line of BS to keep you in line. Keep giving your vote to the representatives of the rich and you will get less and less for yourself. They don’t seem to have any limits on how much they want.

#88784 by Tom on 7/23 at 12:01 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Here is a quote from Adam Smith most Republicans don’t want you to see. He sounds more like a Democrat

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

Tom, you nailed it. The great lie of America is that we are all getting and giving our fair share.

People like Romney, with their power can make sure they aren’t giving their fair share back through all kinds of tax loop-holes written specially for the rich.

This Romney guy is scary.  Last week he says Obama advocates sex education for Kindergarten (a huge lie that was pushed by Sean Hannity).  Now he compares Clinton with Marx (another whopper).  I’m scared that an electorate that put Reagan in the White House twice and “W” there twice might actually fall for this garbage.

Excellent post Marshall.  Although Mitt will find it hard to get elected with that baggage of the silly religion he belongs to, he does understand the economics of this country as well as any candidate and he understands the pandering of the socialist candidates to those that believe its time for the US to make the mistake of dipping further into that failed ideology.  Apparently our neighbors to the south (Mexicans and other latin americans) understand the opportunity in this country including the possibility of their own businesses.  They feel no shame in going to work at the bottom in a country where opportunities for advancement abound.  Its too bad that our own citizens sit back and wait for the government to provide for their wants and needs instead of taking a lesson from the newcomers.

It is sad to see grown (I assume) folks cite this economy as proof that all is well. I would imagine that prior to the Depression folks was saying that the economy was in great shape also.
When the economy improves for just the owners of really large corporations and those who play the stock market, leaving middle class America behind in a cloud of debt, that is not my idea of things going well.
I do not think that America should try and redistribute the wealth as such. But I do believe that a windfall profits tax would make Exxon Mobil realize that they have to quit soaking the consumer and paying their CEO an absurd salary and go back to making reasonable profits like all the other companies are having to get by on.
As Cyrena stated on another post, we have to start demanding that our congress critter’s quit wasting time and get on with impeachment of both Shrub and Shootist. It will have to be a dual impeachment, otherwise they would just keep pardoning one another.

Mitt’s never read either.

Adam Smith was extremely critical of capital, especially corporations.