First off, ElneClare. Not to be mean or anything, but the argument I was refuting was that middle class standard of living has decreased (presumably as a result of GWB's policies). Since you were recieving and relying on food stamps and SDI benefits (or whatever they're called in your state), I don't think you were "middle class" prior to GWB taking office, nor are you "middle class" now.
Even if you wished to make a second point regarding those in your personal position, you'd need to show that this was more then anectdotal. Are you typical of those in your situation? Or an exception? And were whatever changes that negatively affected you the restult of GWB's policies?
You can't just proclaim that since your personal financial situation got worse that this means that everyone is doing worse. Statistics would seem to disagree. The CPI has risen at a lower rate then inflation for virtually the entirety of Bush's term. That means that real purchasing power after inflation is *higher* then it was. Wages have kept pace with inflation (regardless of what you've heard). Thus, the actual average buying power of an average worker has inctreased over the last 5-6 years. Not decreased.
Ambrya wrote:
The f'uck you say.
My husband and I (just the two of us, not including the upcoming sprog) make twice what his parents made while raising three kids, and have half the quality of life. They were able to take trips to Hawaii every year to visit his mom's family--we can barely afford a weekend on the coast and trip back east to see my family every OTHER year. They lived in a house that could fit their entire family with room to spare for guests. We've had to dismantle our guest room to make a nursery and you still can't sneeze without someone else having to hold your tissue. They were able to put three kids through college, we are having to mortgage our souls in student loan debt for me to complete my education.
Again. This is anectdotal information. If you make only twice what your parents made, then adjusted for inflation you're actually earning about half what they did (actually, closer to a third depending on how long ago this exact time period you're talking about was). I'm pretty sure your salary did not suddenly cut in half during Bush's term, did it? Thus, this condition existed prior to any policy changes he may have made.
Quote:
The problem is that middle-class earnings are not increasing at the rate of the middle-class cost of living. Meanwhile, the rate of earning for the wealthiest is skyrocketing. So yes, the income gap IS widening, and the middle class quality of life IS going down.
First off, I'm not sure that's actually true at all. But I don't happen to have a chart with the numbers going back 30-40 years, so I'm not going to make any absolute statements about it (then again, you haven't shown any evidence to support your statement other then the anectdote). Secondly, there's more to standard of living then relative dollars earned. This is the half of the equation that some people seem to habitually ignore. As with everything in economics, there are two parts to the equation. Supply and demand is one. Cost vs income is another. If the adjusted cost of goods reduces over time the economic effect is identical to your salary increasing by the same rate.
You argue that cost of living has increased. Yes it has, especially in some areas like housing. But in other areas, it has decreased dramatically when adjusted for inflation. You have to look at the whole picture to see what's really going on.
And again. I'll point out that the cost of housing (for example) going up as a function of income is not something that dramatically changed when Bush came to office. I just love how when we discuss economics and the Bush tax policies it seems like talk of long term economic trends having nothing to do with Bush come out of the woodwork. Funny. I'm pretty sure you weren't bashing Clinton for this when he was in office. Yet those same factors were at work then as well.
If we're going to discuss Bush's economic policies, how about we restrict our discussion to the actual things his policies have affected. Like reducing your taxes. Like increasing employment. Like increasing economic growth for the country as a whole. Like decreasing inflation. All of these things are good for the middle class. They're good for everyone. Funny how you all seem to avoid discussing those parts of the issue...
I'm sorry; but what kind of fantasy world do we live in where people can get off saying that if you give a rich buisness owner more money that he is going to put that into the salaries of their employees and NOT put it into the lastest GULF STREAM personal fúcking airplane? 
301,205,620 is the current population as of 12:42 am PST Feb 19th 2007. A growth rate of .9% does not sound right in any sense, considering the math for the net gain every second in the above is correct. 
