Democrats Tag Bush, Not Them, as Reckless Spender

[UpInArms]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/campaign/30econ.html

BOSTON, July 29 - Night after night at the convention, speaker after speaker, the Democrats - a group traditionally bearing the label "big spenders'' - have sought to turn the tables on President Bush by accusing him of being fiscally irresponsible.

In his acceptance speech on Thursday, Senator John Kerry hammered this theme, asserting that the large budget deficits that have sprouted under Mr. Bush are a symbol of economic mismanagement. Mr. Kerry contrasted the vastly improved budgetary picture under Bill Clinton with the deficits under Mr. Bush and said, "We can do better."

"Let's not forget what we did in the 1990's,'' Mr. Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery. "We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves - and we can do it again."

The pounding shows that the Democrats see the mushrooming deficits, as well as the loss of a million jobs under Mr. Bush, as a major political liability that they can exploit.

Mr. Clinton, whose budget surpluses helped undo the Democrats' reputation for fiscal irresponsibility, said of Mr. Bush's policies in his address on Monday, "These policies have turned a projected $5.8 trillion surplus that we left - enough to pay for the baby-boomer retirement - into a projected debt of almost $5 trillion, with over $400 billion in deficit this year and for years to come."

...more...

[struggle4progress]

1. Borrow and Spend! Borrow and Spend! eom

[flaminbats]

5. tax and spend, tax and spend!

Raise taxes on our kids and spend this future away on more death, Saudi favors, poverty, and corporate welfare. :smoke:

[TahitiNut]

2. "lifted the standard of living for the middle class"??? Nope. Not really.

After the Bush/Quayle disaster that saw the greatest increase in the inequity of income in recent history, the inequity continued. The most basic meaning of "lifting the middle class" would be in the reduction of the Gini Index -- and that just didn't happen in the 90's, except in the narrow sense of minorities as some sort of separate economy. The overall Gini Index went up, even though not as rapidly. It initially went down (good!) but started upwards again after Gingrich/94.

[yardwork]

3. On your graph I see the overall Gini rate decreasing between 1997-99

First the rate of increase slows under Clinton, then starts to decrease. Each of the minority rates decrease substantially.

This graph proves the veracity of Kerry's statement.

Also note that the blue line (overall rate) takes off again in 2000, rising sharply in 2001, as it leaves the chart. I'd be willing to bet that a chart of 2001-2004 shows it heading sharply upward.

[TahitiNut]

4. Well ...

... the overall Gini ratio in 1992 was 0.404, and in 2000 it was 0.430. That's an increase in income inequity. I postulate that an increase in income inequity diminishes the "middle class." (A Gini ratio of 1.0 would mean one family gets all the income and the rest get none, i.e. no "middle class" at all.)

The years 1994 and 1995 saw slight reductions (as did 1999), but the overall trend is upward.

It's important to note that the seeming decrease in inequity among black families and among Hispanic families don't make up for the dramatic disparity (about 20-25% - I'd have to look it up to be accurate) between the average incomes of those groups and white families.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Gini ratio has undoubtedly spiked upward since 2001. We're a banana republic.

Year Total White Black Hisp.
2001 0.435 0.426 0.447 0.432
2000 0.430 0.422 0.449 0.417
1999 0.428 0.419 0.458 0.432
1998 0.430 0.422 0.445 0.448
1997 0.429 0.422 0.439 0.452
1996 0.425 0.414 0.455 0.449
1995 0.421 0.409 0.457 0.439
1994 0.426 0.416 0.458 0.444
1993 0.429 0.416 0.482 0.439
1992 0.404 0.390 0.462 0.423
1991 0.397 0.384 0.448 0.422
1990 0.396 0.384 0.445 0.416
1989 0.401 0.389 0.442 0.415
1988 0.395 0.382 0.450 0.424


On edit:
The data are available from "Table F-4. Gini Ratios for Families, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1947 to 2001" available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

Another table shows it even more clearly, and that's "Table IE-1. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2001"

Shares of Household Income of Quintiles
_________________2001__2000__1999__1998__1997__1996__1995__1994__1993__1992
Lowest quintile. _3.5% _3.6% _3.6% _3.6% _3.6% _3.7% _3.7% _3.6% _3.6% _3.8%
Second quintile. _8.7% _8.9% _8.9% _9.0% _8.9% _9.0% _9.1% _8.9% _9.0% _9.4%
Third quintile.. 14.6% 14.9% 14.9% 15.0% 15.0% 15.1% 15.2% 15.0% 15.1% 15.8%
Fourth quintile. 23.0% 23.0% 23.2% 23.2% 23.2% 23.3% 23.3% 23.4% 23.5% 24.2%
Highest quintile 50.1% 49.6% 49.4% 49.2% 49.4% 49.0% 48.7% 49.1% 48.9% 46.9%

What this shows us is that the shares of family income in the lower FOUR quintiles in 1992 (3.8%, 9.4%, 15.8%, and 24.2%) were all HIGHER than in 2000 (3.6%, 8.9%, 14.9%, and 23.0%). In other words 4/5ths of the families got smaller slices of the income "pie" in 2000 than in 1992. Only the top quintile went up to 49.6% in 2000 from 46.9% in 1992.

[sandnsea]

6. Disposable income

You missed that 1% of the population moved up into the highest quintile. That's alot of people. More importantly, the cost of living and increased income. That doesn't show up in either of your graphs. The difference in gas prices and the strength of the dollar help families to have more disposable income and a better standard of living. Just because income disparity increases or similar numbers oe people are in the same quintiles, it doesn't follow that working people's lives aren't better. There are other measures of standard of living than just who has the money. Things were better under Clinton, for everybody.

[TahitiNut]

7. Hmmm...

"You missed that 1% of the population moved up into the highest quintile."

Huh? A 'quintile' is 20% of the population. Saying that "1% of the population moved up into the highest quintile" makes no sense. (It doesn't become 21% and 19%.) Yes, there's class mobility, but has nothing to do with the state of the income class. Is what you're looking at the increased share of income? That's not people; that's money.
________________

"More importantly, the cost of living and increased income. That doesn't show up in either of your graphs."

Well, that's because it's a wash. The "top 20%" is the "top20%" no matter what the income in inflated or deflated dollars.
________________

"There are other measures of standard of living than just who has the money."

Really? Well, while "a rising tide lifts all boats," some boats seem more firmly anchored to the bottom than others. I guess that's about who has the water, huh? :eyes:

The statement I quibble with is from the following paragraph:

"Let's not forget what we did in the 1990's,'' Mr. Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery. "We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves - and we can do it again."

"We balanced the budget." -- that's about money
"We paid down the debt." -- that's about money
"We created 23 million new jobs." -- that's about money
"We lifted millions out of poverty ..." -- that's about money

All of the above statements are empirically true, as substantiated by the same kind of data I've presented.

When, however, he says "we lifted the standard of living for the middle class" he's making a special note of the "middle class" (whatever that is) as opposed to the rest of the population. That is an empirically unsupportable ("faith-based") statement.
________________

"Things were better under Clinton, for everybody."

Oh, I see. It is a faith-based retort, huh? Just because you might make a blanket statement of this kind (and I might agree), it doesn't mean that it's true in all of the detailed senses enumerated.

Look ... I have a great deal of respect for the economic accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration. There's no question they were head'n'shoulders('n'chest'n'hips) above Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle, Bush/Cheney, and probably even Carter/Mondale (even though I think Carter/Mondale gets far less credit than they deserve).

But facts are facts. Clinton/Gore dealt with a rabid Republican Congress and a very thin majority when they had one. In a number of areas they were mediocre, at best, probably as a result. One of those areas is in regulation of economic activity. Let's not forget that the regulations that might have prohibited Enron's (along with Reliant, Duke, etc.) rape and pillage of California to the tune of $11 billion were weakened and removed (thanks to Phil and Wendy Gramm) under Clinton/Gore. Let's not forget the abominable "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And let's not overlook the increasing inequity of income distribution - enriching the 'ownership class' and impoverishing the 'working class' -- that has taken place almost unabated for the last 25 years!
________________

I don't believe the difference between rapidly becoming a banana republic and slowly becoming a banana republic warrants the delusion that when the rate slows it's an "improvement." It's not. It may not be as bad, but it's not a fucking improvement!

We can all do better. We must do better. Economic fear quickly becomes economic terrorism - and that's the path toward totalitarian regimes. This, in a nutshell, is the historical strategy of fascism!

[sandnsea]

8. Hey, I agree with you

I'm just saying, there were improvements in the standard of living for everybody and it has to do with more than just how many people are in what income quintile. Criminy, easy access to a battered woman's shelter can make a huge difference in standard of living. Acess to small business loans. After school care. All kinds of things. Income disparity isn't the entire picture. And if I had a mind to, I could get statistics to show people's disposable income went up and the comfort level statistics and all of that.

It doesn't solve the problem of income disparity and the dangers of having income consolidated at the top. But that doesn't mean that the statement that the standard of living was improved isn't true.

[TahitiNut]

9. Well, I argue against it for the same reason ...

... I argue against the Busholini Regime's claim that they gave tax-cuts to everyone. While in a hyper-technical and narrow sense this may be correct, it's just not the truth.

The figures regarding average (disposable) income might reflect an increase, but that increase (in the average) is due to enormous increases on the high end and moderate increases in the number of people who got increases in the minimum wage in 1996-97. Indeed, the dot-com boom (for the "ownership class") was a windfall ... but not for the "middle class."

Of far more interest than the 'average' would be the 'median' - but that's a distinction most people don't comprehend.




Remember: The average (disposable) income of people in a restaurant increases dramatically when Bill Gates has dinner there. In a large restaurant, though, the median (disposable) income might not go up at all.
:silly: