We finally will have a direct comparison between what Reagan did when unemployment was over 10% and the agenda of the Obama bunch. When the dust settles, Obama will fail, and with him the liberals go down. Reagan cut taxes, gave tax incentives and created 25 years of economic growth. Look at the DJIA from 1965 to 1985. Flat as a board. Then compare the DJIA after 1985 when the Reagan economic programs kicked in.
You can not spend your way to economic prosperity. You will learn that lesson the hard way America. We are in for a decade of ultra high unemployment, followed by high inflation and interest rates.
The good news is it won't take that long to throw Obama out and the rest of his liberals buddies in Congress. America will finally wake up, I just hope it is already not too late.
<That is GDP per capita, not income.
Like I said, authoritative, arrogant and wrong. >
So, you want to exclude some of the gross national product from per capita calculations?
Which parts? Gain in value of corporations would just mean gain in wealth of shareholders, same as income no matter what a netkook calls it. Gain in value of anything in GDP goes somewhere, since in western societies there is an ultimate owner of everything.
What magic hole is supposed to devour part of the nation's economic output from any per capita calculation?
<I asked you where you got this number, no answer. It's about 3 times too high and evident so on the face of it.>
um, yes I did.
"Is the CIA ok?
"$ 46,900 2008 est. "
The household I defined, a couple with two children (4 "capita"), would be 4 x 46,900 = $187,600
Every single 4-member family in America would have that income, if everyone had the average income. There are always some below average of course."
I know your calculations sometimes have typos, but in rough terms, the GDP is about $15T, and 330M citizen.
Are you confusing household income with per capita income? Say it ain't so, that would even embarrass you.
<and more often than not he has his facts wrong.>
Would you point those out? I mean actual facts, not just a difference of opinion. Say, list the last twenty facts posted, and which ones are wrong.
I'm always willing to learn and routinely change my opinion when dominant facts are clear and leave no choice.
Never makes me happy though.
>>>The household I defined, a couple with two children (4 "capita"), would be 4 x 46,900 = $187,600<<<
you make a fair amount of sense most of the time, but that one? come on.
just out of the gate - the kids don't count.
This whole thread of responses just takes a path to no where. It goes right past reason and into a whole new realm of do we go left or right once we are in crazyland?
You want to prosper? What does that mean to you? More of everything and money in the bank?
You don't get there by destroying perfectly working machinery to create jobs (cash for clunkers) or further increase the reach of ineffiency in any realm (see any goverment funded program vs a for profit competitor say like post office vs ups) or prop up dead companies that have made mistakes. GM would have died because they were stupid and Ford would have emerged stronger due to more market share. Instead both are still struggling.
Goverment should protect the borders, handle the infrastructure, ensure education so that those with DESIRE AND EFFORT can prosper, help the unable, enforce laws to keep criminals off the streets, and then for the most part,
STAY THE F OUT OF EVERYTHING ELSE AND LET PEOPLE LIVE LIFE!
<Reagan cut taxes, gave tax incentives and created 25 years of economic growth. Look at the DJIA from 1965 to 1985.>
Only growth for the top 1%. There was massive growth for a fortunate few, but not much under that:
And for a closer look, census bureau date:
Ordinary Americans, at the median, did not see much gain at all. Being honest, and accounting for the elimination of pensions and benefits of all sorts, Americans have been going down hill for a long time. The GOP has driven many policies that help a tiny group do well at the expense of everyone else.
Under Clinton, the median did go up, a lot, 21%. Under Bush, the median income has dropped by 2007, and way worse than that by Jan 2009.
Let's review this again so even you can understand.
The rise in the DOW was due to Reagan, Clinton just carried along on the wave that was already started.
The rise in the markets created massive wealth for the country, but once again you liberal morons always want to compare the top 1% as a measure. Maybe you are a bit jealous.
>>Then compare the DJIA after 1985 when the Reagan economic programs kicked in.<<
your sense of history is nonexistant- just look at the Clinton years - DJIA outpaced the Reagan years by 30% as a result of the Clinton budget of 1993= and boy did the Republicans howl over that little increase in taxes- just goes to show that Republicans really do belong to the flat earth society-- I guess if the Republicans wouldnt take them they would have to be institutionalized