Democrats Don't Want A "Fair" Election

How much coffee will be sprayed out of how many nostrils when NY Times readers open their Sunday Times magazine and see this:

QUESTIONS FOR RAY C. FAIR
Bush Landslide (in Theory)!
Interview by Deborah Solomon

Orrin Judd has been following this forever, and provides links to Professor Fair's website.

Comments

[Tom]

I want Bush to win, but I don't trust Fair's model. Any election model that has to be tweaked after almost every election (which is the case here) can't be any good. All Fair is doing is predicting the past with fair accuracy (pun intended).

[J_Crater]

As for the article, I would if he would have been asked if he was a Democrat if he had predicted a Kerry win ? My model says no.

[TM]

Well, he tweaks it with the idea of using newly available data to improve its accuracy. However, his website shows the predictions based on data available up to various cut-off points (IIRC) - for example, using data up to 1984 to predict the 2000 outcome. It still works OK in those scenarios.

[ParseThis]

My first thought was: Long-Term Capital Management

[Steve M.]

Last Sunday's Times had an article that cited Fair's work -- and it had a little caveat that might interest you:

Professor Fair says the model can misfire when the equation doesn't include significant economic factors that may influence the electorate. It lacks a variable for job creation, for example, which may be a sore spot among voters this year.

And the model turned in its worst performance when an incumbent named Bush was seeking re-election. In 1992, the model projected that President George H. W. Bush would win 51.7 percent of the two-party vote and retain the presidency. Instead, he received merely 46.5 percent of the two-party vote and lost.

Heh heh heh.

[Steve M.]

Link for the quote above.

[charles austin]

Ms. Solomon's questions are quite reveaing, don't you think?

"Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?" -- Speaking of unusually reductive... say, is that a new code word?

"But the country hasn't been this polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society." -- Hello..., hello..., hello..., hello..., is there anybody in there..., in there..., in there..., in there...

"It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways." -- This is a stunning sentence on so many levels.

"Are you a Republican?" -- Well, that is the most important question now, isn't it?

(After Professor Fair has indicated he is a Kerry supporter), "I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush." -- Science must be subjugated to the will of the Party! And they wonder why some of us are skeptical when it comes to global warming.

"Perhaps you could create an equation that would calculate how important the forecasts of economists are." -- Obviously, Ms. Solomon wouldn't know an equation if it bit her on the ass. Maybe she could write a piece of journalism explaining how corrupt and unimportant most journalism is becoming today.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Fair's model predicts the shares of the two party vote with great accuracy. In 1992 there was an unusually strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot which must have thrown a monkey wrench into the equation.

And, his model makes a log of sense. As Carville put it, "It's the economy, stupid". Hillary Clinton, for one, must take it seriously, else she'd be the Dem nominee instead of Kerry.

[GT]

Anybody remember back in 2000 when all the 'models' showed Gore winning in a landslide?

Sadly these models are not very useful yet.

[Monique]

If it's the economy , stupid, why should the Democrats be worried? This economy is good? For who, exactly? I understand it's great for the already wealthy, and it's their investment decisions that drive this poll it seems, but they're a minority. For most Americans, times are harder right now than they've been in a long time, and there's a sense that the worst is yet to come. High oil prices, deficit, stagnant wages, all tax breaks going to the ultra rich. Not good.

A big factor in this election will be whether or not new voters actually turn out. I know a lot of college kids are moving heaven and earth to vote this year. It's a little publicized fact that they are legally allowed to vote in the town in which they go to school, if they reside there off campus, which most do. I know it's being publicized like never before, and a lot of kids who didn't want to mess with absentee ballots are registering and planning to vote.

Also, efforts to recruit and assist voting by the poor and disenfranchised, who have felt too hopeless to vote in years past, will hopefully bear a lot of fruit. For all the killing and dying being done in the name of democracy in Iraq, it will be great if some of that actually gets practiced here at home this election. This is a factor models of past years wouldn't be able to account for, and might explain why Kerry has been holding that slim, but consistent, lead over Bush for so long, and why he's cllimbing steadily in the battleground states.

[Monique]

If it's the economy , stupid, why should the Democrats be worried? This economy is good? For who, exactly? I understand it's great for the already wealthy, and it's their investment decisions that drive this poll it seems, but they're a minority. For most Americans, times are harder right now than they've been in a long time, and there's a sense that the worst is yet to come. High oil prices, deficit, stagnant wages, all tax breaks going to the ultra rich. Not good.

A big factor in this election will be whether or not new voters actually turn out. I know a lot of college kids are moving heaven and earth to vote this year. It's a little publicized fact that they are legally allowed to vote in the town in which they go to school, if they reside there off campus, which most do. I know it's being publicized like never before, and a lot of kids who didn't want to mess with absentee ballots are registering and planning to vote.

Also, efforts to recruit and assist voting by the poor and disenfranchised, who have felt too hopeless to vote in years past, will hopefully bear a lot of fruit. For all the killing and dying being done in the name of democracy in Iraq, it will be great if some of that actually gets practiced here at home this election. This is a factor models of past years wouldn't be able to account for, and might explain why Kerry has been holding that slim, but consistent, lead over Bush for so long, and why he's cllimbing steadily in the battleground states.

[Greg F]

Monique repeated:
"... all tax breaks going to the ultra rich."

Proof please.

[Monique]

OK.
Here's two very recent stories that I could find. Sorry for not linking them correctly, but you can figure it out, I'm sure.

Nonpartisan Report Says Tax Cuts Skewed to Rich:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9387968.htm?1c

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says -Reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_taxes_cbo_dc_3

[Jeff]

Some of my best friends are economists (actually true), but the fact remains that they are practitioners of a voodoo art. The "science" in this social science is mathematical, but that and four bucks will buy you a cup of joe at Starbucks.

Who wants to bet a new book from Powells.com that Kerry wins this election? I won't even add the caveat about a terrorist event.

[Jeff]

Matter of fact, I think Fair will get his 57%--but the candidate will be Kerry. You read it here, folks.

[The Kid]

Nice try, Jeff. 57%?

How many varieties does Heinz have?

This reminds me very little of a senator making wild claims in a movie – was it The Frenchurian Candidate”?

[Greg F]

"Here's two very recent stories that I could find."
Ummmm ... news stories are not proof, they are spoon feeding from journalist who are not exactally math wizzes ... try going to the IRS web site, everything you need is right there.

[Greg F]

"Some of my best friends are economists (actually true), but the fact remains that they are practitioners of a voodoo art."

That is a rather silly appeal to authority.

[Monique]

Not being an economist, the IRS site is all but worthless to me. I'm not relying on the math skills of journalists. The articles state that according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of taxpayers received the bulk of the tax cuts, and those in the $50-75K bracket actually saw their taxes rise.

Where's the defense to that?

I've heard, layman that I am, that these exorbitant tax cuts, which helped turn a 100 billion dollar surplus to a 400 billion dollar deficit in three short years, were supposed to somehow spur the economy, create jobs, etc. I believe that's the justification for it. So why do we have this huge trade deficit, and poor job creation, stagnant wages, rising household debt, drops in consumer confidence and spending?

I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me. Those responsible for our national debt should be taking the time to explain why these tax cuts were actually so wonderful for the country, to those of us without the benefits of their wisdom.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Anybody remember back in 2000 when all the 'models' showed Gore winning in a landslide?"

Not Fair's model. He showed Gore getting 50.8%, while he actually got 50.3%.

If there is a problem with it, it's that he doesn't have enough data points. Though he using all there are.

[Frank IBC]

I'm still skeptical of this "tax cuts for the super-richest 1%" business, but given that this is simply a repeal of the Clinton administration's atrocious tax INCREASES on said group of taxpayers, would it really be such a bad thing if it was true?

[capt joe]

Well, condering that the top 5-10% of the population pays 65% of the total tax revenue and that the lower 50% pays about 4% of the total revenue, what do you think should happen.

There is this crazy meme saying that the top earners pay no tax. Huh, sorry, but no matter how much you say it, it won't become true.

The fact is that the poor carry little weight in overall tax payment and the "rich" carry most of the system.

next meme, please.

[ParseThis]

If you factor in sales tax, state tax and sundry other fees etc., everybody pretty much pays the same percentage; rich folks a little less now. Lucky duckies getting a 'free ride' is another crazy meme. Anyway, GWB says rich folks find ways not to pay. I think that was in the context of calling them unpatriotic in response to a question concerning our nation's obligations.

[Greg F]

“Not being an economist, the IRS site is all but worthless to me.”

All you need is high school math skills and a willingness to use that gray matter. There is a name that Stalin had for people who followed blindly, he called them “useful idiots”.

“I'm not relying on the math skills of journalists.”

Yes you are. Your relying on journalist that don’t understand what they are writing about nor do you seem to understand what they are writing about. A case of the blind leading the blind.

“…those in the $50-75K bracket actually saw their taxes rise.”

The Yahoo link says “Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase…”

Key word here, share. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, had their taxes go down. A simple math example to demonstrate “share”, suppose we have 3 groups that pay the following taxes:

Group 1 – $100
Group 2 – $200
Group 3 – $300

A tax cut is implemented that results in the following:

Group 1 – $ 0
Group 2 – $200
Group 3 – $300

Before the tax cut Group 2 is paying 33.3% of “their share of federal tax payments”. After the tax cut Group 2 is now paying 40% of “their share of federal tax payments” even though their taxes didn’t go up! This is in fact exactly what has happened. The Bush tax cuts have removed about 4 million people from the tax rolls, people who pay no Federal income tax.

The second problem with these articles is the CBO uses a convoluted method by comparing “households” instead of “taxpayers” and fails to account for the change in the number of people in each quintile.

“A household consists of the people who share a housing unit, regardless of their relationships.
Quintiles—or fifths of the distribution—are created by dividing the entire population into five parts, each containing the same number of people. Because households vary in size, quintiles generally contain unequal numbers of households.”

In a recession, the people who’s incomes go down are those in the upper brackets. The result is that some people are pushed into a lower quintile. Now what happens? Well since there are fewer people in the highest bracket, even if rates were the same, they would pay a smaller “share” of the taxes. The number of people in the bracket below this highest bracket will increase, therefore so will their “share” of the tax burden. See, just simple math, but you have to decide to engage your brain.

Some of the so called tax reductions are due to changes in laws that govern depreciation for corporations. What does that have to do with people? Well, a popular type of corporation is the “S corporation” which is what a large number of small businesses use. A S corporation allows the owner to file his company taxes on his personal income tax filing. From the CBO report:

“Those provisions to encourage business investment have a significant impact on effective tax rates in each year during the 2002-2008 period, lowering rates in the first three years but raising them in later years (see Table B-1).”

The law only defers the taxes by allowing a business to write off an asset quicker thus giving larger deductions in fewer years. The total amount that can be deducted, and consequentially the tax savings, still remains the same in either case.

“I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me.”

Then I would suggest Thomas Sowells “Basic Economics”. The book is not math based, rather it is written to give a empirical feel for how economies work. Sowell uses historical examples to explain the economic mechanics. Basic economics is not hard to understand but it is not intuitive, and it is NOT voodoo. Unfortunately most journalist resort to the faulty intuitive method. Suffice to say, most of politicians economic promises, claims of credit, or blame, for the economy doing good or bad, is nonsense (both parties). It should be no surprise that the CBO consistently turns out such trash on a regular basis.

[Greg F]

ParseThis pontificated:
"If you factor in sales tax, state tax and sundry other fees etc., everybody pretty much pays the same percentage;"

Oh poppycock! Try supplying some proof of that.

[Monique]

Well, thanks for the explanation (partial), Greg F. I could have done without the insult and ridicule, but I've come to learn that is fundamental to the Conservative method of debate.

What you did NOT do was refute the basis of the articles. Have the rich benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts? Without insult, or intuition, can you explain that.

I can explain without intuition or voodoo that my life has gotten more expensive on every level in the past four years. And I now spend virtually nothing. Both my state taxes, school taxes and town taxes have gone up. School taxes very rapidly. As for federal taxes, there was a tax cut? I have postponed every purchase from home repair to new work clothes. I have modified my household budget to eat less expensive foods, as it now costs much more to fuel my car for the commute. My neighbor is teaching me car repair since I am driving a 1986 Buick, and don't see any way to buy a new one any year soon. I am in a very stagnant place financially, despite working most Saturdays for a boss who, knowing the stiff job market, considers that part of my salaried obligation. In the last year, 4 people have left our company - a real estate and land use legal firm (business booming)- and none have been hired, making the work load exorbitant for those who remain. One of the partners however took a 3 month trip to Asia with his girlfriend, the other two are in Nantucket with the grandkids for the summer. As they told us joyfully at the Christmas party, we have had a bountiful year. However, there were no raises. Reinvestment in the workforce does not seem to be the priority the trickle-downers had promised it was. Apparently they trust us to run their firm, as well they should - we are skilled and responsible employees - but that does not translate to respect or reward. Everyone who works here wants to leave, but the job market is ice cold, giving employers everywhere all the leverage.

Is it voodoo or intuition that tells me John Edwards' Two Americas is a reality?

[Pouncer]

"Both my state taxes, school taxes and town taxes have gone up. School taxes very rapidly. As for federal taxes, there was a tax cut? ...Is it voodoo or intuition that tells me John Edwards' Two Americas is a reality? "

My sympathies. I feel your pain. (I drive a '92 Buick, myself!)

I'm trying to figure out the causal links in which cuts in the Federal Income Tax forced state and city tax rates up. Likewise I'm still working out exactly how empowering a Kerry administration to RAISE federal tax rates (on the wealthy or on all) will somehow force -- or even encourage -- states and cities to LOWER their taxes. It's very confusing.

About the best approximation to a working hypothesis I've come up with is to generalize from my own experience. My tax PAYMENTS are up, (but not the RATES) because my home is being APPRAISED higher and higher. But though I've protested the appraisal at appropriate hearings, it does in fact turn out that homes -- like mine, in my neighborhood -- are selling briskly at higher and higher prices Plus new houses are being built all over. More and more families are qualifying for mortgages (this, confusingly, despite the bad economy) and are bidding up the properties, thereby bidding up the taxable value, thereby increasing my state and local property tax payments.

Now, if Kerry leaned on the Fed to boost interest rates way higher, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac start foreclosing and dumping houses back on the market, and if the new homeowners, (mostly blacks, Hispanics, and single mothers) were pushed down to Clinton-era fractions of the home owning pool, then appraisals and valuations might fall. (But then, states and cities would probably feel "forced" to raise RATES! You can't win...)

[Pouncer]

The second problem with these articles is the CBO uses a convoluted method

“A household consists of the people who share a housing unit, regardless of their relationships.
Quintiles—or fifths of the distribution—are created by dividing the entire population into five parts, each containing the same number of people. Because households vary in size, quintiles generally contain unequal numbers of households.”

Okay THAT's weird. So say the entire population was 100 people. Ten people are crammed into one ghetto apartment and form one househould in the lowest quintile? Three families of nearly 7 each form the second quintile? Four familes of five each form the third; seven families of two-point-something form the fourth, and ten families of two empty-nesters each form the fifth.

So the per-capita income in each quintile is wildly skewed, yeah.

It's not at all obvious to me how such a method of demographic profiling helps much...

[capt joe]

Thanks Greg, I was going to say a synonym of "poppycock" but you beat me to it. ;)

[Jeff]

The fact is that the poor carry little weight in overall tax payment and the "rich" carry most of the system.

I love when people speak authoritatively and fail to cite their sources. Part of this statement is wrong in fact, part of it is wrong in emphasis.

The facts: as a percentage of taxable income, the top 1% are now paying roughly the same as the median family--about 25%. The reason is because payroll taxes have spiked since the conservative backlash of the late 70s and 80s. The rich don't earn the bulk of their money through paychecks, so they dodge that bullet. (In 1950, corporate taxes were 27%, payroll taxes 7%; now it's a flip to 10% and 31%)

Incomes, similarly, are split. While the top 20% saw their incomes increase 38% since Reagan, the middle 20% saw theirs decline by 3%. And they're in more debt. In 1950, household debt as a percentage of annual personal income (after tax) stood at 38%. By 2000, it had climbed to 94%.

My source for all these data is the invaluable Wealth and Democracy by by conservative Kevin Phillips.

So to the notion that the poor carry little weight--factually incorrect propoganda spread by the ultrarich through their corporate media. The poor are keeping the economy afloat and the rich are reaping ALL the rewards.

You're also wrong to emphasize the "they earn more so they pay more" argument. Only a fool would disagree, but the argument misses the point. Even while the extremely rich have gotten richer, their taxes have been cut. Everyone else has to pick up the tab.

And let's not forget spending, the other half of the equation. Conservatives used to pay attention to both halves of the ledger, but now they only look at taxes. But Bush has been the most profligate big spender since Reagan. No potential donor goes unrewarded--from steel to farms to media empires. All of that costs, and the burden has simultaneously been shifted away from the ones who receive the benefit.

The poor and middle class are true heroes of the American economy. The rich have in the main behaved no better than carjackers.

[Monique]

I agree that the poor and middle class are the heroes in our culture at this point. The poor are fighting this dirty war, the middle class is carrying the sick economy on its extremely tired back. The rich seem to be suffering from what I've heard called "sore winner syndrome", i.e. even though they've never had it better, they still want to stick the last screw to whoever they can.

Just as the Swift Boaters were dismissed as bitter liars because they wouldn't admit their real agenda was anger at Kerry's postwar activities, the attacks by the rich to me are greatly diminished by their callous feelings of entitlement to so much more of our society's blessings than they would grant to other levels of the social strata.

The attacks against Kerry's vote against the 87 billion is a perfect case in point. He had proposed an amended version rescinding the foolish tax cuts on the ultra rich - a version Bush stated outright he would VETO. (That deserves some publicity, hopefully soon.) So he cast a vote against the irresponsible version Bush wanted,in protest, knowing it would pass anyway by a huge majority, knowing the troops would not be left wanting.

Bush keeps saying "What complexity? Supporting troops is a simple idea." But when he says that he counts on the stupidity of the masses, like I've found Conservatives almost always do in conversations I have with them. My guess is the common people will have no trouble understanding this at all, and when it is presented in the right forum (debates), will be a point very much in Kerry's favor.

The point basically is that I think Conservatives would be less confused about Kerry's strong, and consistently growing, support (especially on things like the economy) if they stopped looking down on all of us who pay the taxes they don't want to pay, and fight the war they would NEVER let their children fight. If Bush hadn't treated the poor and middle class like such redheaded stepchildren these past three years, maybe now he wouldn't be scrambling to play catch up, chasing after John Kerry coast to coast, and throwing one smear attempt after another out at a public that has become all but smear-immune. And it's too late now. People get it.

[Greg F]

“I could have done without the insult and ridicule…”

Kettle meet pot.

“…but I've come to learn that is fundamental to the Conservative method of debate.”

One of your favorite fallacies, the straw man. Monique, your posts are filled with condescending comments filled with “insult and ridicule”. Here are some examples all from one post.

“…they [the rich] still want to stick the last screw to whoever they can.”

Sure Monique, they want to poison your children too.

“…Swift Boaters were dismissed as bitter liars.”

When you can’t argue the merits just call them names.

“…the attacks by the rich…”

More socialist jargon, ad misericordiam. When you can’t argue the merits just call them names.

“…rescinding the foolish tax cuts on the ultra rich…”

Yes of course, they must be foolish, after all Monique says so. After all she is an expert at economics. After all Monique said “I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me.”

“…he counts on the stupidity of the masses , like I've found Conservatives almost always do in conversations I have with them. …”

More ad hominem attacks from Monique.

“ I think Conservatives would be less confused…”

Arrogant. If you don’t accept Monique’s view of the world you must be confused.

“they would NEVER let their children fight.”

Another straw man argument from Monique, and one that is so devoid of reality. Time to take a good look in the mirror Monique.

[capt joe]

Greg, I think I just heard some glass cracking. ;)

[Greg F]

“What you did NOT do was refute the basis of the articles.”

Your shifting the goal posts again Monique.
1) You made the claim that “all tax breaks going to the ultra rich."
2) I asked for proof.
3) You provided links and claimed “those in the $50-75K bracket actually saw their taxes rise.”
4) I quoted the Yahoo article that said “Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase …” I then provided a simple math example to show how the “share” could increase without "taxes" increasing.

IOW, the merits of your argument were found lacking.

“Both my state taxes, school taxes and town taxes have gone up.”

Non Sequitur, the subject was Federal taxes.

“As for federal taxes, there was a tax cut?”

Yes there was, unless of course you were in the growing group that doesn’t pay any.

“I am in a very stagnant place financially…”

And whose fault is that?

“In the last year, 4 people have left our company - a real estate and land use legal firm…”

If your not happy then perhaps you should do the same.

“As they told us joyfully at the Christmas party, we have had a bountiful year. However, there were no raises.”

And you have done what to raise your economic value to this firm? You deserve a raise because?

“Reinvestment in the workforce does not seem to be the priority the trickle-downers had promised it was.”

Ad misericordiam. Just elect Kerry and your bosses will see the light. Since you work for a law firm that deals with real estate, and your not a lawyer, what could they possible “reinvest in the workforce” that would be of any value?

“Everyone who works here wants to leave, but the job market is ice cold, giving employers everywhere all the leverage.”

But “4 people have left”! It is convenient to blame someone or something for your decisions but not very useful.

[Monique]

Thanks, Greg, for reinforcing every stereotype I've ever held about the arrogance of the Conservative Right.

You entirely missed the thrust of my post. The job market doesn't give us the fluidity to move along. One of the four who left was forced out for missing work due to a benign brain tumor. And my financial worth to the company must be something, since I'm the only one who can't take a vacation this summer. I've run the real estate department myself all summer while the partners and associates took in the sun. Reinvestment in the workforce might mean, oh I dunno, letting staff participate in profit sharing like associates do, paying them a fair wage out of the profits they create for the company, buying some kind of health care plan that actually PAYED for some of their health care costs. Y'know stupid things like that. Why don't you get your head out of your dogma and look at the real world around you, where 1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS. Where more credit collectors were hired than manufacturing jobs all together.

You willfully missed my point, Mr. Conservative, and you know it. Employers hold ALL the cards these days. I'm a widow with three teenagers. How the hell am I going to leave a job? And please consult your Conservative Bible to let me know which decision I'm blaming someone for - being a widow or having three kids. You people really do suck, just as basic human beings. There's no decency behind that facade of being "great Amurricans".

We need a President that gives a shit about
health care, about overtime, about rewarding labor rather than just rewarding unearned wealth, about health and safety in the workplace. We need some protections other than the asinine notion that if you give rich people more money, they will spend it on anything other than satisfying their bottomless greed.

You've basically followed the script of every arrogant, entitled Conservative white male in the book. And man, you MUST be confused. Why AREN'T your fellow citizens swallowing the slop the Swift Boaters are dishing out? Why ARE Kerry's poll numbers rising in the battle ground states? Why is there so much momentum to getting W. out of office?

You've answered all those questions very nicely. Enjoy your ONE vote, Greg. Just remember, we all get one too, and your blustering arrogance can never change that. The momentum for Kerry and Edwards right now is something I can overhear on every supermarket line, gas station, water cooler, doctors waiting room, etc. I visit. It's amazing.

The balancing of fundamental American Democracy with rampant Capitalist greed has never be

[Monique]

Thanks, Greg, for reinforcing every stereotype I've ever held about the arrogance of the Conservative Right.

You entirely missed the thrust of my post. The job market doesn't give us the fluidity to move along. One of the four who left was forced out for missing work due to a benign brain tumor. And my financial worth to the company must be something, since I'm the only one who can't take a vacation this summer. I've run the real estate department myself all summer while the partners and associates took in the sun. Reinvestment in the workforce might mean, oh I dunno, letting staff participate in profit sharing like associates do, paying them a fair wage out of the profits they create for the company, buying some kind of health care plan that actually PAYED for some of their health care costs. Y'know stupid things like that. Why don't you get your head out of your dogma and look at the real world around you, where 1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS. Where more credit collectors were hired than manufacturing jobs all together.

You willfully missed my point, Mr. Conservative, and you know it. Employers hold ALL the cards these days. I'm a widow with three teenagers. How the hell am I going to leave a job? And please consult your Conservative Bible to let me know which decision I'm blaming someone for - being a widow or having three kids. You people really do suck, just as basic human beings. There's no decency behind that facade of being "great Amurricans".

We need a President that gives a shit about
health care, about overtime, about rewarding labor rather than just rewarding unearned wealth, about health and safety in the workplace. We need some protections other than the asinine notion that if you give rich people more money, they will spend it on anything other than satisfying their bottomless greed.

You've basically followed the script of every arrogant, entitled Conservative white male in the book. And man, you MUST be confused. Why AREN'T your fellow citizens swallowing the slop the Swift Boaters are dishing out? Why ARE Kerry's poll numbers rising in the battle ground states? Why is there so much momentum to getting W. out of office?

You've answered all those questions very nicely. Enjoy your ONE vote, Greg. Just remember, we all get one too, and your blustering arrogance can never change that. The momentum for Kerry and Edwards right now is something I can overhear on every supermarket line, gas station, water cooler, doctors waiting room, etc. I visit. It's amazing.

The balancing of fundamental American Democracy with rampant Capitalist greed has never been more dangerous than it is right now. It will be sweet watching your big bloated asses get kicked on Election Day.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique, chill. Your problems aren't due to evil Republicans. You caught a bad break with your husband passing away and, now you find your options constrained. I'm very sorry about that but, you can't go projecting all your problems on malevolent outside forces. It is simply not possible to significantly change your situation by government fiat. If it were, Bill Clinton would have waved his sceptre and made it so in the 8 years he was in office.

The old "1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS" kind of line is standard Democrat boilerplate. They resurrect the McJobs allegation, along with the armies of the homeless, everytime a Republican is president. It's a bunch of hooey. The President does not create jobs, he can only help make job creation easier for the private sector. And, this President has done that. While you may be blinded by envy for the people whom you do not believe deserve a tax break, the fact of the matter is that Bush's economic policy has been a textbook example of what you do when you have a slowing economy, such as the one Bill Clinton handed off to him (financial professionals were aware that a recession was in the offing as early as Spring of 2000, when short and long term bond yields inverted their usual relationship, a strong leading indicator of a tightening economy).

There are tradeoffs in everything. Europe has universal health care and more stringent worker protections. They also have endemic high unemployment, a lower general standard of living, overburdened and substandard medical facilities, etcetera. It is a social order in which people do not move readily between classes but, generally end up in life in the same milieu in which they began. In this country, the majority of people prefer to trust themselves over the government, and to allow upward mobility to those who strive for it.

When I was a teenager, my mother was not widowed but, she was divorced and, I spent countless hours listening to harangues just like yours. Now, she remembers those as some of the best years of her life. Of course, I take care of her now. My advice: make sure at least one of your kids enters a profession where they can make enough money to take care of you when you're old. If you are uninsured or lose your insurance, health care is available to the uninsured but, it's best to be close to where it's offered. The federal and state government generally support university hospitals that cater to people with no medical insurance. Oddly enough, it's some of the best health care around.

Trust me, you do not want the kind of sclerotic economy that massive government control inevitably produces. You want your kids to have the opportunity to achieve their full potential and make the best of their lives. I personally know several people who started lives in modest circumstances who are now multi-millionaires (wish I was one of them). An undergraduate engineering degree is probably the best place to start in our increasingly technoligical society. Plus, at a lot of engineering schools, you can work summers with potential employers under a co-op program to significantly defray the cost of tuition.

One more bit of advice: if you know that you are a valuable employee whom they would have difficulty doing without, you may need to have a little more spine in angling for vacation time and bonuses or raises.

[Greg F]

“I love when people speak authoritatively and fail to cite their sources. Part of this statement is wrong in fact, part of it is wrong in emphasis.”

I love it when people make statements like this then fail to use a credible source. This is especially true when they avoid the hard numbers and throw out percentages.

“The reason is because payroll taxes have spiked since the conservative backlash of the late 70s and 80s.”

An assertion without proof. First the “payroll” tax is the social security pyramid scheme that was brought to you by FDR. The reason it has “spiked” (started at 2% ) is because it is a pyramid scheme is designed to buy votes. The first recipients of the Social Security boondoggle paid exactly zero into the system. The reason the tax has been raised is first, expanding of benefits (it was suppose to be a supplement to retirement, not the soul source). Second reason, the baby boomers. IOW, disaster was built into the system from day one. The historical rates were as follows:

1937 – 1949 2%
1955 – 4%
1960 – 6%
1965 – 7.25%
1970 – 9.6%
1975 – 11.7%
1980 – 12.26%
1985 – 14.1%
1990 – 15.3%

The rate today is as it was in 1990, 15.3%. It is evident that the rates did not “spike” but rather slowly rose over the decades. As most of you should note the rates have stayed the same for the last 14 years. For those who would like to turn this into political fodder it should also be noted that the Democrats controlled congress (can we say purse strings?) over the period of rising rates. Blaming “conservative backlash” is plain ignorance.

The present rate, including the hidden employer funded half, is 15.3%. From the IRS tax statistics 01in02sr we find that the average tax rate for all taxpayers is 21.7%. Include the Social Security taxes and we arrive at 37%.

“The facts: as a percentage of taxable income, the top 1% are now paying roughly the same as the median family--about 25%.”

The fact is your facts are in serious error. That is not surprising considering your source (hint: Kevin Phillips is not a conservative, he despised Regan and was a member of Nixon’s administration, the administration that brought you such conservative institutions such as the EPA).

I would love to dissect this further but it is getting late. Suffice to say, when you muck up something as simple as the historical rates for the payroll tax, your credibility suffers.

[Monique]

Compassionate Conservative, I still don't agree with your philosophy, but I appreciate your not being a total asshole like Greg.

I know you believe these Conservative priniciples make a better life. I do not. Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. It isn't just me. It is pretty much everyone I know. My neigborhood has Kerry lawn signs and bumper stickers popping up everywhere.

It's also interesting you bring up Europe, as I have relatives in Ireland. Maybe not much social mobility, but also less social mobility needed. My uncle is the town librarian, post officer and policeman. His wife works for the City of Limerick, recieved paid leaves for the births of all her children, and another extended one when one of the children became seriously ill. For contrast, my friend was forced out after 12 years of loyal employment because she needed time off to deal with a benign brain tumor. They have a hell of a life over there in Ireland, with real compassion for others part of their blood and bones. Not much social mobility, but a fine quality of life and a hell of a lot less pressure to beat the Jones as well. It's a pretty nice payoff. I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty.

Your compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron in my opinion. Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much.

I know I've irritated you all by being here, and I'll let it go. It seemed to me you all were very confused by why your Swift Boat smear attempt hadn't generated the kind of interest you had hoped. I hear the same confusion on conservative news stations wondering why the economy is not considered a plus for Bush. I say again, maybe if you stopped looking for ways to link your conservative dogma to the situation, and instead looked at the reality of the lives of your fellow Americans you would be able to get a clue as to why there is a such a good chance you will be waking up to President Kerry on Nov. 3. "It's the economy, stupid."

[Monique]

Compassionate Conservative, I still don't agree with your philosophy, but I appreciate your not being a total asshole like Greg.

I know you believe these Conservative priniciples make a better life. I do not. Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. It isn't just me. It is pretty much everyone I know. My neigborhood has Kerry lawn signs and bumper stickers popping up everywhere.

It's also interesting you bring up Europe, as I have relatives in Ireland. Maybe not much social mobility, but also less social mobility needed. My uncle is the town librarian, post officer and policeman. His wife works for the City of Limerick, recieved paid leaves for the births of all her children, and another extended one when one of the children became seriously ill. For contrast, my friend was forced out after 12 years of loyal employment because she needed time off to deal with a benign brain tumor. They have a hell of a life over there in Ireland, with real compassion for others part of their blood and bones. Not much social mobility, but a fine quality of life and a hell of a lot less pressure to beat the Jones as well. It's a pretty nice payoff. I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty.

Your compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron in my opinion. Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much.

I know I've irritated you all by being here, and I'll let it go. It seemed to me you all were very confused by why your Swift Boat smear attempt hadn't generated the kind of interest you had hoped. I hear the same confusion on conservative news stations wondering why the economy is not considered a plus for Bush. I say again, maybe if you stopped looking for ways to link your conservative dogma to the situation, and instead looked at the reality of the lives of your fellow Americans you would be able to get a clue as to why there is a such a good chance you will be waking up to President Kerry on Nov. 3. "It's the economy, stupid."

[Paul Zrimsek]

For Jeff's future reference, here is the CBO's estimate of total effective tax rates by income class for 2001 (which should be more or less contemporaneous with the most recent data used by Phillips):

Lowest quintile - 5.4%
Second quintile - 11.6%
Middle quintile - 15.2%
Fourth quintile - 19.3%
Highest quintile - 26.8%
Top 10% - 28.6%
Top 5% - 30.1%
Top 1% - 33.0%

More details, including figures from prior years and breakdown by type of tax, available here.

[capt joe]

Sophistry, thy name is Monique.

Shorter Monique, "Weeee hatesss conservativessss foreeever!" Loved your movie role. great character.

[Jeff]

Greg, thanks for returning to the numbers. I thought we were going down the rhetorical rabbit hole there. On the issue of "spiking"--this is a matter of interpretation. During the "great compression" (the progressive era from '32-'68) the middle class saw their income increase at something a little closer to what the rich saw. In previous periods, during the Guilded Age and the Roaring 20s, the middle class and poor got squat while the upper quintile (and particularly upper 5%) made out like bandits. So, looking at your data (I don't have any handy, and that looks roughly like I remember), we see that during the latter years of the progressive era, payroll taxes were about half what they are now. "Spike" may have been the wrong word. Steady hike, how about?

(Meanwhile, income taxe rates on the wealthy have plummeted. And I'm sticking with that word. You have to pay the bills, and we've made a conscious effort to shift that burdent from owners to workers.)

After that, you sort of petered out, not addressing my points on debt and stagnating incomes. Presumably this is because the facts speak for themselves.

One last note on Phillips. You're dead wrong in saying he's not conservative. He is a classic old-school conservative (pre-Reagan), one of the conservatives who believed in fiscal sanity, smaller government, and competition in the marketplace. The redefinition of conservative to square it with Reagan and Bush's social conservatism ignores their radical departure from fiscal conservatism of the last century.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique,

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is very green in Ireland but, you will have to discover for yourself how tasty it is.

While it is true that your uncle's wife may have gotten time off for her child's illness, your friend with the brain tumor should have been eligible for unemployment benefits and workman's comp. And, she should have a much easier time finding a new job when she is better than your aunt in Ireland.

"Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much."

Actually, American conservatism is more along the lines of, those who produce are to be given incentives to do so.

"Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. "

Monique, if you do not understand all the whys and wherefores, you should not be so quick to make judgements. The 1990's were a unique time when the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the birth and maturation of a fantastic new technological innovation called the internet came together to foster an era of special prosperity. It had very little to do with Clinton and, as I have stated, the shine was beginning to come off prior to his ever leaving office. Clinton was not a magician, just a very lucky guy.

"I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty."

I'd almost take offense at that. I do not consider my mother a "mooch". She is the woman who brought me into this world and nourished my body and soul into adulthood. And, I daresay poverty is grungy just about anywhere.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique,

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is very green in Ireland but, you will have to discover for yourself how tasty it is.

While it is true that your uncle's wife may have gotten time off for her child's illness, your friend with the brain tumor should have been eligible for unemployment benefits and workman's comp. And, she should have a much easier time finding a new job when she is better than your aunt in Ireland.

"Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much."

Actually, American conservatism is more along the lines of, those who produce are to be given incentives to do so.

"Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. "

Monique, if you do not understand all the whys and wherefores, you should not be so quick to make judgements. The 1990's were a unique time when the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the birth and maturation of a fantastic new technological innovation called the internet came together to foster an era of special prosperity. It had very little to do with Clinton and, as I have stated, the shine was beginning to come off prior to his ever leaving office. Clinton was not a magician, just a very lucky guy.

"I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty."

I'd almost take offense at that. I do not consider my mother a "mooch". She is the woman who brought me into this world and nourished my body and soul into adulthood. And, I daresay poverty is grungy just about anywhere.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique,

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is very green in Ireland but, you will have to discover for yourself how tasty it is.

While it is true that your uncle's wife may have gotten time off for her child's illness, your friend with the brain tumor should have been eligible for unemployment benefits and workman's comp. And, she should have a much easier time finding a new job when she is better than your aunt in Ireland.

"Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much."

Actually, American conservatism is more along the lines of, those who produce are to be given incentives to do so.

"Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. "

Monique, if you do not understand all the whys and wherefores, you should not be so quick to make judgements. The 1990's were a unique time when the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the birth and maturation of a fantastic new technological innovation called the internet came together to foster an era of special prosperity. It had very little to do with Clinton and, as I have stated, the shine was beginning to come off prior to his ever leaving office. Clinton was not a magician, just a very lucky guy.

"I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty."

I'd almost take offense at that. I do not consider my mother a "mooch". She is the woman who brought me into this world and nourished my body and soul into adulthood. And, I daresay poverty is grungy just about anywhere.

[Compassionate Conservative]

er... not workman's comp but Disability, rather. Sorry about the double post. This interface is a little balky...

[Compassionate Conservative]

er..., not workman's comp but Disability payments, rather. Sorry about the double post everyone. This interface is a little balky.

[Monique]

Disability pays $170 a week. Meanwhile, COBRA insurance payments cost her over $550 a month.

The system is stacked against the little guy. Probably it always has been. Capitalism thrives, IMO, because it is a natural science, based on the most reliable of human motives: greed and self interest. But capitalism unfettered is the law of the jungle. And American Capitalism, where every little baby can grow up to be a millionaire, theoretically, sounds like a Las Vegas crap shoot more than anything else.

What we have now is an administration that has sought to curtail overtime pay for lower paid workers, done nothing to help workers manage health care costs and that has overseen deregulation in every case for the benefit of the corporation and against the safety and health of both consumers and employees. If the system was always bad for the little guys, now it is becoming terrifyingly so. There is a sense among my friends and neighbors that we NEED to get this administration out of office, for our own survival. It is that visceral for us.

The economy is not the only reason we need Bush out. We are parents. I myself have three healthy, athletic sons, none of whom I wish to see dressed in body armor. We believe in science, in Kerry's optimism about investing in non fossil fuels and technologies, which could become another economy booster like the computer industry was. We hate this administration's secrecy, its loyalty oaths, the willful misrepresentations that put our soldiers in such a hopeless situation, their trampling of the Constitution, their manipulation of religious bigotry...among a host of other things.

It's not just the economy. It's everything. But the common thread is the economy. That's where we feel most hopeless and most unprotected.

Glad it's not just me with the double posting blip. And thanks again for your civility. I find it refreshing...Also, Ireland tastes lovely - guess you've never tried it. As a pretty patriotic American, Coast Guard veteran myself actually, I'd never considered expatriating myself until recently. One of their biggest beefs, throughout Europe, is US arrogance that there is something golden and untouchable about our democracy. They have a very thriving democracy over there, thank you very much, and don't appreciate the arrogance. As Bush's recent visit proved. First American President they don't respect and admire.

[Jim Glass]

"The facts: as a percentage of taxable income, the top 1% are now paying roughly the same as the median family--about 25%. The reason is because payroll taxes have spiked"

Mr. Zrimsek has provided the data and link to more on that. Suffice it to say that 33% <> 15%.

"Incomes, similarly, are split. While the top 20% saw their incomes increase 38% since Reagan, the middle 20% saw theirs decline by 3%."

Family income, average for the middle quintile, the mid 20%...

1981: $42,087 (2001 dollars)
2001: $51,538
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html

That looks a lot more like up 22% than down 3% to me.

It's also worth remembering that the typical household steps up through the quintiles with age -- income rises with age -- so that the median household ends up in the top half of the second-highest quintile (after starting out in the second lowest), according to the Census. Sort of an economic Lake Woebegon effect. The great majority become well above median in time.

When this typical rise through the quintiles is factored in, "lifetime income inequality" turns out to be a lot smaller than a simple look at all those quintiles appears to indicate.

Two NYC public school teachers married to each other join the New Plutocracy of Top 5% by income households when seniority gets them to the top of the union pay scale.

"I love when people speak authoritatively and fail to cite their sources... My source for all these data is the invaluable Wealth and Democracy by by conservative Kevin Phillips."

I love when people get righteous about data sources, then go cite third-hand ones with axes to grind such as the likes of Kevin Phillips, when all the primary sources such as the Census, BLS, BEA, CBO and IRS SOI are right on the web just like this blog, a mere click away.

[Jim Glass]

.... So why do we have this huge trade deficit, and poor job creation, stagnant wages, rising household debt, drops in consumer confidence and spending?

I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me.
~~~~~~~~~~

1) The trade deficit has been for 20 years, and has nothing to do with taxes. Primarily it has been because the US is the most attractive place in the world to invest. Japan and Germany have been in the tank for a decade. A "capital surplus" -- foreign investment rushing in -- creates a "trade deficit" as a mathematical identity. If you the word "deficit" bothers you, and "surplus" makes you happy, just think of the "capital surplus" we are enjoying.

BTW, the US ran big trade deficits like today's through the entire last third of the 19th century as it turned itself into a world industrial power. It is *good* to be the best place to invest.

2) There was a *recession*, of course, one marked by a big plunge in business profits, while wages actually grew as a part of National Income.
See http://www.mindspring.com/~jimglass/profitsandpay.htm , second chart.

Of course until profits crawled out of the hole and got back to where they were in the 90s (which is just happening now) hiring would be weak. What business hires without profits?

3) Household assets have risen just as fast as household debt. It's the ratio that counts.

4) Consumer confidence has recently hit a multi-year high ...
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/consumerconfidence.cfm
... and consumer spending was always strong, it's what kept the recession mild when business spending plunged due to the profits plunge.

Four simple answers.

It might be useful to get simple answers to your simple questions *before* forming such strong opinions.

[triticale]

Have the rich benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts?

I don't give an airborne activity if they have. Jealousy is an immature basis for political decisions. Especially since, as has been documented here, "disproportionately" is a matter of interpretation. We are paying less in Federal taxes, and the current economic boom, encouraged by the tax cuts, has benefitted my household. The Clinton era "tax cuts for the rich" did us more good; capital gains (inflation) tax relief enabled us to move from working poor to middle class.

1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS.

Suits me fine. I hope to continue working temp the rest of my life. My current gig, offered as "at least 4 to 6 weeks" in February of 2003, is still going strong, but I'm ready for something else.

[Monique]

If jealousy is an immature motivation for political decisisions, what then is greed? Truth is , if the class warfare policies of this administration have created jealousy motivated votes against them, that really falls under "reaping the whirlwind", as I see it.

But really, I'm shocked at the silence on this site regarding the revelation today that Larry Thurlow lied in his "sworn affidavit". I had questioned this here earlier, and got a deafening silence. I'm sure there will be a freeper response, but it does raise a few questions:

1. Did Larry Thurlow commit perjury?

2. If he stands by his claim that there was no fire, did he just never read his own citation?

3. If one bad apple perjures himself, what does that do to all the other "sworn affidavits" in the apple basket?

The air is starting to smell a little cleaner. Something tells me the "doctor" is next.

[capt joe]

What was that?

Oh, Sophistry (aka Moniq) called the topic again.

Well. you do know that Tom Maguire is on holidays don't you? After all that is the first post for more than a few days. Oh, I see. Tom didn't say again so he knows it must be false. snort! Please.

[capt joe]

Oops, should be changed instead of called.

slippery fingers.

like a certain persons grasp of logic ;)

[capt joe]

Do you mean that Thurlow has a changing story?

Like Kerry, you mean?

For Kerry, a different day, a different story.

[WhimWham]

There was no "revelation" today that Thurlow "lied," nor has Thurlow changed his story.

On the contrary, it's the Kerry camp that's been coming up with different accounts of the Bay Hap River incident after which both Thurlow and Kerry received Bronze Stars.

The WashPost ran a story saying that Thurlow's Bronze Star citation (written by Cmdr. Elliott, who was not there, based on an after-action report most likely written by Kerry) cites enemy fire against the Swift boats that day.

Thurlow says that he was previously unaware of the language in the citation , thinks Kerry wrote it (the Post admits that this is a "he said, he said" standoff currently unresolvable by any published documentary evidence, w/out noting that Kerry hasn't released all of his papers), and Thurlow reaffirms his insistence that there was no enemy fire. (Thurlow always believed that he received his Bronze Star for going to the assistance of another Swift Boat that had been damaged by an aquatic mine, NOT for braving enemy gunfire.)

Here's Thurlow's statement responding to the Post article, as copied from NRO.com:

STATEMENT BY SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH MEMBER LARRY THURLOW [Rich Lowry]
I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates—there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy—approximately three months after I left the service—that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.

I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking.

My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry’s boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry’s boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry’s boat returned several minutes later—under no hail of enemy gunfire—to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up.

Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident—the latest one being that Kerry’s boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three—a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.

And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry’s boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the “No Man Left Behind” theme during the Democratic National Convention.

These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question…if no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?
Posted at 02:54 PM

[Compassionate Conservative]

Hi Monique. Some points.

"The economy is not the only reason we need Bush out. We are parents. I myself have three healthy, athletic sons, none of whom I wish to see dressed in body armor."

Then, Monique, for your sons' sakes, you ought to be voting for the man who is going to take care of the problems in the Middle East right now, instead of dithering with the useless UN and our French and German "allies" and kicking the problem down the road like Clinton did until another 9-11 (or worse) brings home the awful truth that we have once again slumbered while our enemies grew stronger. I don't mean to scare you but, if we end up spending the next four years retreating from the Middle East while the whole region goes to hell in a handbasket (like SE Asia did in Kerry's last war), your sons will be old enough to be on the front lines to reap the whirlwind.

"We believe in science, in Kerry's optimism about investing in non fossil fuels and technologies, which could become another economy booster like the computer industry was."

The last time a president did this (Carter), we ended up with a plethora of budget boondoggles and scientific fiascoes that came to little more in the end than to establish endless government subsidies for farmers to grow corn (we don't eat) for ethanol (that destroys our engines and forms carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions) that takes more energy to produce than it ultimately gives back.

I hate to tell you this Monique but, as an engineer with 5 years of post-graduate study under my belt, I have to tell you that this is a pipe dream. Solar power could not begin to meet our energy needs without a massive effort that would dwarf the interstate highway system in scale and have drastic environmental impacts from toxic waste products from manufacture of the mirrors or cells and from the extensive ground coverage. Hydrogen fuel cells are much talked about but, these are widely misbelieved to be primary energy sources, rather than mere storage devices - the power still has to be generated from something else. Wind power has severe environmental impacts. There's not enough geothermal or hydroelectric available. And, so on.

The amount of energy we use in this country is simply mind boggling. There is only one present day technology that could replace the amount of energy we derive from oil and that is nuclear power.

And, that's not even the half of it. Petroleum based products are unbelievably pervasive in our society. Plastics and synthetic rubbers? Polyester and nylon? Chewing gum? These are just three items encompassing a whole lot of others. The complete list is, again, mind boggling.

I'm very sorry to be the bearer of these sad tidings which you may choose not to believe. But, the fact remains that we are going to have an oil based economy for a very long time, regardless of who gets in the White House.

[Monique]

Your argument about energy research, CC, reminds me of Laura Bush's stem cell research argument: Since it will take a long time to reap any benefits, we shouldn't even start. I heartily disagree. I always find it humorous when conservatives call themselves forward thinking, because real forward thinking requires inspiration and imagination. I would far rather have our billions spent on developing solar collection satellites for outer space than on some missile defense system, which sounds like the biggest throwback to Cold War strategy I've ever heard.

I don't deny it is a formidable challenge. But I thought that's what American ingenuity was all about. The arguments against it represent pessimistic and stagnant thinking. I respect your engineering background, but this is a topic that fires the imagination of my 16 year old, who is quite a promising science student. Maybe it's being surrounded by youth, but I believe in the future. And one way or another, we've got to get ourselves off the black junk.

On the topic of war and sending my kids, I heartily disagree. I think our administration has blundered us into the kind of conflict that schoolyard bullies endorse. As a result of their bullying blunder, I believe we have a choice right now, as Anonymous has put it, between war and endless war. I do NOT believe we are safer leaving the kind of people who trashed our reputation and honor and who have grossly misused our military in power to solve the complex international problems we face. And I personally do not fear my sons going to war for oil. Like most of their friends, they would refuse, and would go to any ends to escape being drafted to be as thoughtlessly slaughtered and maimed as the current unfortunates have been.

Whim Wham, on the topic of Larry Thurlow: This man is lying. And it is really a disgrace to see this kind of thing. Why is his Bronze not mentioned in Unfit for Command? What proof is there that John Kerry wrote his after action report? The initials K J W on the report? Or just some hearsay? This Swiftboat thing is an outrage. Imagine an America where you can just assassinate a man's character by getting a notary to put a stamp on a piece of paper. If this doesn't make you question what we stand for, what does?

This group is on its way to being fully discredited. One man, Patrick Runyon, who served with Kerry during his first Purple Heart, told of being interviewed by a private investigator who presented himself as pro-Kerry. Runyon gave his account of the incident, then was emailed a copy for notarizing. The copy bore no resemblance to his account, had no mention of the combat Runyon had described! Need

[Monique]

Your argument about energy research, CC, reminds me of Laura Bush's stem cell research argument: Since it will take a long time to reap any benefits, we shouldn't even start. I heartily disagree. I always find it humorous when conservatives call themselves forward thinking, because real forward thinking requires inspiration and imagination. I would far rather have our billions spent on developing solar collection satellites for outer space than on some missile defense system, which sounds like the biggest throwback to Cold War strategy I've ever heard.

I don't deny it is a formidable challenge. But I thought that's what American ingenuity was all about. The arguments against it represent pessimistic and stagnant thinking. I respect your engineering background, but this is a topic that fires the imagination of my 16 year old, who is quite a promising science student. Maybe it's being surrounded by youth, but I believe in the future. And one way or another, we've got to get ourselves off the black junk.

On the topic of war and sending my kids, I heartily disagree. I think our administration has blundered us into the kind of conflict that schoolyard bullies endorse. As a result of their bullying blunder, I believe we have a choice right now, as Anonymous has put it, between war and endless war. I do NOT believe we are safer leaving the kind of people who trashed our reputation and honor and who have grossly misused our military in power to solve the complex international problems we face. And I personally do not fear my sons going to war for oil. Like most of their friends, they would refuse, and would go to any ends to escape being drafted to be as thoughtlessly slaughtered and maimed as the current unfortunates have been.

Whim Wham, on the topic of Larry Thurlow: This man is lying. And it is really a disgrace to see this kind of thing. Why is his Bronze not mentioned in Unfit for Command? What proof is there that John Kerry wrote his after action report? The initials K J W on the report? Or just some hearsay? This Swiftboat thing is an outrage. Imagine an America where you can just assassinate a man's character by getting a notary to put a stamp on a piece of paper. If this doesn't make you question what we stand for, what does?

This group is on its way to being fully discredited. One man, Patrick Runyon, who served with Kerry during his first Purple Heart, told of being interviewed by a private investigator who presented himself as pro-Kerry. Runyon gave his account of the incident, then was emailed a copy for notarizing. The copy bore no resemblance to his account, had no mention of the combat Runyon had described! Needless to say, Patrick Runyon is not in the book.

The mainstream media seems to have understood their complicity in this slime, and will likely be covering it differently now, if at all, with the Swifties having to face up to a lot of newly discovered inconsistencies. However, thanks to the shamelessness of right wing radio, this group will continue to pollute the minds of voters, preventing a fair evaluation of the candidates.

Unlike Compassionate Conservative, whose reasonable and civilized explanations I do appreciate, as I can see they emanate from his honest beliefs, most right wing advocates are interested neither in the truth nor in the good of our nation. Their agenda reminds me of that of a gang of motorcycle bullies bent on domination and violence more than on anything resembling the progressive, intelligent society we would want to create for our children. That's probably the result of my listening to too much talk radio, but I feel like I need to know who these people are, and I am far more terrified by what I've discovered there than I am by any threat of outside terrorists or evildoers. These people are here among us, and consider themselves "greatamurricans". Shudder.

[Compassionate Conservative]

"Since it will take a long time to reap any benefits, we shouldn't even start. "

There aren't any benefits to reap, Monique. These alternative energy schemes are pie-in-the-sky. It's not just difficult. It's insanely difficult. I've done the engineering calculations myself. Missile defense is not that big a technical hurdle using existing technology. Solar collection satellites in space? Oh my, oh my. The structures and the means to launch and control them simply do not exist at this time. Then, there are the environmental impacts of beaming radiation down through the atmosphere, maintenance would be impossible (we're talking orbits way beyond the reach of the shuttle, which is currently grounded and, expensive enough in its own right)... Sometimes I really worry about the science fiction industry that makes everything seem so easy. I think maybe it creates unrealistic expectations relative to what we really can do.

And, I don't mean to be unkind but, you seem to have several strong beliefs about things you really don't understand. Wanting something and convincing yourself that reality will bend to make it so is not a very good strategy for life. Ah, well. What will be, will be. Good luck to you and your sons.

[Monique]

Well, CC, luckily for the human race some people still have hope for solving our problems. Otherwise, we are all headed for the stone age. After all, even if the neo cons get their wish and achieve American world domination, eventually all the oil will be gone anyway.
Someone is going to have to invent something to take its place, something that won't poison us all in the process. Luckily not all young people are as jaded and hopeless as you sound. Some of them will indeed go on to do the things you claim are impossible, just as youth has done since time immemorial. And some of them may even find peaceful ways to do it. Though the cult of violence, domination and militarism does seem to have a terrifying following even in such an enlightened society as our own. (You'll have to forgive me, as I've only recently discovered the freepers and have never felt more afraid of my fellow Americans than I do now.)

Thank you for your good wishes, though. Watching the growth of really fine young men, passionate, intelligent liberals all, is the only thing that still gives me hope for our future here in this deeply troubled country.

[jdwill]

Very interesting discussion.

I agree with most of the economic points GrefF and Compassionate Conservative are making, but I would like you two to factor in two things and explain them.

1. Look at the track of oil prices (now approaching $50 bbl) and tell me what percent of the non-arriving economic recovery is due to this.

2. I think I see the payroll tax argument, but you leave out property taxes and also the effect of rising health care costs on the medicare portion of the payroll taxes.

2a. My meme is jello. If you push on one side, the other side pops out. Drop fed taxes, and cut fed funding to states, and they react. Don't peoples expectations have to adjust (you can't spend more than you collectively earn indefinitely).

2b. When does the SS pyramid collapse? How can the Bush tax cut survive if social security costs (health, etc.), other spending (war, etc.) outpace growth which must compete for global resources (oil, anyone) that others (especially the Chinese) are competing for?

I'm a newbie to much of this, and I really would appreciate your take on this.

I agree that many of these economic factors are non-partisan, in fact, I think each party reacts to the cyclic shift in the economy, and in fact, it may be the Democrats turn, if they had the sense to see it.

[Compassionate Conservative]

jdwill - The first thing you have to understand is the difference between money and wealth. Wealth is the sum total of goods and services which society can produce at a given time. Money is just a way of allocating those resources.

The issue with the aging population is not, will we have the money to provide for a large class of non-workers. The correct question is, will we have the wealth? Will we have the goods and services needed to maintain the population at or above the current standard of living?

There is only one way you can provide for a larger population with a proportionally smaller group of workers and maintain living standards and, that is to increase the output of workers for each hour worked, i.e., their productivity. The good news is that, productivity has soared by an astonishing 30% over the last decade, 20% over the last 5 years alone.

This is the number one issue facing us today and, the reason that growth is so much more important than a penny-wise-and-pound-foolish (not to mention likely futile) attempt to balance the budget. The more growth, the more the nation's full pool of manpower is brought to bear, the more productivity is going to rise. Austerity that hinders growth in exchange for allocating money differently is a losing proposition.

Now, let's fast forward twenty or so years and imagine two scenarios. Case 1) growth is prioritized, productivity soars but, the nation is burdened by the need to pay bondholders the cash promised them by their bonds. But, the goods that the population demands are in the store. The result is deflationary pressure on the goods the people need and inflationary pressure on the goods the bondholders desire. Add to that a possible rise in taxes that affects the bondholding population most and you see that, very quickly, things are going to equilibrate so that the investor class and the working class all make out fine.

Now, case 2) lowering deficits is prioritized, the national debt is low, payments to bondholders are reasonable but, the goods the population needs are not in the stores. The people want the goods and, they have the money to buy them but, they just aren't there. Result: an inflationary spiral. There just isn't enough to go around. The retirees are going to demand their COLAs to keep up and, the current worker class is going to be screwed because there's only so much stuff to go around.

Get the goods and services. The rest will take care of itself.

Monique - you can imagine all you like. I've given you a taste of reality. But, I'm not at all hopeless, just because my hopes do not coincide with your personal dreams. I think it's pretty obvious what is going to happen with the energy situation. At some point, as China and India and the rest of the world rapidly industrialize, we are going to reach a point when the demand for oil outstrips supply. At that time, we are going to have to turn to nuclear power in a big way, probably the cleanest, most environmentally friendly energy source there is, despite the irrational fear that attends it.

[Greg F]

“Thanks, Greg, for reinforcing every stereotype I've ever held about the arrogance of the Conservative Right.”

Stereotype is the perfect word, your stereotype is just another straw man you use to blind yourself to reality.

“I appreciate your not being a total asshole like Greg.”

More name calling from Monique. Guess you didn’t like looking in the mirror.

“I'm a widow with three teenagers. How the hell am I going to leave a job?”

You find a new one just like I did. Just so you know, I was a single parent. Raised my twins from age 1 by myself. My daughter has a rare congenital brain defect and almost died when it was discovered at age 17, she is still at risk in fact. I find your appeal to emotion and dodging the facts offensive.

“Why is there so much momentum to getting W. out of office?”

Hatred, an ugly emotion driven by the lies of organizations such as moveon and Michael Moore. When the facts do not support your desire for socialism I guess hate will suffice.

“You've basically followed the script of every arrogant, entitled Conservative white male in the book.”

More name calling by Monique.

“Your compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron in my opinion. Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much.”

Another straw man. Here is the bottom line Monique. What you advocate has been shown to deliver exactly the opposite of what you desire. Socialism is nothing more then legalized theft and is driven by greed. Redistribution of wealth leads to less wealth for everybody, poor and rich alike. History has spoken, the socialist wet dream you aspire to has failed everyplace it has been tried.

[Greg F]

“It's also interesting you bring up Europe, as I have relatives in Ireland. Maybe not much social mobility, but also less social mobility needed.”

Ironically Ireland, the Celtic Tiger, is the counter example that just proves what a disaster European socialism has been. The Irish took the bold step of cutting taxes in the late 80’s resulting in standard of living (and tax load) rivaling the U.S. The irony is the top quintile in Ireland pays less then the same group in the U.S. and the lowest quintile in Ireland pays more then the same group in the U.S.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/Eco_cou_840.pdf
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/Eco_cou_372.pdf

Sweden is at the opposite extreme in Europe.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=955

“In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country.

The research came from the Swedish Institute of Trade, which, according to Reuters, "compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999."

[Greg F]

“We need a President that gives a shit about health care, about overtime,…”

What we need is people who give a shit about facts, not bumper sticker emotional appeals by organizations like moveon.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=151

“In fact, the Department of Labor estimated last year when it first proposed the new rules that there would be 1.3 million low-paid workers who would gain the legal right to overtime, outnumbering what it estimated were 644,000 higher-paid, white-collar workers who would lose coverage.”

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA2003146.htm

“For the first time since 1975, the Department’s proposed regulations would raise the salary threshold—below which workers would automatically qualify for overtime—from $155 a week to $425 a week. This increase of $270 a week would be the largest since Congress passed the FLSA in 1938. The impact of this revision will be to increase the wages of 1.3 million lower-income workers and reduce the number of low-wage salaried workers currently being denied overtime pay.”

[jdwill]

CC,
Thanks for the response (I almost lost the link to this site, so my response is delayed - gotta get better organized).

I raised the question of rising oil prices and rising health care costs, both of which I see as taxes/brakes on economic growth. I may have misdirected the question by referring to 'spending more than you earn'.

Your answer, if I understood it, was to keep growing so as to have the wealth (goods and services) to maintain quality of life. I essentially agree, but am concerned about the 'stall' that could happen if brakes like oil costs, taxes, and other costs exceed growth leading to recession and job loss - an evil spiral also.

Two by the ways:

1. I follow Den Beste and agree that for probably the next 50-100 years, nuclear power is the only feasible alternative to coal and oil, given the scale of power consumption and its rate of growth.

2. I hear Monique, and compassionate conservativism must keep sight of individuals and their needs, not just aggregate economic knobs and dials. That is why massive education programs are needed for workers who are at risk in a world where rapid response to market pressures dictate seeming heartless measures in the work force. We need to keep sight of our humanity and the village model that is hard-wired down deep in us.

[Greg F]

“1. Look at the track of oil prices (now approaching $50 bbl) and tell me what percent of the non-arriving economic recovery is due to this.”

That is an excellent question, one which I am not qualified to give a quantitative answer. The EIA is an excellent source for all things energy related if your interested in investigating further.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

There is no doubt has had some effect on transportation costs but there are other factors as well, refining capacity being a big one. You will also notice from EIA data that oil is a very small percentage of electricity generation.

“2. I think I see the payroll tax argument, but you leave out property taxes and also the effect of rising health care costs on the medicare portion of the payroll taxes.”

While were at it lets include the death tax that confiscates 50% from the upper income groups property. As far a property taxes go they are based on accessed value of the property. People usually own property commensurate with their economic standing. I personally find property taxes to be anti-freedom, your effectively paying rent to the government. If you run into some rough economic times you will find out how much compassion the government has, it isn’t much. The “medicare portion of the payroll taxes” is included in the 15.3% stated earlier.

“2a. My meme is jello. If you push on one side, the other side pops out. Drop fed taxes, and cut fed funding to states, and they react. Don't peoples expectations have to adjust (you can't spend more than you collectively earn indefinitely).”

The jello analogy is kind of like the economic pie argument, it assumes all other economic factors remain static. See Compassionate Conservative post about wealth which addresses both 2a and 2b.

[Greg F]

Concerning the oil prices. The media is clueless as they always report the ‘largest ever’ when it comes to deficits, company profits ect. ect. You would think they never heard of inflation. I am sure they have but we can’t let that get in the way of pushing a political agenda. For a quick and dirty explanation see:

http://www.steveverdon.com/archives//001250.html#001250

[Greg F]

“That is why massive education programs are needed for workers who are at risk in a world where rapid response to market pressures dictate seeming heartless measures in the work force.”

Bingo! Education is the key but I don’t think “massive education programs” are the answer. We already have a “massive education” program called the public school system, which by all accounts, is a disaster. A first step would be to turn control back to the communities so the people actually have some say in what goes on. One example in the state I live in a person with a PHD in physics can teach college but cannot teach high school physics without “education certification”. OTOH the science requirements for a high school teacher are basically 2 semesters of college physics. When I was in college “education” courses were ones you took if you didn’t feel like doing any work, basically a worthless program. Certification is just a way to lock qualified competition out of the teaching market. If it were up to me I would not allow anybody to teach who didn’t have a minimum of 10 years work experience in the private sector. People who have spent their entire lives in school, as students and then teachers, are clueless to how things work. An example of this disconnect is my sons first high school lab where he got a zero, even though he had all the correct answers! I called the teacher to get a explanation for the zero, the teachers rational, “in the real world he will have to use complete sentences” (that was the teaching fad of the day). I then asked the teacher if he knew what I did for work (he of course didn’t know). I told him I designed handheld electronic instrumentation. I then asked him if he thought my employer was more interested in “complete sentences” then they were in getting the right answers and a product that worked. He told me to have my son bring back the lab and he would re-grade it.

[jdwill]

Greg,

I'm going to look at the oil data a little later. Today, I'm distracted watching the train wreck of the Kerry candidacy unfold on the internet.

I need to find a dollar adjustor calculator for the prices, anything handy?

I wasn't trying to make a jello pie :->, just noting that if you drop fed taxes and all things remaining fairly constant short term (the economy doesn't take off as soon as hoped) the states and locals will push back and taxes will not be cut as much as advertised. Obviously, I don't have any numbers, but it makes sense to me so far.

I'm an IT professional in the auto industry and I have a daughter in college who is interested in IT. The schools are pretty clueless, I will have to fork out cash to get into a professional training program so she has the proper certification/credentials to break in.

Unlike certification in the education industry (if only they thought of themselves that way!), in IT you need some to get started on some job paths. The auto companies put in some help, and some contracting companies help, but they tend to fall short.

Maybe a voucher system for adults to allow them to make choices for themselves. GWB talks the right talk IMHO when he says people can make better choices than bureauracracies.

[Greg F]

"I need to find a dollar adjustor calculator for the prices, anything handy?"

Excel if you have the conversions coefficients. IEA, or any credible source for that matter, will express the numbers in constant {insert year} dollars.

"just noting that if you drop fed taxes and all things remaining fairly constant short term (the economy doesn't take off as soon as hoped) the states and locals will push back and taxes will not be cut as much as advertised."

The other big tax cuts in modern times, Regan and Kennedy, were in response to recessions. Since recessions, by definition, result in less revenue from income taxes at all levels of government, deficit spending will already be the order of the day. (My town and county taxes are all collected via property taxes so they are immune to income effects). As can be seen historically, when the Fed’s cut taxes they don’t cut spending so I am not sure how the states are pushing back.

[Jim Glass]

"1. Look at the track of oil prices (now approaching $50 bbl) and tell me what percent of the non-arriving economic recovery is due to this."

From Gene Epstein's economics column in Barrons, 8/9/04:

~~ quote ~~

... Meanwhile, we're stuck with second quarter GDP growth of only 3.0% ... Since the impact on employment of GDP growth comes with a lag, the poor performance is still putting a brake on current job gains...

But we haven't yet discussed the real culprit -- the soaring price of gasoline at the pump ... If the higher price of gas hadn't placed a choke-hold on the consumer spending (+1.0%), GDP growth in the second quarter would have been significantly greater.

To see by how much, consider that from the first quarter to the second, average prices jumped about 17%. Money that consumers would have spent on other items was allocated to gasoline. If approximately the same number of gallons were bought, then real consumer spending on gasoline was not affected on way or the other. But real spending on everything else was.

Do the math, and it turns out real consumer spending would have grown at an annual rate of 3.0% instead of 1.0% without the price increase. This would have raised second quarter GDP growth from 3.0% to 4.5%. Gains in payroll employment would have felt the buzz.

[Jim Glass]

"I need to find a dollar adjustor calculator for the prices, anything handy?"
~~~

For inflation? From the horse's mouth at BLS:
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm
Scroll down to the nifty little "inflation calculator"

But even *more* nifty is this one that shows price changes in terms average wage, GDP, GDP per worker, and so on, which can be very different than just the inflation number.
http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/

Oil was over $70/b in today's money back in the 1980s.

If you adjust for the reduction in use of oil per dollar of GDP since then, then the price of oil would have to reach $100/b to equal its cost to the economy back then.