Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Because I don't care enough about debating the issue with anyone to reinvest teh time doing the research. If you're that curious, go to www.irs.gov and enter "Statistics of Income" in the search box.

Namaste

They don't seem to have much in the way of recent time series.

Translation: please explain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The state-by-state comparisons are irrelevant because demographic and business shifts could easily cause that.

They're not irrelevant if you live in Wisconsin or Michigan. The paper that published the map is from Detroit.

As Ty's been pointing out for the last 5 years, everyone in the US is worse off . . .

It shouldn't be a secret that the benefits of economic growth lately have been going to the richest. So not "everyone," but the majority.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It shouldn't be a secret that the benefits of economic growth lately have been going to the richest. So not "everyone," but the majority.

By definition, "trickle down" will take some time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They're not irrelevant if you live in Wisconsin or Michigan. The paper that published the map is from Detroit.



It shouldn't be a secret that the benefits of economic growth lately have been going to the richest. So not "everyone," but the majority.

1) Right, because no one's buying SUVs. Are you blaming that on Bush too?

2) If only the rich are getting richer, it wouldn't show up in the median data.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Right, because no one's buying SUVs. Are you blaming that on Bush too?

2) If only the rich are getting richer, it wouldn't show up in the median data.

1) What?

eta: As for blaming it on Bush, I previously posted that this trend has been going on for ~30 years, but has become more pronounced in the last ~6 years. There is a debate about why this is, and people point to a number of facts, none of which seems to be dominant.

2) Exactly. Median income is down. People at the top are making a heap more.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1) What?

eta: As for blaming it on Bush, I previously posted that this trend has been going on for ~30 years, but has become more pronounced in the last ~6 years. There is a debate about why this is, and people point to a number of facts, none of which seems to be dominant.

2) Exactly. Median income is down. People at the top are making a heap more.

1) No, my point is that the fact that median income goes down in a state that manufactures cars, when those cars aren't being sold, doesn't tell us much about the health of the economy or the distribution of wealth. Yes, it tells us that wealth isn't being distributed to auto workers. But that's uninteresting--wealth isn't being distributed to plenty fo unemployed people.

2) Cite please?*


*That is to say--the DFP map doesn't tell us that, so what's your point? The same one as from weeks ago, which is income disparity has increased.

ETA: For example, this, which does a much better job of making your point than the DFP (although the peak in income inequality appears to be in the last year of Clinton.)

That said, the flaw in this study is that it identifies only that the top people are making more money, not that the same people are making more money. Big difference.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They don't seem to have much in the way of recent time series.

Translation: please explain.

I found time series for 1985-2004, with tables in constant dollars and money of the day dollars right here

[Penske_Account]

Constructive prior restraint?

Hmmmm, given past incidents of censourship here and there, I guess it makes sense that the Ds are both scared of and hate freedom of speech/expression.

Sad though.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Constructive prior restraint?

Hmmmm, given past incidents of censourship here and there, I guess it makes sense that the Ds are both scared of and hate freedom of speech/expression.

Sad though.

In a homage to the teacher's unions and public education the Senate Democrat party leadership who wrote the letter substituted the word "principle" for "principal". Nice. A party to be proud of.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Constructive prior restraint?

Hmmmm, given past incidents of censourship here and there, I guess it makes sense that the Ds are both scared of and hate freedom of speech/expression.

Sad though.

Debbie Stabenow will only be a Senator for a few more months so she's trying to throw her weight around now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In a homage to the teacher's unions and public education the Senate Democrat party leadership who wrote the letter substituted the word "principle" for "principal". Nice. A party to be proud of.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest

Re: the history show, I found this discussion on the Stalin Boards interesting:

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/cl...?msg_id=00331t

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Re: the history show, I found this discussion on the Stalin Boards interesting:

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/cl...?msg_id=00331t

Yes, also interesting.....there is no doubt the Clinton administration fiddled while the world burned back in the 1990s. WTC 1993, Tanzania, Kenya, U.S.S. Cole... They chose not to do anything, except when they launched missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the embassy bombings. . I knew I was right about this, I am glad I could find the source material to back it up, yes?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) No, my point is that the fact that median income goes down in a state that manufactures cars, when those cars aren't being sold, doesn't tell us much about the health of the economy or the distribution of wealth. Yes, it tells us that wealth isn't being distributed to auto workers. But that's uninteresting--wealth isn't being distributed to plenty fo unemployed people.

2) Cite please?*


*That is to say--the DFP map doesn't tell us that, so what's your point? The same one as from weeks ago, which is income disparity has increased.

ETA: For example, this, which does a much better job of making your point than the DFP (although the peak in income inequality appears to be in the last year of Clinton.)

That said, the flaw in this study is that it identifies only that the top people are making more money, not that the same people are making more money. Big difference.

Ok, but, if both Spanky is right (that average income is rising) and Ty is right (that median income is falling) it seems like (but I have not logicked it out b/c my brain is mush) there must be more money on the richer side. I guess it could also happen if the people right above the mid-point got much richer and the tippy-top got poorer.

[Shape Shifter]

Keep talking about the movie, guys. Maybe it will keep people from noticing real news.

• Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat
  By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
  
  WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq. The report also newly faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.
  
  Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
  
  As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."
  
  . . .
  
  A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.
  
  It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.
  
  The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians."
  
  According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."
  
  It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
  
  In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.
  
  The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
  
  . . .
  
  Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" about the Saddam-terrorist link.
  
  They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.
  
  They said Tenet acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint was "the wrong thing to do."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/...co/iraq_report

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, I think they argued that there is a good way and a bad way to do free trade, and this (arguably) is a bad way. (I don't know the details.)

Your stuff on Ellen Tauscher is very interesting. I think the idea that she's beholden to Pelosi is a little silly, and if she wants to be Senator she knows she needs to worry about business as much as Pelosi.

She is not beholden to Pelosi but the pressure brought about by the Democrat leadership on this bill was intense. Remember the Democrat leadership still dishes out leadership positions on committees and all sorts of other goodies and they put it all on the line for this vote They really did not want Bush to win another one and they knew it was close. The lobbying over CAFTA was as intense as I have seen lobbying over any bill since Bush got elected. Tauscher wanted to be a Senator, and she wrongly thought that the business community, especially the high tech community would not be so obsessed with CAFTA. She screwed up bad. The head of Tech Net said they will never support her now. She didn't realize she was messing with the business community’s litmus test.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As for Pelosi, if it's really true that she called in favors and twisted the arms of pro-business Democrats like Tauscher to oppose this bill even though it's (you say) not that different from NAFTA, then she really screwed the pooch. She lost 15 Democrats and lost the bill by one vote. It would be a huge fuck-up.

It was a huge screw up. There were sixty dems that voted for NAFTA that turned to the other side on this one. They all changed because of intense pressure. And they are all paying the price. Bush's team has excellent counters. One thing that caught them of guard was how the Republicans held ranks on this. When NAFTA passed many Republicans voted against it just because Clinton supported it (the mirror image of what happened with CAFTA). The backlash by the business community against those Republicans was pretty intense. In addition, the almost no Republicans buckled to Labor pressure, even in strong labor states. Very few Republican voted against CAFTA and the ones that did were from the arch conservative side that didn't like CAFTA because it damaged US sovereignty.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe for you and certain elements of the business community, but there are many, many supporters of free-trade -- moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans -- who want to lower barriers to trade but who do not want to sacrifice environmental protections and labor laws and other regulation that this country enjoys. Don't get me wrong -- there are certainly troglodytes out there who oppose child-labor laws and who would be happy to use "free trade" as a banner to get rid of them. But that's not free trade per se.

You are dead wrong here. A true free trade agreement does not discuss environmental laws or labor laws. Those should be negotiated under separate treaties. And to mix them with a free trade agreement is just pure political posturing. A free trade agreement should only be about reducing barriers. The other stuff is just to throw bones to people that don't really understand the concept of "comparative advantage". Environmental laws and labor law were not even part of the GATT talks until the Uruguay round, and then everyone knew they were puffy language that was put in to placate labor in the developed economies but the language really had no effect.

As far as "moderate Republicans", the one thing that unites Moderate Republicans is free trade. And I have never met a "moderate Republican" with any influence who feels that labor and environmental standards should be inserted into Free trade agreements. All the moderate Republicans in Congress voted for CAFTA (there may have been one or two exceptions but I can't think of any). As I said, the Republicans that switched sides were the arch conservatives not the moderates. The smart moderate Democrats all supported CAFTA (it was supported by the DLC).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think it was Bush. I think it was DeLay's way of running the house, and it certainly makes a lot of sense if your objects are moving the country to the right and raising money for the GOP. If you're a centrist interested in good policy, not so much.

You are not a centrist. I am. And CAFTA was good policy. The moderate Democrats opposed CAFTA not because it was good policy, but for political reasons. And thank God it blew up in their faces.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have no idea what they're telling you and why. I only know that -- as noted -- I've heard differently.

I was trying to be diplomatic about it but you are just too thick to realize you are speaking out of your derriere. I know the heads of the Business lobby in this country and they are incredibly mad at the Democrats, and the Democrat leadership, for what they did over CAFTA, and they don't trust the Democrats anymore. They are penalizing the Democrats in this election for the CAFTA vote. If someone is telling you different they are either lying or don't know what they are talking about.