A lot. You are only detailing half the story. This site does not have the bandwidth, and I doubt anybody has the time or desire to detail the economy and causes of economic policy of the last 30 years. According to the US Census Bureau median wages went up approx $8K (in 2009 dollars) from 1983 to 1989. That is just short of a 50% increase in wages over a 6 year period. Yup that sound like flat to me. You are also forgetting resupplying our military after Carter failed to properly outfit it and Reagan winning the cold war (something no other president had been able to do in the 40 years it was going). The Clinton years were marked by the tech boom and bubble and relative peace. That bubble ended just before Bush took office. Median wages under Clinton went up approx 33% over eight years. If you use the same relative six years Reagan was in office the increase for Clinton was only about 25%. The Bush years were marked by two wars. The beginning of his term we were hit by a huge attack. Billions of dollars were taken out of the economy thanks to 9-11. But his policies were the reasons for the troubled economy.

 

Glad to hear it, Mr. Serotta.

 

Okay, now you've done it! Are you feeling okay? You know, our health is something we all take for granted until acquaintances notice we are rolling over and playing dead on issues that would normally elicit a verbal tongue lashing.

Hope things are well in the Ga. foothills.

 

I am trying to see both sides of this so please don't get me wrong. The picture is somewhat deceiving too for Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush.

While wages for the top earners in the economy went up a lot, the bottom earners went down a lot. I understand that many in the bottom of the economy aren't highly motivated and all but the growth was still very concentrated to the wealthy. Under Clinton, the lower end of the earners benefited from a bigger boom than the top end of earners. I do think that is an important accomplishment.

Some would say Reagan overspent on defense as well. Lots of money went into programs like "Star Wars" that didn't pan out. We severely over estimated the capabilities of the Soviet Union in hindsight.

Technically the fall of the Berlin wall and the subsequent end of the Cold War fell on the watch of Bush Sr. but yes much of the fall of the Soviet Union started on Reagan's watch. Would it have happened eventually, historians have mixed views.

Clinton was the beneficiary of peace for the most part and a technical revolution of sorts. He did have the OK city bombing but that was a homegrown terrorist attack and was small compared to the devastation of 9/11.

As harsh as people are on Bush Jr, I don't think history will be as critical as time goes by. He did have the only attack on the continental US since the Civil War. Prior attempts on the WTC were minor in comparison. Certainly we had every right to invade Afghanistan but failed as Bin Ladin is still out there. I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. I am not sure if Bush pushed for this or if he was fed bad information. I doubt we will ever know the truth. Katrina was a huge scar on the record of Bush and the fall of the economy. Certainly he presided over the most difficult time in the history of the US with the possible exception of FDR.

Obama inherited a mess and I think people thought he was going to be a savior of sorts. We still have at least 2 more years to judge. Reagan wasn't Mr. Popular after 2 years either. Time will shed more light on this whether he is a failure or hero.

 

If you call the middle income group part of the wealthy then you are correct the wage growth was very concentrated in the wealthy.

 

I never agree with you Raoul.....But you made me laugh out loud!!! THAT WAS HILARIOUS

I told my doctor when I had my first prostrate examine that I was sure glad that he was Asian, he asked me why? I said because you have small fingers....he told me as he snapped the glove on...that's why I use 2 fingers

 

I agree 100%, and this is something Washington can have impact on. That's my point, although I didn't go into as much detail, or state it as eloquently.

However, I don't think this is a conservative view point, I think it's a common sense view. NAFTA might be what it was- but it's the incentives Clinton introduced that made doing business in the US cheaper, and why labor was in demand in the late 1990's. That's what slowed outsourcing down then. However, when those incentives dried up, taxes were raised, thereby increasing the CODB, then trend reversed itself, and the offshoring of American jobs, picked up speed.

The offshoring of US jobs has much to do with saving money, and remaining competitive with your competiton. However, the way business is run in America, it's more of a short-term solution, rather than a long-tern strategy.

In the last 10 years, CEO's have run businesses into the ground, and most avoided jail- still managing to get their $1,000,000/year annual salary, their $20,000,000/year in annual bonuses, and their $50,000,000 golden parachute, once the company tanks. They do whatever it takes in order to hit certain performance targets, and provide ROI to investors. Is it legal? Obviously so. Is it ethical? Not so much.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect. No one is. I'm just trying to remind you guys, things didn't just "get bad" in the last two years. It's been up a long time- you guys just didn't realize how bad it was, until there was someone in office you didn't necessarily like. Now your vision is 20/20, instead fo 20/100.

For those of us who didn't view the worl through Limbaugh colored lenses, realized things got up, the minute Bush shook Clinton's hand. It's been downhill every since.

Conservative ideals don't work.
Liberal ideals don't work.
Common sense would say- "Let's meet in the middle".

Unfortunately, no President since Clinton (2nd term, pre-impeachment) has had the isle crossing appeal to get any real legislation passed, that democrats and republicans could agree on.

 

I know... Trying to show common sense, and fairmindedness around here is akin to pishing in the wind.

 

LOL- I know... I've been debating on this site for years- all the way back to Bush v2.0. Bush/Gore, Unions, Bush/Kerry, Katrina, Obama/McCain, and much more.

 

Statements like that just boil my potatoes! I get so tired of hearing someone PARROT the MSM take on Katrina. Let's look at some facts:
1 New Orleans is built below sea level.
2 Katrina didn't just show up one day.
3 The Fed was in contact with the local authorities before Katrina hit and were told-we don't need you.
4 Public Transportation and School busses were left in low laying parking areas instead of being moved to higher ground to be used for possible evacuation.
5 A large percentage of the POLICE FORCE went AWOL!
6 The Mayor and Governor seemed to be more interested in "protecting" their turf than helping the people.
7 When the people were finally told to evacuate many wouldn't go.

Oh I guess I'm wrong, I can clearly see now that Katrina WAS Bush's fault.

 

I really didn't mean to throw Bush under the bus on Katrina but he is the one that is stuck holding the blame as he was the POTUS at the time.

Presidents get blamed unfairly for lots of things and it was probably the lowest point for him.

No question that New Orleans was an accident waiting to happen. The local officials were in the thick of it and blew it badly.

However, this is one of those cases where spending cuts don't always make the most sense. There was and still is a severe infrastructure issue there. Those levies broke because they were way past their useful lifespan and the repairs are not enough to protect them from another storm of similar magnitude.

People were stupid (you know Darwin may have had a point here) and they wouldn't leave. When the crap all fell, Bush was blamed and he did have little hand in it.

On the federal level though, there were supplies sent there that never got to the people and were found in warehouses. Those FEMA trailers were supposed to be a short term fix that lasted way too long.

It was a botched effort in total. The local officials were in no way able to handle such a crisis and while people rag on the Feds, they do have the ability to do a lot that can't be done locally simply due to economies of scale.

 

Blaming Bush for Katrina is worse than blaming a spoon for making Rosie O fat. The levees were falling apart because the elected officials squandered the money given to them to repair them. There have been plans to make N.O. more hurricane resistant since Camille hit. The residents there knew the pumps that keep the water out were pushing 100 years old yet they kept re-electing the people who stole the money to buy new ones.

So just to be clear on this
The people blew the tons of money given to them to fix their problem,
They ignored the warnings given to them about the storm,
The worthless people they elected failed to do any part of their jobs,
They looted the place and stole TVs after the storm hit,
They shot at the rescue helicopters,
They then re-elect the same group of morons a year later.

Yet somehow you can blame the President for this?

Sooo, where was Obama when Nashville was flooded or is this somehow different?

 

Any time there is that much "free stuff" available there is going to be a problem. A few years back here is So Cal when the wild fires were raging they caught a group of Illegal Aliens (a.k.a. wet backs) stealing water and beds for one of the shelters. Some people are just dirt bags.

I also know people who have gone to New Orleans to help with the clean up and they say the locals just want stuff for free and don't do much to help their situation. That comes from the mind set that the Govment will/should provide everything. Compare that to how the people of Nashville handled themselves, and the MSM and the White House all but ignored those floods (that would be the O-Blame-uh White House). Hardly a peep was heard about the crappy response in that incident.

Then look at how poorly our clownmander in cheif handled the oil situation in the Gulf, turned down all the state of the art oil recovery help from other countries. Alot like the Mayor of New Orleans and his "turf war" mentality. How many days/weeks did he sit and wring his hands before the sent anyone in to help? Then when he did, the first ones in were LAWYERS. WTF is up with that? But still to this day Bush is a very very bad man over Katrina! I tell ya that just turns my stomach. People don't look past the headlines and take the MSM as gospel.

 

If you look at poverty figures published by the Census, in 1983 3.9% of the population earned the bottom quintile, while in 1988 3.8% earned the bottom quintile. The poverty rates went from 15.2% in 1983 to 13.0 in 1988, so again it is shown that the poverty rate fell and there were fewer people, as a percentage of the population, in poverty in the US because of Reagan's policies and ability to get Congress to do what he wanted. I guess that really doesn't play out with your ideas that they were more poor in 1988 than in 1983. Granted some of those who were poor might not be doing as well, but there were fewer poor in 1988 than 1983.

 

You only have to worry when you feel a hand on EACH shoulder.......