Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (33942)	6/14/2005 11:57:07 PM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

"It's called trickle-down economics" Might make better headway thinking in terms of real economic principles such as Macro Economics. findarticles.com Thank you for the easy google search though. At least Reagan could argue that although the rich got richer, so did everyone else. Real median family income (in 1994 dollars) rose from $36,825 when he took office to $40,890 by the time he left. Furthermore, the average real income of those in the bottom quintile of households rose from $7,954 to $8,391, and the income of those in the second lowest quintile rose from $18,856 to $20,797. The third and fourth quintiles also saw significant increases. By contrast, median family income has been flat during the Clinton Administration. During its first two years, real median family income averaged $38,343, down from $38,632 in 1992 and well below the level when Reagan left office. The income of the bottom quintile has averaged $7,681 and that of the second quintile has averaged $19,176. In 1992 these groups averaged $7,698 and $19,205, respectively. However, the average income of the top quintile rose from $96,240 in 1992 to $105,945 in 1994, and that of the top 5 per cent went from $152,751 to $183,044. Other measures of income also show that the non-rich have not benefited at all from Clinton's policies. Workers, for example, are no better off today than they were when Clinton took office. In January 1993 real average weekly earnings for private-sector workers were $253.76 (in 1982 dollars). In May 1996, the most recent month for which there are data, real earnings were $253.80. That works out to a real pay increase of just one cent per week for every year Clinton has been in office. History teaches us that it is virtually impossible to reduce the share of income going to the wealthy by raising their taxes. The reason is that the negative economic effects of raising marginal tax rates reduce everyone's incomes. The only way to raise the share of income going to the non-wealthy is by increasing the rate of economic growth. The source of the wealthy's gains during the Clinton years has been lower interest rates and a strong stock market. Workers, meanwhile, have seen their incomes squeezed by Clinton's policies -- the prosperity has not trickled down. Only an aggressive pro-growth policy of supply-side tax cuts and less regulation will improve their living standards. Contrary to conventional wisdom, throughout American history a rising tide really has lifted all boats. Clinton's austerity has succeeded in lifting only the yachts of the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.