GOP losing grip on married moms

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, it's Oerdin's threads that have lost touch with reality.

Since when does pwnage warrant locking a thread anyway? I guess we can all pull the Ming card when we're on the skids...

[Kuciwalker]

If only Oerdin were a man like che...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Good. You're finally going to have some company!

/me kicks Drake out the door

[Drake Tungsten]

So now you're the only one who's not in touch with reality? Thanks, kid...

[Admiral]

I like how certain people attack the Democrats as "elitists" and yet the crux of this thread is that the feelings of the people in the article are stupid and invalid because of a few statistics.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ignorant isn't the same as stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Admiral
I like how certain people attack the Democrats as "elitists" and yet the crux of this thread is that the feelings of the people in the article are stupid and invalid because of a few statistics.

The elitism of people like Odin (gah everyone who disagrees with me is stupid!!!) and the "elitism" of Drake's argument (it's worrisome that the electorate, by and large, seems to believe something that's simply not supported by evidence) are entirely different beasts.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Ignorant isn't the same as stupid.

I'll concede the point. However, the larger point is that you cannot deny their experiences based on an incredibly macro and brief look at the state of the economy. Just to point out a few potential problems: there can be regional differences, we've already pointed out income distribution, inflation issues, unemployment numbers, etc.

I mean, maybe the GOP actually has improved the economy from Clinton. But if no one on the ground is seeing the improvement, does it even matter?

[Drake Tungsten]

How could no one on the ground see the improvement if it actually existed? You're either denying the economic evidence or ludicrously claiming that no one outside the super-rich is seeing benefits from the strong economy. Which one is it?

[MRT144]

you overestimate the people drake.

[flash9286]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The claims of increasing poverty and lack of progress at the lowest quintile of income is not a sustainable arguement.

Clinton circa 1992 had a poverty rate in excess of 15% and almost 39 million people in a state of poverty this following the 1990 recession. BY the time he left office had an effective poverty rate of 11+% with something like 32 million in a state of poverty. With two years left in Clinton's terms he was at a poverty level of ~12.8%.

Bush has been holding steady at 12.5-12.6% this coming off a more pronounced recession in 2000-2001. An although to early to say, it would appear that the graph indicates the poverty level has peaked and is coming down.

Poverty Level Graphs- Census

[MRT144]

perhaps wage growth iand the lowering the poverty rate isnt outpacing people's pessimism and expenses...

[Ramo]

Median incomes have definitely gone down between 2000 and 2005 (from $47,599 to $46,326 in 2005 USD). So the idea that Middle America is prospering but the liburl media is brainwashing them is absurd. If you factor in increasing health insurance costs, rising tuition, and the imminent popping of the housing bubble, the picture ain't particularly good.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08.html

The top half of the page are nominal incomes and the bottom half inflation adjusted incomes.

[Kuciwalker]

Median incomes have definitely gone down between 2000 and 2005

Well duh. Your first year is the height of the dot-com bubble.