Income Growth Rates 1948 - 2005

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tim Noah is running a multi-part series this week and next on "The Great Divergence," focusing on an issue that too often gets pushed to the periphery: America's growing income inequality.

The series includes this graph today, based on data from Larry Bartels, showing income growth rates for the modern political era. The red bars shows growth during Republican administrations, while the blue bars show growth during Democratic administrations.

As Noah explained, "Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power? It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60th percentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95th percentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80th percentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.)."

Also note, there's not only a difference in who benefits most, there's also a straight-up difference between the parties: under the GOP, the very wealth benefit more; under Dems, the middle and lower classes see their incomes grow more. But in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican.

link

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Tim Noah is running a multi-part series this week and next on "The Great Divergence," focusing on an issue that too often gets pushed to the periphery: America's growing income inequality.

The series includes this graph today, based on data from Larry Bartels, showing income growth rates for the modern political era. The red bars shows growth during Republican administrations, while the blue bars show growth during Democratic administrations.

As Noah explained, "Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power? It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60th percentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95th percentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80th percentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.)."

Also note, there's not only a difference in who benefits most, there's also a straight-up difference between the parties: under the GOP, the very wealth benefit more; under Dems, the middle and lower classes see their incomes grow more. But in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican.

link

Total BS. Give me the same chart showing incomes vs who controls congress. I bet it would paint a vastly different picture.

[Heracles 417]

I'd believe it. Proposing we invest in America and on Americans is worse then the torture for some. Apparently the free-market will solve all on its on, all while the American Q.O.L drops to levels only seen in second and third countries.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Total BS. Give me the same chart showing incomes vs who controls congress. I bet it would paint a vastly different picture.

How do you measure who controls Congress short of a super majority? Because anything less means the minority party can easily filibuster any piece of legislation. Same goes with a president - Congress needs a super majority to overcome a presidential veto.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

How do you measure who controls Congress short of a super majority? Because anything less means the minority party can easily filibuster any piece of legislation. Same goes with a president - Congress needs a super majority to overcome a presidential veto.

The president cannot spend a dime. He cannot make any laws. All he can do is recomend and arm twist. The only real power he has is the veto power and the appointment of judges. Congress has the real power and our country sinks or swims with them. You can rationalize all you want but the president is only a figurehead when it comes down to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The president cannot spend a dime. He cannot make any laws. All he can do is recomend and arm twist. The only real power he has is the veto power and the appointment of judges. Congress has the real power and our country sinks or swims with them. You can rationalize all you want but the president is only a figurehead when it comes down to it.

Understanding how our legislative process actually works might benefit you to more sound rationality.

[evli1966 88]

How do you measure who controls Congress short of a super majority? Because anything less means the minority party can easily filibuster any piece of legislation. Same goes with a president - Congress needs a super majority to overcome a presidential veto.

While I agree with what you say above the are to many varibles being ignored during any of the time periods.

War

social changes

World economy

All this plays a part in how income can be affected positively and negatively.

So the graph although stating it shows what the changes were with different party presidents it can no tbe taken as a way to measure 100% how each president affects wage increases

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Understanding how our legislative process actually works might benefit you to more sound rationality.

Really now. Do explain it to me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Really now. Do explain it to me.

You can start by looking at the 111th Congress and see how much legislation was actually brought to a vote by a simple majority without first being filibuster proof.

Edited September 9, 2010 by El Buscador

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You can start by looking at the 111th Congress and see how much legislation was actually brought to a vote by a simple majority without first being filibuster proof.

You are a hopeless hyper partisan aren't you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are a hopeless hyper partisan aren't you?

Why not try sticking to the argument instead of making it personal just because you are cornered?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Why not try sticking to the argument instead of making it personal just because you are cornered?

You haven't cornered me on anything. You are displaying a total lack of understanding of how things work.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

If you haven't figured out my meaning then I will make it a little more clear to you. Explain to me how a president can effect the income growth rates rather than congress. Since your graphs only referr to the president it can be assumed that you are saying it is only the presidents doing and not the congress. If that is what you are saying then you are the one that has no understanding. If you are not then this is nothing but a political hachet job.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You haven't cornered me on anything. You are displaying a total lack of understanding of how things work.

You refuse to answer the question of how many proposals by the 111th Congress that went to an up and down vote without first having to be filibuster proof. You don't want to answer that because it blows a whole right into your argument that what matters is which party as a majority in Congress. While it is fundamentally necessary to have a simple majority in Congress to pass legislation, the minority party as demonstrated by the Obstructionists that are currently there, can prevent any or all legislation originating from the majority by refusing to let such legislation even go to an up or down vote. So you can either argue that what I just described is not true or you can explain how legislation is passed with a simple majority.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You refuse to answer the question of how many proposals by the 111th Congress that went to an up and down vote without first having to be filibuster proof. You don't want to answer that because it blows a whole right into your argument that what matters is which party as a majority in Congress. While it is fundamentally necessary to have a simple majority in Congress to pass legislation, the minority party as demonstrated by the Obstructionists that are currently there, can prevent any or all legislation originating from the majority by refusing to let such legislation even go to an up or down vote. So you can either argue that what I just described is not true or you can explain how legislation is passed with a simple majority.

You are hopeless. The original post is how rep presidents cause income growth rates to change. I pointed out that the president has very little to do with it and the congress has a lot to do with it. Now you are off on some tangent about rep obstructionism. Try and stay on target, but I guess you can't since you haven't a leg to stand on.