ray

Except if you read more carefully you would know that I already adjusted for inflation. The fact that you didn't catch this most salient fact when analyzing my numbers (and my sources) suggests to me that you think about your arguments even less than I had previously thought. If you were driven by trying to understand other people's arguments instead of just refuting them because of your own cognitive dissonance, this would have come out way before you posted

Holy crap. I apologize. I didn't know this had posted, as I went out the door for 4 days in the middle of... ... I apologize. Unreservedly.

. I thought to look at the basket of the CPI and analyze why it might not account for the "real inflation" felt by consumers. But this was a draft that I started as I started reading about the CPI basket... And without thinking I guess replied when I replied to Steve.

The point I made about the median income regressing after 1998 .... you never addressed, by the way.
Your tables were supported when "individual income" is considered as well, BTW. Which it means the difference has nothing to do with family size.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... al/people/

Here's a few reasons why median income in 2010 isn't as "valuable" in 1980. Despite having risen
1) The price of health care .The Milliman Medical Index finds the total cost of healthcare for a family of four in 2011 is $19,393, an increase of 7.3% over 2010.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2 ... years.html

The CPI does not account for this significant difference.
2) The cost of secondary education . From Study by National Center for Public Policy
Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/educa ... llege.html
Tied to this, is the debt load assumed by many young Americans in getting secondary education.
3) Paying off student loans is a larger percentage of income then in 1980.

Steve here's
Why reagan could not be a republican candidate today, because he'd lose in the primaries to Tea Party extremists. (He might still win election as a Democrat however...)

He said of unions: “There are few finer examples of participatory democracy.” He said the right to join a union is “one of the most elemental human rights.” And he said collective bargaining “played a major role in America’s economic miracle.”
He signed a law establishing efficiency standards for electric appliances and an update to the Safe Drinking Water Act punishing states that didn’t meet clean-water standards.
Reagan expanded Social Security in 1983 and imposed taxes on wealthy recipients. He also signed what was at the time the largest expansion of Medicare in its history.
Reagan to increase taxes several times after his initial tax cut, to embrace much higher taxes on investments than current rates and to sign 18 increases in the federal debt limit.
Reagan enlarged the federal workforce and the federal budget, added the Department of Veterans Affairs (one of the largest Cabinet agencies) and pursued a military buildup that would be impossible under spending limits proposed by congressional Republicans.
Reagan said that bus drivers should not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than millionaires — one of President Obama’s tax proposals opposed by current Republicans.
Reagan championed the earned-income tax credit, a program for the working poor that takes more children out of poverty than any other program. Budgets proposed by today’s Republicans would cut or eliminate the credit.
In his autobiography, he criticized “radical conservatives” for whom “ ‘compromise’ was a dirty word.” He continued: “They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. . . . I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for.”
(Cribbed from Dan Millman in WAPO)

rickyp wrote:Steve here's
Why reagan could not be a republican candidate today, because he'd lose in the primaries to Tea Party extremists. (He might still win election as a Democrat however...)

He said of unions: “There are few finer examples of participatory democracy.” He said the right to join a union is “one of the most elemental human rights.” And he said collective bargaining “played a major role in America’s economic miracle.”
He signed a law establishing efficiency standards for electric appliances and an update to the Safe Drinking Water Act punishing states that didn’t meet clean-water standards.
Reagan expanded Social Security in 1983 and imposed taxes on wealthy recipients. He also signed what was at the time the largest expansion of Medicare in its history.
Reagan to increase taxes several times after his initial tax cut, to embrace much higher taxes on investments than current rates and to sign 18 increases in the federal debt limit.
Reagan enlarged the federal workforce and the federal budget, added the Department of Veterans Affairs (one of the largest Cabinet agencies) and pursued a military buildup that would be impossible under spending limits proposed by congressional Republicans.
Reagan said that bus drivers should not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than millionaires — one of President Obama’s tax proposals opposed by current Republicans.
Reagan championed the earned-income tax credit, a program for the working poor that takes more children out of poverty than any other program. Budgets proposed by today’s Republicans would cut or eliminate the credit.
In his autobiography, he criticized “radical conservatives” for whom “ ‘compromise’ was a dirty word.” He continued: “They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. . . . I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for.”
(Cribbed from Dan Millman in WAPO)

This entire post shows two things.

1. You cannot read and do not read. Otherwise, you would know the man's name is Dana Milbank. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

2. You absolutely, positively know not a single Republican, nor do you know history. Quick quiz: who was more conservative Ford or Reagan?

Every Republican knows the answer. That you don't and quote Milbank, notable liberal, about Reagan, is more than sad.

But you aren't disputing that Reagan WAS indeed responsible for everything noted?

Which makes him a crumby version of the current in vogue conservative Repblican.

By the way, what do you think of Romney's position on governemnt spending?

"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said.
source: http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the- ... ranscript/

rickyp wrote:But you aren't disputing that Reagan WAS indeed responsible for everything noted?

Which makes him a crumby version of the current in vogue conservative Repblican.

By the way, what do you think of Romney's position on governemnt spending?

"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said.
source: http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the- ... ranscript/

Ricky, why would I try to defend things taken out of context in order to "prove" that Reagan is left of the current Republican party? The only way to actually demonstrate it is to bring him to life and have him constitutionally eligible to run for President.

In other words, quotes out of context to prove an anachronistic theory of politics is pretty freaking dumb--with all due respect.

Btw, it's "crummy."

I will take one of the "points" though. Unions. Reagan was a union leader. Did that prevent him from firing striking air traffic controllers when their union went on strike?

Also, since you didn't refute my suggestion that you know zero Republicans, I'll take it that I'm right.

That is the brilliant level of argumentation you employ: unless someone bothers to neutralize your foolish claims, they must be true.

Feeble.

What's next? "Doctor Fate, I notice that you've not rebutted my suggestion that mankind is descendant from extraterrestrials. Therefore, it must be true."

rickyp wrote:Reagan said that bus drivers should not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than millionaires — one of President Obama’s tax proposals opposed by current Republicans.

Except this is misleading. Reagan was making the argument to flatten all tax rates and to eliminate loopholes not raise taxes on rich people. To try and use Reagan's comments to argue for raising taxes is intellectually dishonest.

archduke

Except this is misleading. Reagan was making the argument to flatten all tax rates and to eliminate loopholes not raise taxes on rich people. To try and use Reagan's comments to argue for raising taxes is intellectually dishonest

Well, I wasn't arguing for raising taxes. Which, btw, Reagan did do didn't he? And which, if he'd signed Grover Norquist's pledge as most republicans in congress have felt the need to do, he couldn't have done....
What I was arguing is that Reagan wouldn't fit in the "modern" Republican party.
This particular quote doesn't fit. I'm sure the source, the columnist from WAPO is also being made aware of his error by sharp readers like yourself.
How about the rest? How many would have to be in error to make the point about the migration to extreme positions and attitudes that has occurred in the Republican party since the 80s?

steve

Ricky, why would I try to defend things taken out of context in order to "prove" that Reagan is left of the current Republican party

Well, Archduke proved one was taken out of context. Can you prove any of the others are out of context OR better misquotes...

steve

Also, since you didn't refute my suggestion that you know zero Republicans

I shook Ron Reagans hand and had my picture taken with him a month after he retired... We had a brief conversation. Does that count? In some circles it means I've been blessed....
I don't talk politics with people in the normal course of a day. And when travelling in the US especially. (I usually get quizzed on health care at the point people know I'm from the Great White North.) I don't know why you put so much faith on knowing someone personnally as an arguement about understanding the general spectrum of opinion within a broad political movement. It would be as if I took your general views as representative of conservatives, or Bbauska's but discounted Archdukes or Rays...
I think there's a broad chasm between you four alone.
I find the science of polling a more trustworthy method of ascertaining general opinions and attitudes.That and a broad reading of media...
I do enjoy debating with all you conservatives here however. Sometimes I learn, sometimes I change my mind. Its often informative. I just don't think many of you are true fiscal conservatives, I think thats been a convenient thing to turn to once Bush left office. (True fiscal conservatives would have been raging at Bush over his fiscal policy at the time it occurred. You do that?)

It would be nice if you didn't all take being challenged so personnally however... You especially Steve. Why on earth you think Ron Reagan is unassailable is beyond me. From whichever point of view one views him, he had both flaws and strengths. (If you ever get a chance to discuss the Reagan years with an El Salvadorean or Chilean of the 80s you'd find a wholly different view of the man. And since you put such weight on face to face converse, maybe it would create dissonance.)

rickyp wrote:archduke

Except this is misleading. Reagan was making the argument to flatten all tax rates and to eliminate loopholes not raise taxes on rich people. To try and use Reagan's comments to argue for raising taxes is intellectually dishonest

Well, I wasn't arguing for raising taxes. Which, btw, Reagan did do didn't he? And which, if he'd signed Grover Norquist's pledge as most republicans in congress have felt the need to do, he couldn't have done....
What I was arguing is that Reagan wouldn't fit in the "modern" Republican party.

You really should be embarrassed. I guess that's just not possible.

Are the conditions of the United States today the same as they were in 1980-88? Are there any differences?

Cold War? Manufacturing? Internet? National Debt? China as an economic power? Nuclear Iran?

Your entire argument is dumb. It would be like me taking quotes from FDR and arguing he would not fit into today's Democratic Party.

How can that be proved or disproved? It's a hypothetical. Would Jefferson be a Democrat? Would Lincoln be a Republican?

Does it matter?

Here's what we do know: every Republican in the recent primary ran as the true bearer of Reagan's torch. Liberals seem to think it's because Republicans don't know the "real" Reagan. That's kind of funny: we voted for Reagan and these liberals didn't--but, they know him better than we do.

This particular quote doesn't fit. I'm sure the source, the columnist from WAPO is also being made aware of his error by sharp readers like yourself.
How about the rest? How many would have to be in error to make the point about the migration to extreme positions and attitudes that has occurred in the Republican party since the 80s?

Here's your next error: you've completely and strangely forgotten about George W. Bush. The TEA Party is as much a reaction to "compassionate conservatism" as it is to President Obama. Conservatives have just had it with the growing Leviathan that is the United States government. Now, YOU and Dana Milbank (since you failed to acknowledge your error I have to presume you think you had the name right) think the government growth is exactly what Reagan would have done and the TEA Party would have been fighting against him. You can speculate all you want, but you can't prove it because Reagan isn't walking through the door.

And, in fact, there is plenty of reason to think that absent the Soviet Union he would have governed differently. Certainly, there is no reason to presume he would be a Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller Republican--that's who he fought!

Well, Archduke proved one was taken out of context. Can you prove any of the others are out of context OR better misquotes...

For what?

If I find a list of quotes showing Obama is a conservative, would you be willing to go through all of the speeches to show he really isn't? If so, I'll whip up a list of a couple of hundred.

In other words, your game is . . . pathetic. You make unsupported assertions--well actually, you quote some guy named "Dan Millman" (sic) making assertions supported by a few snippets from speeches--and demand we debunk them all.

Reagan gave hundreds or maybe even thousands of speeches. If he was a closet liberal or even a moderate, don't you think we'd all know it by now?

Here's what's confusing you: you see a President (Reagan) who actually led, made reasonable compromises with the other party, and behaved like a President. You're used to seeing President Obama whine about Republicans not doing things his way, blaming Bush, and taking no responsibility for leading the country. I can see how it would confuse you.

steve

Also, since you didn't refute my suggestion that you know zero Republicans

I shook Ron Reagans hand and had my picture taken with him a month after he retired... We had a brief conversation.

Does that count?

No.

I don't talk politics with people in the normal course of a day. And when travelling in the US especially. (I usually get quizzed on health care at the point people know I'm from the Great White North.) I don't know why you put so much faith on knowing someone personnally as an arguement about understanding the general spectrum of opinion within a broad political movement. It would be as if I took your general views as representative of conservatives, or Bbauska's but discounted Archdukes or Rays...

RJ is not a Republican.

As for the other three, I think we'd probably vote for Reagan in a hot second.

Why does it matter that you don't know any Republicans with whom you talk politics? Because if you did, you would not make such bizarre assertions as the idea that Reagan could not get out of a GOP primary today.

(True fiscal conservatives would have been raging at Bush over his fiscal policy at the time it occurred. You do that?)

Yes.

What did the Democrats give us as alternatives? Gore and Kerry?

Why on earth you think Ron Reagan is unassailable is beyond me.

I don't know. I was talking to Barry Obama the other day . . .

You shook his hand once and now he's "Ron?"

I don't think he's unassailable. He made mistakes. He, unlike Barack Obama, was not a god. However, to suggest Reagan is too moderate or too mushy to gain traction in today's GOP is just tripe. So, Reagan was to the left of Romney?

If you knew any conservatives, you would draw raucous laughter by opening a conversation with that idea. It's just not based on reality.

rickyp wrote:He said of unions: “There are few finer examples of participatory democracy.” He said the right to join a union is “one of the most elemental human rights.” And he said collective bargaining “played a major role in America’s economic miracle.”

and yet he gutted the Air Traffic Controllers Union showing the private sector unions could be beat.

rickyp wrote:He signed a law establishing efficiency standards for electric appliances and an update to the Safe Drinking Water Act punishing states that didn’t meet clean-water standards.

I don't know any Republican who would have a problem with this. It is now the fact that EPA is seriously overstepping bounds by granting itself powers not included in its legislative grant.

rickyp wrote:Reagan expanded Social Security in 1983 and imposed taxes on wealthy recipients. He also signed what was at the time the largest expansion of Medicare in its history.

Again, Republicans in general do not have problems with these programs. They just want them reformed so they operate more efficiently which is what I think Reagan did.

rickyp wrote:Reagan to increase taxes several times after his initial tax cut, to embrace much higher taxes on investments than current rates and to sign 18 increases in the federal debt limit.

Of course this was as part of a deal in which Democratic Congress agreed to cut spending by $3 for every $1 in taxes increase. Which they promptly reneged on. Therefore, I don't think any Republican would have a problem with that.

rickyp wrote:Reagan enlarged the federal workforce and the federal budget, added the Department of Veterans Affairs (one of the largest Cabinet agencies) and pursued a military buildup that would be impossible under spending limits proposed by congressional Republicans.

Really? You think Republicans would havea problem with this one?

Seriously, the same accusation you are making towards Republicans and Reagan could be made against the Democrats and their patron saint of Kennedy.

rickyp wrote:ray

Except if you read more carefully you would know that I already adjusted for inflation. The fact that you didn't catch this most salient fact when analyzing my numbers (and my sources) suggests to me that you think about your arguments even less than I had previously thought. If you were driven by trying to understand other people's arguments instead of just refuting them because of your own cognitive dissonance, this would have come out way before you posted

Holy crap. I apologize. I didn't know this had posted, as I went out the door for 4 days in the middle of... ... I apologize. Unreservedly.

. I thought to look at the basket of the CPI and analyze why it might not account for the "real inflation" felt by consumers. But this was a draft that I started as I started reading about the CPI basket... And without thinking I guess replied when I replied to Steve.

ok; no worries.

The point I made about the median income regressing after 1998 .... you never addressed, by the way.
Your tables were supported when "individual income" is considered as well, BTW. Which it means the difference has nothing to do with family size.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... al/people/

I don't really have anything to add on the decline post 1998. I think it is an important trend. However, let's keep it in perspective; there's no guarantee that the trend will continue, and there's no reason to believe that on net government involvement will help.

Here's a few reasons why median income in 2010 isn't as "valuable" in 1980. Despite having risen
1) The price of health care .The Milliman Medical Index finds the total cost of healthcare for a family of four in 2011 is $19,393, an increase of 7.3% over 2010.

This is relevant if you look at the health care costs of that median family. In general, you want to see that increase a little because health care spending is a sign of prosperity. However, I agree that our health care spending is out of whack.

2) The cost of secondary education . From Study by National Center for Public Policy
Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/educa ... llege.html
Tied to this, is the debt load assumed by many young Americans in getting secondary education.
3) Paying off student loans is a larger percentage of income then in 1980.

This is mostly the result of government involvement. Private universities have increased services and raised prices because they are told how much money their customers have, and the government enables the customers who cannot afford it to get loans. This is a good example of how governments can wreck markets. We are doing for secondary education what we have done for health care.

Ray Jay wrote:I don't really have anything to add on the decline post 1998. I think it is an important trend. However, let's keep it in perspective; there's no guarantee that the trend will continue, and there's no reason to believe that on net government involvement will help.

Surely we'd need to know what is behind the trend before deciding to rule out any way to deal with it?

Since 1998 we've seen the explosion in outsourcing that has sucked millions of middle-income jobs out of the economy and led to a staggering transfer of wealth from the West to China. Our economies haven't really replaced those jobs with other jobs that pay as well. This must surely be the major driver in declining median incomes. The effects won't have been immediately noticeable because it also caused a decline in the prices of consumer goods and helped to keep a lid on inflation, but the chickens are coming home to roost.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I don't really have anything to add on the decline post 1998. I think it is an important trend. However, let's keep it in perspective; there's no guarantee that the trend will continue, and there's no reason to believe that on net government involvement will help.

Surely we'd need to know what is behind the trend before deciding to rule out any way to deal with it?

Absolutely, and also we should fully understand the reason for the trend before figuring out the best way to fix it.

archduke

Of course this was as part of a deal in which Democratic Congress agreed to cut spending by $3 for every $1 in taxes increase. Which they promptly reneged on. Therefore, I don't think any Republican would have a problem with that.

really? because here's a republican Primary debate where every candidate said they would refuse a 10 to one deal....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc

Milbank was making the point with Reagans words that at one time there was room for compromise. Do you think these republican candidates are demonstrating that they are capable of compromise? 10 to 1 NOT 3 to 1....

rickyp wrote:archduke

Of course this was as part of a deal in which Democratic Congress agreed to cut spending by $3 for every $1 in taxes increase. Which they promptly reneged on. Therefore, I don't think any Republican would have a problem with that.

really? because here's a republican Primary debate where every candidate said they would refuse a 10 to one deal....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc

Milbank was making the point with Reagans words that at one time there was room for compromise. Do you think these republican candidates are demonstrating that they are capable of compromise? 10 to 1 NOT 3 to 1....

More garbage.

That was a hypothetical question at a primary debate, not an actual proposal. In fact, the "big cuts" the Democrats have offered over the past few years have been "cuts" to spending that was never going to happen.

The President's Debt Commission is exhibit #1 about the unserious nature of the President and Democrats on debt reduction. The Commission made recommendations and the President shelved the whole thing.

Again, the idea that Reagan would not be welcome in today's GOP is propaganda put out by those who despised Reagan. So, would you please stop with this anachronistic nonsense? The notion that a few quotes taken out of context prove that Reagan was not a real Republican by today's standards is, at best, not provable. At worst, it's just trying to besmirch a dead man. Either way, it's not much of a way to spend one's time.