"We --the people --work and thus create the wealth of which we, as a class, are denied! "

Now THAT reeks of "labor theory of value."

It was NOT drawn on a "napkin;" that is a fairy-tale.

The Left-wingers’ attempts to deprecate the Ronald Reagan economic record provide an excellent example of how they distort and manipulate data for their purposes. It requires some time for policies to go into effect, but Left-wingers begin an analysis from the day Ronald Reagan took office (actually from three weeks BEFORE), not from when the results of his policies started to be felt.

If we analyze data AFTER Reagan’s policies had time to go into effect, the information changes dramatically:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years, and it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years; and interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

When Jimmy Carter's economic policies were in place, FAMILY incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent.

LOL....the greater the post, the more likely the drivel will be attracted to it.

I just presented facts. You provide personal insults.

As I wrote several times, I am impervious to personal attacks. I like to point out when one is going on for a good reason: The Left-wingers turn any discussion and rational exchange into personal attacks quite often in order to deflect and avoid responding rationally and reasonably. These sorts of responses - or non responses - need to be pointed out.

That's funny, Mishima, graphs provided by the Census Bureau show no such drop in inflation-adjusted family income. Nor does the data show any such increase under Reagan. The hole we're in now - the deficit - is due to nothing other than a failure to collect revenue - taxes - to offset spending - most notably under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress. What a fairy tale you believe in.

No, Mishima, you posted a fairy tale with no link. Here's the data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.sv...

Notice how the rich are getting richer? Is it possible that therein lies the answer to the question: "Why are we being lied to by the Plutocrats and their lickspittles?"

No fairy-tale. The term "Laffer Curve" was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in the 1970s. It was Wanniski who named the curve for Arthur Laffer. And, yes, it was drawn/sketched on a napkin in a restaurant (some say a Pizza Hunt) by Arthur Laffer himself. It was cited by 'supply-siders' and 'tax cut' lobbyists on K-Street! Alas --the infamous Reagan 'recession' (in fact a depression) followed upon the heels of Reagan's tax cut. It was a depression of some two years --the deepest and longest since H. Hoover's Great Depression following the crash of '29. Both 'depressions' are convincing evidence that wealth does NOT trickle down. On this issue the right wing is wrong and John Maynard Keynes is correct. Nixon, however, was wrong when he said: "We are all Keynesians now!" Nixon was, in fact, not a Keynesian. Like most goppers, Nixon probably never understood Keynes. I would be surprised to learn that Nixon had ever bothered to read a single word of Keynes.

Excellent post to the verifiable facts. Thanks

The Reagan recession of 1982 defines Reagan's second year. Not only had the nation embarked upon negative growth, the problem was compounded with double-digit inflation.

Conservatives and libertarians were eager to blame Carter for the severe recession of 1982. The fact is it occurred Reagan's second year and as a result of Reagan's policies! Reagan's budget and cuts were passed within 108 days of his taking office. David Stockman cited computer simulations "proving" that the tax cuts would result in 5 percent growth in 1982 alone. That did not happen. Rather --the reverse.

So the question is: why is Carter still to blame for the that recession, when Reagan had a full year to install a radical supply-side agenda? That's easy --the axis of GOP/right wing, like HItler, always seeks a scapegoat and always finds one among 'liberals', progressives, academics, commies --anyone, in fact, that they can stick a label on. It's stupid and tiresome. Fact is --EVERY recession/depression since 1900 can be traced to either right wing incompetence or criminality.

It is not unusual that many persons of limited intelligence are immune to insults. They often don't know when they have been insulted.

Indeed! I have yet to find any official or academic data supporting anything ever said by Reagan-heads, goppers in general or supply-siders in particular. It was all hooey to 'rationalize' Reagan's verifiable act of 'paying off' his moneyed base. I also believe that the few intelligent people in the GOP knew --at the time --that supply side was hooey but they supported it because they thought they could sell it and get away with. It was thought that they could blame Carter. They tried! But, after so many right wing lies, frauds and hoaxes, no one intelligent person believes their crap anymore.

No, it is something entirely different. One simple example will suffice.

Mr. A is very smart, and he is aware of it from intelligence tests (IQ, say 145) and various achievements over years. Someone calls him "stupid." Now, someone else is somewhat bright (IQ, say 115), and desperately wants to be considered intelligent, but he know that he has to struggle to really understand advanced math and such. Someone calls him "stupid."

What is the difference in response?

Another factor is how much one is concerned about being appreciated or liked. If the person wants to fit in, and someone calls him a "jerk," how is his reaction compared to someone with confidence and who feels accepted and loved by many people?

I hope that helps.

No, it was an expected reaction to the Carter years which were still hanging over the country. Remember the inflation and mortgage interest rates?

Reagan did not bring about that recession, of course. Most all economists agree on that because virtually all economic indicators improved not long after the great Ronald Reagan was in office, and they continued after he left.

No, it was not clear. Laffer does not remember whether or not he did that.

But it is not important, of course. Why does it matter? What are you trying to prove?

If there is some honesty, people have to admit that it is virtually impossible to "prove" most economic premises, ideas and theories. If we could, there probably would be little discussion.

Reagan’s supply-side economics brought about debates that will never be fully resolved, getting lost in a morass of economic numerology and jargon. This argument usually centers on the supply-siders belief that tax cuts were most effective on the supply side (as opposed to the consumption side), and that tax cuts might increase revenue - depending on whether is it applied to earned income or unearned income - and so on. The real issue here is liberal ideology, not economics per se. Supply side really means that the private market is more powerful and effective than government intervention. By implication, supply-side economics represented a rebuke to the premises of activist government, and hence to LEFT-WINGERISM itself. Steven Hayward explained why it irks Liberals so much (READ IT CAREFULLY LENHART, THIS IS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON):

“The most significant of the challenge to liberal orthodoxy was…its premise that the decisions and actions of the private market were more powerful than government intervention. By implication, supply-side economics represented a rebuke to the premises of activist government, and therefore of liberalism.”

Why can't you answer the simple questions? You like the conclusions, so you do not want to think about them, apparently. They meet some kind of need for a political ideology, so that is all that is necessary, it seems.

No, we need to cut spending. Friedman was right: He said that a deficit is probably better than raising taxes. The explanation is complicated, too complicated for Left-wingers, but in essence Friedman talks to the REALITY of the heavenly government that the Left-wingers love: If they have money, they will spend it. They need to go on diets. They may even temporarily decrease a bit of spending (highly unlikely), but the only real way to stop them is to decrease the money available.

The other point that the great Friedman made that is too complicated for left-wingers is simply that less money is available for the REAL wealth-producers, the private sector, when the lovely government confiscates it via progressive taxes than if we lose some via credit.

Maybe this credit crisis can finally straighten out government. Heck, we will get Republicans in office next year.

And look what happened in Wisconsin! SCOTT WALKER! I am sooo glad I contributed to that hero's campaign. What a brave person.

You mean that it was not clear to you...! So what?

They also don't realize they are being led by the nose by Rove, Ailes, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., etc.

What about those who do not listen to, or watch, the people you have designated as the "enemy" and get branded as being "led by the nose" by these very people they do not see?

You flatter yourself ! No one has attacked you personally. They merely stated and proved that everything you have posted is either 1) false 3) utterly meaningless 4) drivel 5) extremist right wing and/or fascist propaganda. You have posted nothing original, shocking or interesting.

{No one has attacked you personally.}

You are of a big help. I study the mind of Left-wingers, and the angrier they are, the more that gets revealed: The rationales, the deceptions, the obfuscations, the deflections, the convoluted "reasoning" that makes sense only to the ideologue.

Are you the CON or the VOLUTED ? I think you are the CON.

Mishima doesnot give a dam about anything. He is pointless and a waste,

OK, you and the other Left-wingers are willing to accept conclusions based on severely flawed and invalid data.

Revealing, very revealing....

... as I've said before, rational cognitive thought are not given even cursory reflections among the majority of progressives... because if they did, they'd probably suffer gran mal seizures... lol

what is revealing is that every time a Republican wants to refute reality, the data is wrong....but even one person you have labeled liberal/progressive probably has more knowledge of data than an entire room full of Republicans....who generally don't think anyone else is going to call their bluff.

I humbly suggest that the GOP stop posting 'wrong' information.

The only conclusions that I have posted, the only assertions that I have made are based ENTIRELY upon official sources: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Commerce Dept B.E.A.

These are the SAME sources that you will find cited by distinguished economics department like the one at M.I.T., or Harvard or Yale or the University of Houston, UCLA or Stanford! This data is not hidden ---it's PUBLIC and easily accessed by everyone except perhaps liars and morons. Liars, morons and wing nuts have trouble finding their way out of a one room shack.

In other words, its all PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE! How the GOP gets away with lying about it is evidence of the failure of a media that was 'consolidated' in very, very few hands when Ronald Reagan 'de-regulated' the media, rescinded the 'Fairness Doctrine'.

Look it up! If you wish me to educate you, I charge a VERY HIGH FEE! You cannot afford me.

You're right! That's one of the GOP/right wing's favorite ploys! Another favorite wing-nut tactic is 'labeling'. It may their favorite tactic because it's very, very easy and requires no brains.

For years, all a 'gopper' had to do was call his opponent 'liberal, liberal' or 'commie, commie'. It was a fave tactic throughout the right wing because it required absolutely NO INTELLECT whatsoever!

You are absolutely correct! Anyone with a computer can access all the information needed to shatter anything that has ever been said about the economy by Republicans. And this is, in many cases, the official govt data that is cited by the likes of professional economists left and right.

I am talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Commerce Dept B.E.A. Additional sources include distinguish universities like M.I.T. Their 'course-ware' is available for free online! And, if one does not understand some of the advanced economics, M.I.T. even makes available FREE VIDEO instruction in higher math to include Trig and Calculus.

Economics is all about curves, like the phony curve that Laffer drew on a napkin in a Pizza Hut (or so the story goes). It was an entirely HYPOTHETICAL curve which diagrammed the increase in revenues IF (that's the operative word "if") taxes were cut. It never worked out in practice. A depression of two years resulted from Reagan's cuts. Millions were made homeless. Even in 'boomtown' Houston, upper middle class folk were seen living in tents, under bridges and overpasses. They had lost their homes. It was, in fact, the deepest, longest depression since H. Hoover's GREAT DEPRESSION following the crash of '29!

This purely hypothetical curve is said to have inspired and 'justified' the Reagan tax cuts, the same tax cuts that 1) began the flow of wealth upward to what is now, in fact, a ruling elite of just 1 percent (last time I checked); 2) resulted in what was at the time the nation's largest debts and deficits; Reagan TRIPLED the national deficit; 3) impoverished millions who were thrown out of work by what was (at that time) the longest, deepest depression since H. Hoover's 'Great Depression' which was left to a Democrat (FDR) to deal with.

Well said! The endless laissez-faire "trickle down" lies of the right-wing-corporatist party.

They are expert in propaganda lies, truth of the matter is the only thing they are good at is getting their scum elected. They have no real philosophy, or beliefs short of giving everything to the corporates and 1%. They run on their propaganda lies and dirty tricks. they're not a political party anymore, just a marketing company, a K street lobbying house writ big.

Him and his endless mad snake-handler speakin-in-tongues rapturous worship of their senile-paranoid holy-saint-reagan-the mad! The "great" fascist-imperialist-god-president! Oh please for the love of any, and all god(s) don't get him started, the already insanely long blah, blah, blah right-wing-corporatist-fascist Faux Nise channel propaganda troling will never cease! Admittedly it doesn't show any signs of abating now... More trickle down lies that have been shown with the world wide economic Armageddon to be total horse $h!t, but they hold onto it as it was their saints holy-dogma. Like their mad "war on drugs", another mad and worthless right-wing endeavor they'll "stay the course" til the country is utterly reduced to a 3rd world state. Then again they have shown a love of those banana republic fascist "leaders" (their holy-saint was deeply in bed with any number of them). Perhaps it's part of the plan to reduce the country to the one-party-right-wing-corporate-fascist-police-states of amerika.

There is nothing misleading about that data. It is the same data that is cited by EVERY real economist right or left.

Wrong!!! wing nuts think backward! While normal people arrive at conclusions based upon verified or verifiable observations, so-called 'conservatives' work backward from pre-conceived notions or --worse --prejudices.

This can be verified with scientific experiments supervised by qualified psychologists under controlled conditions. MOREOVER, Stanford University psychologists have verified and studied the FACT that 'conservatives' and Republicans have more nightmares and night terrors than do normal people. You can find those studies in scholarly psychological and/or academic publications.

You're right and, interestingly, the 'conservative' in these situations is INVARIABLY wrong and wrong - headed! I often wonder if Homo Sapiens is devolving into two separate species.

In every other instance I agree with you. But --the GOP/right wing nuttery is not expert at propaganda (they always fuck it up) nor are they good liars! Sane folk (like you and I) can always spot their 'dirty tricks', their propaganda and lies. You are absolutely correct about this over-arching point: they are no longer a political party. I will concede that they are a marketing company but even worse --they are a KOOKY CULT of liars and criminals. In many instances (especially with respect to voter fraud) they are a crime syndicate. You can bet that these recent 'attacks' on current are cooked up or coordinated in some way. They don't make sense. Theirs are nuisance posts! They do it to irritate us. It's the ONLY thing at which they have ever succeeded. Pitiful! Just pitiful!

"(especially with respect to voter fraud) they are a crime syndicate."

I would say they're treasonous traitors as much as a crime syndicate, thought that also applies as they are selling the country to the highest bidder (in keeping with their cult of Mammon, which yes I agree with you they are).

It's Idiocracy! I agree!

"what is revealing is that every time a Republican wants to refute reality, the data is wrong"

I did not say they were wrong; the conclusions are based on false premises.

And you do not even want to know how the data are invalid. What has happened is that you like the CONCLUSIONS, so you refuse to even think about the data, the basis, from which they come.

You have passed it on second- or third-hand. You do not want to know how the data were manipulated in the studies that were the most often reported.

"That's one of the GOP/right wing's favorite ploys! Another favorite wing-nut tactic is 'labeling'. It may their favorite tactic because it's very, very easy and requires NO BRAINS whatsoever."

Really?

There are a whole slew of other monikers that Left-wingers use for people who oppose them. Here are a few of the charges to which you may be subjected if Left-wingers take exception:

You are insensitive.
You lack compassion.
You are a racist.
You are a liar.
You are a homophobe.
You are a Bush supporter.
You are a dupe of the right-wing media.
You think what (insert any radio talk show or television host here) tells you to think.

Conservatives label? Heck the Left-wingers cannot even get their own labels correct.

If you support the Tea Party in any form, you are designated as ignorant, racist, an astroturfer, a Kool-Aid drinker, or a hypocrite. Modern Liberals forget the ugly origin of the “Kool-Aid Drinker” charge: It was from the Jamestown massacre, where over 900 people died from drinking Kool-Aid that contained cyanide. They were devotees of a forerunner of Modern Liberals, Jim Jones. Jones was a self-admitted Marxist who felt people can be organized for a Communist revolution through organized religion. It is quite ironic that Modern Liberals apply this nomenclature to those who are the opposite of the first Kool-Aid drinkers.

See? You do not even want to consider it.

Let's look at one thing: Most of this mythical "increasing income gap" is based on a comparison of the supposed "increasing gap" among quintiles into which the population is divided. A very simple question:What % of the population is in each quintile? Do you know THAT much?

WRONG!

"While normal people arrive at conclusions based upon verified observations, so-called 'conservatives' work backward from pre-conceived notions."

WRONG! This very thread shows that it is the Left-wingers who work from conclusions and make the facts fit. I pointed out how the Leftists distorted the Reagan economic record in a post above. I ain't gonna write it again. And I am saying - I choose words carefully - that the dominant studies promoting the putative "increasing income gap" are based on invalid data.

No, the Conservatives point out the truth. And the people listen and understand. This is the reason that Conservatives outnumber Liberals by slightly over 2 to 1.

"Wrong?"

What is wrong? That the question of what % of people are in each quintile? How can asking the % of people in each quintile be "wrong?" Or was it that people died from drinking poisoned Kool-Aid? That is "wrong?" Give me the "right" facts please.

You might include a link to corroborate your apparently corrupt assertions.

Idiocracy - a great movie. However - the correct term is "kakistocracy." It's how the Right has destroyed our government of, by, and for the people.

I'm thinking that Mishima is actually the Reagan resurrected, in fact, a zombie. His response to lenhart is diagnostic. I posted an inflation-adjusted graph of family incomes over the years from the Census Bureau - which Mishima says he is getting his data from - which contradicts completely his statements. The data corroborates, definitively, the increasing income gap which Mishima calls "mythical." And, as a "clever" riposte, Mishima taunts lenhart with a simple question - a fraudulent debating tactic that a sixth-grade debating teacher would call someone down for. You cite data, you don't ask others to do so, or you illustrate your own ignorance. Which Mishima does again and again.

How about YOU give us the facts? Cite your references. Provide links.

A"Links?"

Two points:

1. I study and put things together. There is no one link that I parrot.

2. Even if there were a link, I do not provide sources, data, and links to Left-wingers when they request them. I have given that up. I used to but in every single case, the Leftists conjure up some nonsense to deny it. I remember the precise moment when I decided "no more." The Left-winger said my source was biased. It was the UNITED STATES CENSUS DATA! Not an interpretation, but a link to the direct ".gov" source.

Therefore, I post concepts. Why not answer the question about the qunitiles?

Years ago, I rented "idiocracy." This is the truth: I thought it was so stupid and absurd that I could not stand to watch it. I kept trying, but stopped about 20 or 30 minutes into it. It is like "Beevis and Butthead": Mindless stuff that teenagers and middle school students think is funny. It is OK for a 13 year old, but a reasonably intelligent adult? No way!

{The data corroborates, definitively, the increasing income gap which Mishima calls "mythical."}

You did not read my posts. Start with AGI and what it means. Answer the question about quintiles. I will also refer to what happens to the mean in these studies. Try me, pal.

Looking beyond the absurdity to the metaphor is the only way it is watchable. Otherwise it has a high irritation value.

Post Classification: Deflection with intent to sound sophisticated and well-educated.

Ok - for your benefit, the term quintile refers to a division of an overall data group into five portions of 20% each. Or did you already know that? Basing data interpretation on quintiles can be very misleading on occasion. That's why I posted a link to the XY graph, a more accurate rendition of data that also serves to refute your statements.

By the way, there is a company named Quintiles that I have used to help reduce data from clinical studies I oversaw from time to time. Reference to quintile distributions is useful, but fraught with potential misapplication.

It's always interesting to search out who's paying for the "research," and why... just who were the "studies" for, and on the behalf of whose idological persuasions are they going to massage... which gives me cause to chuckle at the thought of "scientific experiments supervised by qualified psychologists under controlled conditions"... yeah, right!

... what the hell does that mean, controlled conditions?
... and by whose set of standards?.. Theirs?
... It's all a matter of opinion based on a subjective supposition. Acadamia is infamous for postulating a "theory" as fact... when it is anything but, just as progressives do.

Nightmares and night terrors?... Bwahahaha, and you take crap like this seriously?

I'm conservative and a classic liberal, and I sleep well without nightmare and terror... now, am I going to hear the standard progressive accusation it's because I have no conscience?
... or could it be that because I'm a self determining man and have no cause to fear?

In fact ...I am correct.

The facts are verifiable

The following chart shows the effectiveness of a progressive tax system. When the top rates were truly high from 1950 to 1978, American income at all levels grew at about the same pace. But when progressivity was lost in the 80s, the income of the poor began falling, while that of the rich continued growing.

Income Growth by Quintile

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18

Economists have a standard measure of income inequality, called the Gini Index. In this index, the higher the number, the greater the income disparity between the rich and the poor. (0 = perfect equality, 1 = only one person in the economy has all the income.)

Gini Index of Income Inequality3

Before After
Taxes Taxes
1979 0.403 0.352
1980 0.401 0.347
1981 0.404 0.350
1982 0.409 0.359
1983 0.412 0.368
1984 0.413 0.372
1985 0.418 0.381
1986 0.423 0.404
1987 0.424 0.380
1988 0.425 0.384
1989 0.429 0.387
1990 0.426 0.381
1991 0.425 0.379
1992 0.430 0.381

The U.S. economy slowed in 1973 ... The average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers -- about four-fifths of the civilian workforce -- peaked in 1973, and have been falling

Thanks to the late Steven Kangas for having compiled the above data from official govt sources: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Commerce Dept, and the U.S. Census Bureau.

You commit libel when you call me a liar when --in fact --I have posted 1) the truth 2) opinions based upon facts. One can be sued for LIBEL! Think about it.

Homophobe?? You pulled that our of your ass. The topic never even came up! In fact, I am happily married to a woman. Question: why do you shoot your mouth off about stuff that you could not possibly have any knowledge or credibility?

I am a Bush supporter? Not just no but HELL NO!

I have written REAMS on my blog that INDICT Bush who should have been prosecuted for

1) war crimes
2) crimes against humanity
3) and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2441 : US Code - Section 2441 look it up, genius

I am a supporter of the right wing??? That's a knee-slapper!

And --no --I rarely watch TV. I read Aristotle, Plato official govt data with respect to GOP incompetence and criminality and, when I am done with that, I watch vintage movies.

How old are you? 12?

I do not have to 'characterize' Reagan's position whatsoever. The numbers simply speak for themselves. It is a verifiable fact that ONLY the upper quintile benefited from his tax cut of 1982. Again --the numbers are in the public record at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Commerce Dept., the U.S. Census Bureau.

A clue for morons: a QUINTILE means 1/5 I am not surprised that a wing nut would have a problem with basic math that had not the GOP/RIGHT WING trashed public education would have been taught by fourth or fifth grade. There are (duh) five quintiles in a whole.

'Right' facts???? All 'facts' are, by definition, 'right facts' LOL Clue: 'wrong facts' is an oxymoron.

You do not post 'concepts'! You post BS and drivel. You have no 'concept' of concept.

If you think the federal government was 'fiddling' with the GINI indices, prove it!

Who --in the federal bureaucracy --is going to go through reams of print-outs and fudge the numbers and if you think that was the case --PROVE IT!

Cite conclusive evidence and if you cannot do that cite 'probable cause' to begin an investigation.

I challenge you!

Are you saying that the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( a federal agency) is hiring out to private companies and/or lobbyists? If that is your assertion, prove it!

Are you saying that Stanford University (that's the study re: nightmares) is hiring out to political consultants? If so, state your case and prove it! Cite your evidence.

I don't care what 'label' you stick on yourself --just prove, at least support, your utterly baseless accusations.

{Ok - for your benefit, the term quintile refers to a division of an overall data group into five portions of 20% each.}

So, are you saying that 20% of the population is in each quintile? Please be clear. This is a clear question. You are being vague.

You are right, of course.

Much research is based on grants. I met a few of the top grant writers in the field of education-psychology, and they independently said something very interesting: One has to submit grants based on the dominant political philosophy in that area. To think that one can actually get funding for real research is a myth: The government will not give grants in the social sciences based on wanting to get at "truth." It gives grant monies in order to support the prevailing political fads.

So, a grant-writer knows that even if he submits a grant that aligns with the fads, if he finds out something that is not politically correct, he will most certainly not get a grant the next time.

So, all one has to do is imagine the pressures this puts on the person who wants to write a grant.

{I'm conservative and a classic liberal, and I sleep well without nightmare and terror...}

Same here. Even if we wind up losing, we can have clear consciences, knowing we are on the right side, the side of Liberty, responsibility, true justice and morality.

By saying that the data are not valid is not calling you a liar.

By saying that you came to the wrong conclusions is not calling you a liar.

To say my conclusions are correct is not calling you a liar.

But you know this, of course.

{Homophobe?? You pulled that our of your ass. The topic never even came up!}

Interesting choice of words.

That asside (pun), you have distorted and misrepresented what I wrote yet again. I implore you to stop or disclose the reason you keep doing this. I wrote about Left-wingers and the terms that they use, the brands they like to apply to people.

I think that if people do not take every post personally, the discussions will be much better.

{I am a Bush supporter?? LOL LOL NO}

Please read the post again. It provides examples of what Left-wingers call others. Please stop distorting what i write.

I hate to do this because left-wingers always reject data, always. But I went to the census data and it presented income in 2010 adjusted dollars.

Pre-Reagan years, the 2nd and 3rd quintiles (middle and lower middle)

1980 $10,700 & 17,700

Reagan years:
1982 $12,100 & 20,100
1984 13,500 & 22,400
1986 14,800 & 24,900
1988 16,300 & 27,300
1990 18,000 & 29,800

These are the 20-40th%ile and the middle, the 40-60th %ile.

I deliberately left out the bottom for very specific reasons. I can explain if any Left-winger wants.

Now, go ahead and do the leftist thing: Conjure up something to deny the data, the USGOVERNMENT CENSUS DATA.

"A clue for morons: a QUINTILE means 1/5 I am not surprised that a wing nut would have a problem with basic math"

You and your cohort have not yet answered the question clearly. What percent or proportion of the population is in each quintile? I chose my words carefully and asked a very clear question. Why is it that you and your cohort dance and avoid it? Can't you commit yourself to a clear answer? Why are you dodging it, if it is so simple? Just give me a clear answer, please. Something definitive, something clear. I suspected you would answer it with a question. Let's see if you can answer it. Please read the wording. I was clear. Can you answer it?

No, it is the Left-wingers refuse to deal with the concepts.

Well, I do not go around on the different threads recommending the variation of that movie, "Idiotracy."

I did not say the federal government was fiddling with it. I simply presented some concepts and said the data on which the conclusions were based are invalid as used. Why is it that you cannot understand that carefully worded statement? This is about the SIXTH time I repeated it.

Reality cannot be refuted. Reality is simply what 'is'! Kant called it by the label: NOUMENA.

Other distinguished philosophers (including Nobel Prize winnders) have observed and stated that only meaningful STATEMENTS about reality can be proven to be true or false.

Now --GOP 'statements' can be categorized. Some are just false and if they are false as a result of an intention to deceive, they are lies. Some statements are just meaninless doggeral and cannot be proven true of false. Let's call them UTTER BUNKUM! There are at least two types of UTTER BUNKUM ---meaningless drivel and delusions derived from psychotic episodes, nightmares, suppressed destires.

Some statements are 'true' and can be proven to be true. One rarely hears statements of that sort from the GOP. I suggest that M.I.T. conduct a study of a large sample of conservative/GOP statements about the economy. It would be interesting to see how many can be proven to be either true or false and how many are just bullshit and meaningless. A wager: among the right wing inclined one is sure to find an abnormally high percentage of statements are simply and utterly meaningless. I would suggest this project be taken up by a PhD candidate. I would make great fodder for a thesis.

If you believe data was manipulated by the good, federal employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics EVEN as R. Reagan was Prez, then you do them a disservice unless you can prove your libelous statement. You should apologize to them.

No --you are wrong! Conservatives begin with a prejudice and work backward. You do it on this very thread. You state assumptions as if they were fact. They're not and you have NEVER, EVER proven anything that you have said. I think you need to get professional help.

Personally --I have NEVER caught a 'conservative' in the act of telling the truth unless there was something in it for him.

He has never posted anything that could be verified and, I would wager that even if he did he would not do so knowing that he would be proven wrong.

I do not believe that you do study and put things together. Almost everything you said here is either wrong or it is a lie either by you or from the person or persons that you parrot.

No --you are not doing that for 'my' benefit. It's the way its done, clyde! No one but you has a problem with that --not govt employees, not statisticians who do it for think tanks, university studies and government reports. I am surprised that a genius like you did not know that.