So … what specifically will Democrats do to bring down the cost of fuel (crude oil, natural gas… Mike

Before his selection in 2001, Bush used to claim that his friendship with the Saudis would keep gas prices low. That only seems to be in effect before elections, otherwise excess profits are the oil-boyz game. When gas prices were rising abnormally for Clinton, he released some oil reserves and prices dropped pdq.

Ask the average person what they know about CPI and they’ll probably wonder if its a different version of CSI. Jay

I’m sure guys like you work hard to make that so. However, employment was better, the worker participation rate was higher, poverty was decreasing, and stocks were higher even after the crash. The Bush economy is fueled by a housing bubble which could have more drastic effects when it’s over, and debt. Debt, bigtime.

…They’re keeping it all to themselves, aren’t they?… fd10801

Yes, they are. Productivity increases did not lead to pay increases but corporate profits
and CEO pay increased dramatically.
…Strong productivity gains and subdued wage growth boosted before-tax profits to 11.6% of national income in the fourth quarter of 2005, the biggest share since the summer of 1966. See full story.
For all of 2005, before-tax profits totaled $1.35 trillion, up from $1.16 trillion in 2004 and just $767 billion in 2001.
Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that’s the lowest share for labor income since 1966….
Try reading fact-based articles: it opens a whole new world of truth over GOP faith-based articles.

Not officially, no. I just wanted to know what you were talking about.

So … what specifically will Democrats do to bring down the cost of fuel (crude oil, natural gas specifically) and the cost of refining crude oil? All I have heard is pie-in-the-sky talk about “alternative energy” and the usual doomed-to-fail schemes of windfall profits taxes and price controls.

Likewise, could someone explain how elevated fuel costs are Bush’s fault? What could have been done to keep fuel costs down?

If elevated fuel cost is the problem and Democrats supposedly have a “new direction” for America, then let’s hear it.

Cavuto Poll

Link

As George Carlin might say, “Holy jumping fuckin’ shitballs!”

Oliver, the largest segment of the economic growth in the 90′s driven by the tech sector, much of which was not supported by any of the fundamentals.

but people felt the economy was doing well – and its more than just gas prices – repetition be darned.

That’s the whole point Oliver. People ‘felt’ the economy was doing well. It’s the reason why they took the money they had in 401K’s and dumped it all into tech stocks. It’s the reason why people at Enron and Worldcomm were dumping the money they had right back into the company. Everything ‘felt’ right.

That doesn’t mean it was right.

The experts who run the polls say that gas prices today contribute largely to the perception held by a majority of the public that the economy isn’t doing well. It’s easy to see why. When they get that electric bill in the mail or they have to pay $2.80 for gasoline, its something tangible that they can see. Ask the average person what they know about CPI and they’ll probably wonder if its a different version of CSI.

Where does it show that? I don’t see any of that stuff on PBen’s link.

It looks like they’re spending money on things that other people get wages to make, it looks like they’re consuming goods that allow small businesses to thrive, and it appears that their earnings plump up Pension Plans, but they’re not fooling you, eh, PBen?

They’re keeping it all to themselves, aren’t they?

MWa – ah – ah – ah – ah – ah – ah – ah!

Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

“Well, we’ve upped productivity, so let’s throw the the profits into a raise for the employees, so no one else — management, shareholders — gets anything.”

Why is the stock market the end all and be all of measuring prosperity (as witness, Oliver’s interminable supply of graphs several years ago),until it achieves record highs for output?

Then it’s back to wages for the bad news on Bush.

I know, I know, Clinton’s Presidency was the Golden Age — I think even coffee tasted better — but come on, if he gets credit for a good economy, then so should President Bush.

The point is there isn’t a corresponding rise in wages for the average American linked to the 12.5% growth in GDP and the 16.6% increase in productivity.

“average Median wage” is just as meaningless. As the number of people with lower wages increase, the AMW will drop.

If there is only one wage increase above the median wage, and many below it, the AMW will drop.

There is no way that the growth in GDP has not been reflected in worker’s wages — either in discretionary spending, or lower prices — it is there.

Stop putting several statistics in the same sentence, and pretending they are related.

That’s like putting 51 women wearing perfume in a room with 49 men wearing no cologne or aftershave, and then saying the average person in the room is wearing perfume.

Not that you made much of an argument about average wages anyway”

“average individual wages” is a meaningless term. Take any two people: If one person becomes unemployed, average wages drop by half — until he gets another job!

That growth in GDP has not been reflected in worker’s wages.