Great point, Lebowski. The Fiscal Cliff impasse, particularly as it relates to the middle class tax cuts, is surely affecting retail sales this season. I'm going to make sure I bring this up every chance I get. The GOP is willing to tank the economy to keep it's backers (members of The 1% Club) happy.

Consider why Walmart will not Tweet Boehner with #My2k. It is bigger than one season of sales. They are bought into the anti Union, job out sourcing economy. The GOP is their meal ticket. This is Boehner will not take any threats from the business community seriously, even if anyone does threaten him.

As for the Dems- Whatever happened to "Jobs Jobs Jobs"?

It is utterly absurd that Dems won this election and the country is gripped by a GOP meme that the key challenge facing the country is government spending, and the tonic the country needs is austerity.

It is sadly pathetic to watch pundits and political players attempt to turn the metaphor around. George Lakoff commented on this two days ago, making it amply clear that political commentators simply have no grasp of the literature of politics. Of course to them, people like Lakoff are engaging in psycho babble.

.

Brilliant. The country's imagination is gripped by a false spectacle, and a false challenge while the daily tragedy grinds on and on and on- high unemployment and the 1% extracting more and more money from the middle class.

All while we watch the false spectacle.

And MSNBC must "report" on it right? Because it is what everyone else is reporting on. That is what gets the ratings.

It is utterly absurd that Dems won this election and the country is gripped by a GOP meme that the key challenge facing the country is government spending, and the tonic the country needs is austerity.

And, that being so, we're likely to see democracy in action: as Mencken put it, "good and hard."

Or at least, as long as Obama doesn't totally cave -- because it's looking very much as though anything less than 98% is going to result in the whole "cliff" shebang, plus a default on the debt.

http://www.armstrongmywire.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA2VG4A00%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011

This seems to be the logical answer to these subversives in the GOP House, under John Boehner.

Let's face it, the Republicans care only about protecting the wealthiest Americans and nothing for the working class or the poor.

John Mess: Obama proposed an infrastructure bank and some stimulous spending, so he did not forget about jobs jobs jobs. Your tone suggests that this "false spectacle" is bipartisan, but the facts don't bear that out. Also your tirades against MSNBC for covering the "false spectacle" are specious and disengenuous IMHO. Yes, it's a dog and pony show, revoltingly so. But my Scooby-sense tells me it's the Republicans who are responsible for this un-seriousness, and the more you call them out on this the better. Cheers...

You refer to Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Here is what the Koch brothers bought- a GOP representative who ran unopposed in Kansas, winning 100% of the vote. In this testimony in the finance committee last February (youtube), Geithner was laughing at his idiotic "adolescent" approach to the economy- repeatedly ripping devastating holes in "Dr. Huelskamp's" premises. Geithner begins openly laughing at him at 2:50, and refers to his understanding of economics as adolescent at 4:25. One wonders what Huelskamp's goal for the "questioning" was- his fillibuster of Geithner seemed directed at making some sound bites for the media.

This is democracy? 100% of the vote?

I reject the urbane humor of the Mencken reference. This is what when extremist voters in low turnout elections put these kinds of representatives backed by monied interests in power.

We are certainly getting it good and hard, but this is what we get with too little, not too much democracy.

John Messerly, #1.6,

It is important to remember that we are dealing with a group of subversives who just voted to throw the disabled and handicapped under the bus.

They don't mind shaming us in front of the world. How can they be trusted?

CEO's of the wealthiest companies are currently stalking the halls of congress, spreading fear about an artificial "cliff", as a ruse to cut Social Security and Medicare.

We don't have a Democracy. We have a broken government. The election did not change that. The majority is still being held hostage to the will of the minority; a minority which sees black helicopters circling the USA.

#1.5

Agreed Ledowsky

People can not go by the tv talking heads , they are geared towards talking points , THAT is just the nature of modern day media , and they are not a source of solid knowledge , i e just chatter

It is up to dem voters to contact their DC reps to get our agenda passed you can not look to the media for this , the more your local gop reps here from the voters , the more they will realize they are taking on the working class in an up hill battle

The talking points media will not cover an entire obama speech or even an entire interview for that matter , when you see what obama and the dems are really saying in full , they make the point that this about jobs and a strong footing for the middle class , over more tax cuts , gutting the budget , and not passing any infrastructure projects like the gop are cackling for

They're on their last leg, their last straw, their last penny, Even if you put all those brains together, you're gonna end up a buck short and a dollar late. They have amnesia so they actually think we do also. They may as well resign, before we kick them out.

Let's not have such thin skin about criticism- I do not question the sincerity of the MSNBC pundits, producers and business managers. I am pointing out the constraints of the sea they must swim in. Knowing that MSNBC is providing a vital service unlike that of any other cable news network does not mean they or their audience should not keep raising the bar. That's how we achieve the best we can. It does no one any service to attempt to delegitimatize criticisms about the propensity of the MSM to descend into spectacle or the extreme reluctance to perform analysis at Lakoff's level, or frankly to go into sustained and meaningful depth on national economics, the Afghanistan war, or the Climate Crisis even on the long form shows like UP. Sure, the trouble is that reality is nuanced, the concepts in play are complex, and the subjects require the rigor of focused, disciplined attention that many viewers simply are not motivated to muster during their "leisure time". It is much more gratifying to treat news as sports.

Regarding the stimulus- Remember the ads Rachel did with the Hoover Dam and the windmill farm? She was talking big. The $50 billion stimulus that Obama proposed in 2010 was pathetically small then and this retread version is pathetically small now. Too small to do any good. Don't believe me, just read what Krugman had to say about it back then. It's no less true today. Christina Romer had it right about the size of the stimulus needed in 2009, but as Suskind amply recorded in his book "Confidence Men", Summers and Geithner sidelined her. She stated she felt like a piece of meat (source) and was quickly was ejected as an economic advisor. This was little different from how Brooksley Born was treated by establishment economic insiders who ran Clinton White House policy.

Anyway, when it was clear that Romer was right and that a second stimulus was needed, it was too late. The GOP had taken the House.

$50 billion. What a fricking joke. Cutting the top marginal rates, but not putting capital gains or a financial transaction tax which would make Wall Street pay for the mess it made of Main street. One bill with this idea caused a freak out by Wall Street, because they understood what it would do to the lucrative high frequency trading that introduces exceptional volatility in the markets. Why why why exclude these proposals from the initial offer?

With $500 billion of stimulus both in physical and intellectual infrastructure, paid for with capital gains and FTT tax, that would make this a jobs bill.

But that didn't happen. "Jobs Jobs Jobs" has vanished from the national agenda.

RE: Mencken

He was not the only one capable of cynical humor, John.

The point here is that our "democratically elected" House is about to give the citizenry what they claim (in polls) to want: reduced deficits, and (at least many of us) no more borrowing. After all, as we have been taught to believe, Keynes was a total fraud.

So we get austerity, good and hard, come spring. And assuming that Obama doesn't try too hard to save us from ourselves by finessing the debt limit or caving in, we'll discover that Social Security, Medicare, military contracts, air traffic control, etc. are a big part of that "wasteful spending" that we hate so much.

Which, long term, will be a good thing. I would rather avoid the lesson, though.

Note: I don't include payment on existing debt because there is a very strong argument that default is the one option that the Administration doesn't have, given the Fourteenth.

Anyone with a shread of a clue knows we need more than the crumb Obama is trying for as far as stimulus. The context matters. The only reason I see Obama offering anything is to get this charade over and done. Now is not the time to go for something big, it's the time to get the tax rates and debt ceiling taken care of.

Let me recommend once again the $10,000 to every household with a tax return. For some people this would be a life changing event. And it's doable... just a trillion dollars. It would work.

While I'm at it... remind me again what stimulus is supposed to do?

It's meant to take care of the mess created by W and the repub congress.

JM @ 1.10 - Agreed. My primary concern today is Pres. Obama's persistent use of the deficit reduction meme in discussing economics and the paltry $50B he proposed for stimulus. He wants to raise revenues by taxing the top 2%, but my fear is that he will waste those revenues to "pay the debt," which does NOTHING to aid the economy.

Wait a mo'... Isn't stimulus supposed to stimulate business, i.e. profits?

Exactly. To stimulate the business of individuals selling their labor for profits at a middle class salary.

No problem if the business owner takes their percentage, so long as such activity does not result in a net reduction in the purchasing power of the US economy. Any more extraction would result in the slow destruction of the consumer economy. The government has a responsibility to insure that excessive extraction does not occur. This is an issue of national security.

That's the red line simply on economic grounds. As a progressive, I would assert that middle class purchasing power of the US economy should grow at the same rate as GDP. Anything profits beyond that going to the 1% should be subject to confiscatory taxation.

How does that sound.

You're kidding me, right? I don't think you understand how the world works.

Labor is like a bunch of people standing around with nothing to do - until someone arrives with an idea and the money to pursue it - needing help. It's the same for rocket scientists and manual labor.

How does that sound?

You are talking about junior high school textbook stuff. Perhaps you might like to branch out and get your head around some concepts for grown ups.

Do you understand the notion of national purchasing power and why reduction of this pool of wealth is bad?

Let me look up "national purchasing power". Nope, nothing about it on Google. National income possibly? Wages profits and taxes? Please elucidate.

The net wealth of consumers in the US devoted to the consumption of goods or services.

Henry Ford decided to pay his employees more so that the purchasing power of US consumers would go up, thereby increasing economic activity.

Are you representing that Henry Ford could power an entire nation by paying his factory guys a slightly higher wage? Of course that isn't possible. It is no more possible than the payroll tax cut fooling people into thinking "happy days are here again".

Meanwhile maybe you should consider that Ford's employees wouldn't be getting anything, if Ford hadn't started the business first. They were standing around or employed elsewhere, until Ford showed up with an idea and the money to pursue that idea - needing help. Business always comes first, then jobs and tax revenue. i.e. trickle down.

Economics isn't rocket science. Trying to complicate buying, selling, taxing, and earning, when speaking to people who have to deal with real finance everyday... is just the mark of someone who doesn't want to communicate clearly. As in baffle them with ...

If you want to know what stimulus does just ask Paul Ryan. We all need stimuli, everything in moderation, everything. We're not shopping with it, we're paying the insurance companies and the ever growing stack of bills we have. No more bills. They need to get prices down as low as they can, if they really want us to shop. If you sell electric cars for as much as a volkwagon bug in the 60's, then we're on the right track. If you open up more vegetable stands and fish stands then we're on the right road. If someone smiles at you, then we're on the right road, that's an important one....Smile. Fake it until you make it.

Shooter242 #1.23

Henry Ford understood that he would have a better market for his cars and his income would increase if he paid his workers enough to afford them. The current 'captains of industry' understand that if they can convince companies to borrow to the limit and give the money to THEM then they will have more no matter what happens to the company or the people it employed. Henry Ford created wealth and the country prospered - 100% of the country. Today's 'captains' collect wealth and the 1% prospers while the country struggles. This is how the Bourbons in France eventually lost their heads to Robespierre.

Those with the money should look to Henry Ford and start using the money to create wealth again.

So Shooter, you appear now to understand what national purchasing power means.

In aggregate, when employers like Ford increase salaries, they increase the size of the consumer economy and thereby the demand for their products. In aggregate, if they starve that pool of wealth, say by outsourcing jobs, then they destroy the source of their increased wealth.

If austerity reduces the pool of consumer purchasing power, then the economy slows down.

People buying the austerity theme have good intentions about wanting to make people be more responsible with finances. It seems completely counter intuitive to them that what a government must do in an economic crisis is spend, not belt tighten. The correctness of their intuitions seem like elementary business principle, and that only an egg head economist would think something contrary to their intuitions.

Intuitions are good things. But we are a nation of science, and intuitions must be backed up with facts. The data shows that time and again when countries use austerity measures they send their economies back into recession. When they use Keynesian stimulus, they return to GDP growth.

The good news is that your intuitions can lead you out of the hole you are in, Shooter. Think of the national purchasing power as if it were a river. The companies along the river take water out in the form of sales to consumers, and they put it back in, in the form of wages and lower price goods. Now this is not a socialist program where company owners are forced into a zero sum where they must put back as much as they take out. The reason why this is so is that this is not a lake- it is a river into which new wealth perpetually flows. This means the company owners can extract more than they replace, and deliver returns to investors and so on. Skeptics on the left tend not to buy this, because they often fall into their own intuitive traps that likes to think of economics as zero sum. Examples of new wealth at the headwaters of the purchasing power river: Electricity flows into solar cells for free. A farmer gets much more wealth out of a crop than he puts in because the energy and chemicals assembled by the plant do that for free. So the long and short of this is that small businesses understand the wealth creators are the customers coming to their store, and they won't hire more without seeing them show up. Worker-Consumers won't spend more until who they regard as the wealth creators- the business owners offer them jobs or give higher salaries. Both the workers and the business owners are wealth creators.

Anyway, the national resource is that river. When that capital stopped flowing in the 2008 meltdown, the government stepped in and restored river levels with massive spending. There are many ways to keep that river level high- some like defense spending that I would disagree with on other grounds- but so long as they prevent the levels from steadily declining, then we are on solid economic ground. Certainly, this must be done without mortgaging the future, but examination shows that this concern is not supported by the facts.

Hope this helps.

Absolutely right! "Trickle down" is a lie and the opposite of what actually happens. The middle class and poor spend money, that money goes up to the rich who then, for lack of imagination, monopolize and speculate with their excess cashes.

The one percenters owning 10 cars each pales economically to the 99% owning one car each.

Oh for the love of all that is holy... Where do you think customers get money? Answer, a job. Where do jobs come from? Business.

Perhaps you all should consider that business is the source of jobs and tax revenue? As in trickle down?

We need quality service and goods, we need our T.V. to last and our vacuum cleaners to be able to last for a lifetime. Stop selling us crappy clothes and crappy products. We can't afford to waste our good hard-earned money on junk. The Clothes were so much better when they were manufactured here in the States. The Brady Bunch style of clothing is just ridiculous. All those bright flowery tops, yuk! I think the best era for clothes was in the 1950's. You just can't find a decent halter dress anymore. What happened to all those lingerie sets with the fluffy slippers, We need those back, if you want us to dress like the real women that we are. What happened to gauze and embroidered tops? Orange and lime green are the worst colors.We are all Jobs Chapter 18.

Shooter242 #3.2

The problem is that more and more of those 'businessmen' are more concerned with CONCENTRATING wealth than EXPANDING it. When the tax breaks are targeted to give CUSTOMERS more to buy with and make it easier to create new ideas to SERVE THOSE CUSTOMERS the economy will expand. If the tax breaks are targeted to those who grab them and create jobs ELSEWHERE or stash them in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland the economy suffers. If the superpac crowd used the millions they spent on this election to create American jobs the might have won the election by getting votes the old fashioned way - earning them. These people know these things, they are just too greedy and too selfish to care.

Joseph that line was old the first 150 times I've heard it. Did the Stimulus cure the problem? No. Did the payroll tax cut get the economy going? No.

Where do jobs come from? Not consumers. They come from business. Where does the "demand" money from? Jobs from business. Where does the tax revenue come from to pay for Govt programs? Business.

It's commonly known as trickle down.

All of that works when those with wealth DO 'trickle down' instead of hoarding the wealth. Businesses have the most cash on hand in history but it is not being invested because they do not see CUSTOMERS for their products. Right now customers need the buying power FIRST in order to increase DEMAND for goods and services.

Sorry Joe, but those with buying power are hoarding it. Business and consumers. It's a natural reaction to all the uncertainty surrounding a freshly elected regime. When business thinks the risk of losing money is greater than possibility of making more... it hoards. When consumers are pay off bills and worry about their job, they hoard too.

Believe it or not, you can't just fool people into thinking happy days are here again.

Everything you describe is true but there is a difference this time. This time the GOAL is to hoard as much wealth as possible. When 99% of us pay off bills the money goes to businesses who put it in their bank accounts and pay their suppliers and the money goes round and round creating commerce. When Bain Capital gets their money they stash it, much of it overseas, and commerce ends. This is their idea of success and it has ruined thriving businesses and destroyed communities all across the country. The Bain Capital crowd then has the temerity to DEMAND MORE in tax breaks from the government - to collect more wealth to stash and end more commerce. If the government told Henry Ford during World War II that his contribution to the war effort was to take a tax cut he would have said "Are you NUTS!? If that got out I would NEVER sell another car in the US and I wouldn't blame ANYONE!" Today, DURING A WAR, the successors get a tax cut and DEMAND MORE. This must change and if that is class warfare then let us have the fight now so our children can know peace.

Joe your version of what happens to money isn't how it really works. There isn't a fixed amount of money which gets smaller, when Bain moves money overseas. Consider that banks create money via the fractional reserve system. Govt creates money every via an arrangement with the Fed which creates money out of thin electronic air.

More to your point, when Bain moves money overseas commerce doesn't end. Bain still buys, sells, pays bills, just like always. If it puts money in a savings account the money is lent out creating more money.

I'm thinking you're pissed that Romney pays capital gains rates not income tax rates. The truth is that it doesn't matter what he pays, unless you're in it for revenge. Think about it, if Romney retired tomorrow, how would your life change? It wouldn't. For that matter if all the Clinton rates arrived, Romney, Buffet, and the other hedge fund types won't pay a penny more than they have.

The best revenge they say is living well. I suggest you do that and not get too worked up about who pays what. At least until they come for you.

Everything you say is true about money IF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE IT USED IT THAT WAY. When is the last time someone from the Bain Capital crowd invested in building a new factory? No, the people with the wealth are holding on to it because that is their GOAL, and when they hold on to it instead of investing it commerce suffers, and when commerce suffers everything dependent on it suffers like public schools, roads and bridges. We have the technology, brains, resources and manpower to solve our energy and environmental problems but there the financing sits in corporate and private coffers collecting dust. The 1% have theirs and say 'Just do what we did and you can be here too.' except they did not CREATE wealth, they just COLLECTED wealth from others. Doing it the way they did it will only put us at each other's throats. No, the culture must change or the 1% will go the way of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette because the rest of us will literally have nothing left to lose.

mindc, #4,

They are breaking our government. It's pretty clear that the American people, except for the upper 2%, mean absolutely nothing to these intransigent GOP members of our congress.

What was the point of the election? The majority still has no say and are still being held hostage to the minority! That is not a Democracy! The T-party is still up to their dirty tricks to keep the government from working.

And we pay these people to work for the good of the country! What a joke!

Is going over the cliff whats best for ALL americans???? Is going over the cliff good for America???? If the Repubs adamantly oppose tax increases, does the President have the power to avoid going over the cliff??? So how then, is it inevitable??? Is the President in control or not??? I would hope he does what is best for everyone. Isnt that what leaders do????Obama won the election, therefore he is our leader. He can avoid the fiscal cliff. If we go over the cliff, it is ultimately his decision. Will our leader, lead us over the cliff????? He, personally has nothing to lose. WHat do the american people have to lose???? Lets see what kind of leader we have elected. He should avoid the cliff at all costs and do what is best for the people. Just vote out the republican house majority in 2014 and then he can have total control again. If we go over the cliff, the president cannot blame the republicans because he has the power to avoid the cliff. Only an idiot would believe that he does not have the power to avoid the cliff.

You mean back-asswards, don't you?

Actually, I think it's bass-ackwards. :-D

Yes, Day I got you. However, WE the PEOPLE have an obligation to stay engaged and let these politicians know that WE are watching and they will pay a price for their obstructionism! And therein is the rub - while the GOTP got shellacked they obviously feel safe enough with their redistricting that they are still only being responsive to the needs of their 2% pimps, period!

Frankly, it's time that WE all do our part and make them feel the heat within their districts! If WE have to boycott them locally, then so be it, but they need to know that WE are watching, WE are not happy with their performance, and that should they continue - well 2014 is right around the corner! The only problem with that is that the sheeple must be awakened enough to let the light of reality/truth inside their brains enough so that they see exactly who these traitors are really working for!

DAY, #6,

The majority cannot govern even though we won the election. The majority is still being held hostage to the will of the T-Party minority. This is a broken government. The election was futile. They do not accept that the people do not want what they offered. Two more years of this is what we are looking at.

It's enough to make you want to tear out your hair.

As long as there are folks who vote the five 'Gs' - god, gays, guns, gender and genes (race) - instead of investing a few minutes to discern which candidate has ideas that would actually improve their lot in life, nothing will change. We'll keep getting McConnells, Boners, Cantors, Grahams, etc...

Two more years of this is what we are looking at.

And it might almost be worth it if the public would learn from the experience.

Frankly, I'm pleased and somewhat surprised that they weren't totally snowed by the last two-to-four years of McConnell's strategy of sabotaging the government and then blaming it on the n****r.

Well, the public learned a lesson from 1929 that lasted forty years! I'll settle for a lesson that last twenty.

Yes, it still is Day # 6. According to Genesis. Day number 7 is just around the corner, Tomorrow never comes. The 3 6's are just the Geri- curls on the foreheads of the Roman politicians. E tu Brute.

Why do they hate our nation so much?

Perhaps you should read Paradise Lost for the answer to that question:

"Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven."

Thanks D.C. I've already read it, and have a 4 vol. 2nd press publication of Milton's work. I just didn't have the allusion in my mind to offer what so brilliantly you have! -Kevo

DC, #7.1 I love that work by Milton, and how appropriate!

The teapubs have fallen so far off the track they won't even listen to the people they are fighting for.

Salmonelie, #9,

I have never seen anything like this, myself. I have done a great deal of reading, however, and I believe it may have gotten this bad in the mid-sixties when Lyndon Johnson tried to get the Southern states to vote for the Civil Rights Bill. That got very ugly as the South did not want the Civil Rights Act to pass. Racism has always been driven by the Southern states, and still is.

Yet, the government has never been utterly broken in the way it is now, due to the intransigence of the Republican T-Party in the Congress. These people were literally hand picked and installed in our Congress for the sole purpose of destroying President Obama. A great deal of money was spent by the extreme right-wing billionaires like Koch, in order to make Obama a one term president.

And I thought that they did not believe in Keynesian economics. How could cutting excess spending on military hardware crash the whole economy?

I've always been a supporter of the military, but their spending is out of control, getting worse, and the crap they are buying doesn't work. I'm tired of hearing that my tax money is buying fighter jets that try to kill their pilots, or are incapable of working with our existing planes, or ships that leak so badly that their machinery is corroding and is burning out their engines. I was happy to hear Tom Coburn on Morning Joe today say that the military is the biggest source of waste in our government, and could easily absorb at least $40 to 50 billion in cuts. Unfortunately, he is a pretty lonely voice for the repubs right now, but at least it shows that some of them are finally seeing that defense should not be a sacred cow.

Dems have to stop feeding the military over spending , we do not get a really big bang for our buck , we are 20 years past figuring out we are throwing money down a bottomless pit , a lot of that cash goes straight into gop reelection coffers

Cut military spending and send it directly to infrastructure and education spending , problem solved

Which is why I think that sequestration may be the best way to get the defense cuts that are needed. Very, very few repubs will even think about defense cuts, and too many dems are afraid of appearing to be weak if they vote to cut defense. Just today, Aviation Week is reporting that the USAF's procurement budget for "black" progams in next year's budget is $17 billion, which is greater than the "white" budget for planes, spacecraft and missiles. None of that money has meaningful oversight, and yet it is equal to the entire NASA budget. And that is just the USAF, folks. Let's remember that various intelligence agencies, from CIA to DIA to DARPA to NSA and beyond all have black budgets, some of them much higher than the USAF's, and there is so little transparency that few, if any, inside or outside the government know exactly how much is spent on those programs. Yet the repubs tell us that the REAL problem is the person who lost their job and is getting unemployment and food stamps, the retiree who receives social security after paying into the program for 50 years, the veteran in a wheelchair getting medicaid, the elderly grandmother who depends on medicare for her lifesaving medicine each month. If it weren't so sick and twisted, it would make a great Monty Python skit.

Patango, #11.3 Yes, it is vitally important to cut our insane military spending. It has been out of control for a long time, thanks to the GOP. We are buying things no one in the military needs! The lobbyists have very deep pockets for the whores in Washington, especially on defence.

It is a lucrative business. Both our founding fathers and President Eisenhower had it right: Beware the military industrial complex.

Eight - Have members of Congress punch time clocks with a camera set up to make sure THEY are punching the clock, and they get paid by the hour.

Nine - They don't receive any retirement benefits until they actually retire and they are 65 or older.

Ten - They are not allowed to campaign until one year from the date of their next election.

Signed. I think it's a great idea.

Wouldn't it be better to adjust it to the per-capita GDP?

Thank you, Joan.

A good possible point. However, in most years the difference is but .25%. Except for 2009 when the per capita GDP decreased by 2.22%, which was almost 2% lower than the CPI had it. Can you say depression for 2009? Why is this economic catastrophe still called the "great recession"?

David Semans,

Not sure of your age, but I found the recession of '80-'82 far worse than this one. Unemployment was over 10% also, but inflation was north of 10% and interest rates were in the teens. I got a state loan for my first house at 10.9% and thought it was a bargain because the market was around 15%. 2008 was a recession, a bad one...but probably on par with '80-'82 if you look at all the statistical data and not just the pieces that prove your point.

A good possible point. However, in most years the difference is but .25%

That adds up. The point being that the median income and average income have been diverging. Pegging the minimum wage to the per-capita income will help stop that slide.

As for the drop in GDP during recessions, that can be handled by applying a ratchet to the minimum wage.

The Hydra thy name is Mogadishu.

J & F's Dad: your example is not a digression. This article/thread is about growing the economy. The Republicans' claim that taxing the rich will take money out of the economy is false. When the rich park their money in the Cayman Islands or other foreign tax havens, they take money out of the economy. When companies invest in their employees here in America, the companies make more money. Your example proves your point.

So? I do not get your point. How does this relate to what I said? What is Accenture and what kind of federal and state consulting do they do?

The point that I am making is that the claim that taxing the rich takes money out of the economy is false and that in some cases at least not taxing the rich, those who are sending their money abroad, takes money out of the U.S. economy.

When Romney boubht a $40,000.00 Audi made in Slovakia, he created jobs in Slovakia; not in Michigan.

Because, Kay, repubs claim that tax cuts boost the economy and bring in more income than they cost. The fact that all studies examining that assertion have proven it to be disastrously wrong doesn't seem to bother the right. Facts, you know.