Redstate

Including REAL (after inflation) average hourly wages.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Please provide links for your "data".

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

" Average weekly earnings rose by 4.0 percent, seasonally adjusted, from September 2005 to September 2006. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings increased by 2.2 percent. Before adjustment for seasonal change and inflation, average weekly earnings were $571.89 in September 2006, compared with $549.86 a year earlier."

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I'm worried about the deficit, thanks very much.

But the rest? Give due where it's due. The tax cuts, accompanied by a sound monetary policy (thank the Reagan and Bush appointees for that), have softened the post 90s bubble crash and resulting in solid growth for the last six years.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm fine with having some of these provisions sunset out. We can't afford them with the war (and all). But the rest of your conclusions? Silliness. Real wages have historically lagged in a recovery, and they are now on the rise.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Not the internet stocks that had no real value.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Has any Democrat in history had a $248B (or higher) deficit?

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

NT

Four years ago if I got laid off (a real possibility at the time) I might not have been able to find another job, for starters. The economy was lousy. We were in the midst of a recession that started in 2000 and was exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks. You can go ahead and continue to spew your democrat talking points though... whatever makes you happy. I'm sure they can always find some statistic, as meaningless as necessary, that you can harp on.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Wow, did you read my post?

I supported and support Bush and his tax cuts. But there are some serious problems that need addressing--not with socialism, but with approaches that exploit the remarkable power of the free market.

The rich get richer while the middle class gets poorer. You never hear that kind of lingo from a Democrat, oh yea, except for every time there is a Republican in the White House.

Apparently you didn't read mine though. To say the middle class are not any better off than 4 years ago is to be living in a fantasy world comprised of nothing but Democrat talking points. If you were actually looking for more ridiculous things to say, it would be pretty difficult to come up with one.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I think he was right that the middle class is not better off despite rising incomes, but I think that is due to a staggering increase in consumer debt and a negative savings rate for the first time since the Depression. Despite what Paul Krugman may say, not all of that can be blamed on the administration. A lot of it is simply due to people's desire to keep up with the Joneses.

And try to use them to prove an economy isn't good, no matter what the economy is doing. There are tens of thousands of economic metrics you can cite and they are never all going to be pointed in the same way (not even in the late 90s).

Negative savings rate in 2005. Does that mean 2005 was worse than 2004, when the same rate was positive? Or does that mean 2005 was better, causing people to be more comfortable spending whatever they earn than 2004, when they might have been worried about losing their job? Or is it simply a fluctuation that means nothing at all?

This is very much a "don't want to see the forest because I am busy looking for a sickly shrub to stare at" issue.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

who agrees with you that our consumer debt and negative savings rates are just more inconsequential statistics, and I'll happily concede your point.

Find me one that thinks the statistic from 2005 is critically important while the one from 2004 is completely irrelevant.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Here is how you began:
"You can always pull out random statistics and try to use them to prove an economy isn't good, no matter what the economy is doing."

You might want to simmer down and go back and re-read what I said. I wasn't arguing that the economy wasn't good- it was great in 2005, even when Katrina is factored in. What I did argue is that consumer debt and a negative savings rate probably explain the feelings of malaise among the middle class, even while their incomes have been rising. Think about that for a second. That is not a criticism of the administration- it's probably a cultural problem more than anything.

Here is how you ended:
"This is very much a 'don't want to see the forest because I am busy looking for a sickly shrub to stare at' issue."

I doubt most economists would treat our debt and savings rates that flippantly; they are a serious problem leaving us very vulnerable to a hard crash when the economy goes into its next down cycle.

who agrees with you that our consumer debt and negative savings rates are just more inconsequential statistics,

You can always pull out random statistics and try to use them to prove an economy isn't good, no matter what the economy is doing.

Random does not mean inconsequential. By random I meant today it's x, tomorrow it is y, the next day it is z. Whatever you can throw out there in an attempt to show the economy in a negative light. It doesn't matter what x, y, or z is exactly, they're all good.

I doubt most economists would treat our debt and savings rates that flippantly; they are a serious problem leaving us very vulnerable to a hard crash when the economy goes into its next down cycle.

I doubt most economists would base their entire view of the economy or even their view on this particular issue based on a snapshot of one statistic captured at one moment in time. I also doubt most economists would remove consumer confidence from the equation. Consumer confidence has a major impact on this statistic, like any other statistic that is based on consumer choice. There have been some pretty horrible economies out there that have had very high savings rates.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

You still think I was trying to show that the economy is bad, when I did not argue that in the first place.
I am only addressing the narrow question of why the middle class is unhappy while enjoying rising incomes. I AM NOT SAYING THE ECONOMY IS BAD!!! Re-read that last sentence again a couple of times if you need to, but please stop putting words in my mouth.
I am only saying that

1. It is likely that our debt and savings rates have negated much of the middle class's perceptions of prosperity, and

2. They could have a much more severe impact when the economy goes into its next down cycle.

There is no point number three, either real or implied. If you are imagining that I am trying to "show the economy in a negative light," as you say, then go back and read what was said to you by someone else in comment #14: "Wow, did you read my post?"

This story is about how good the economy is, even though you would never know it by reading MSM coverage. The post I was originally replying to was about how much the economy sucks if you aren't rich. You seem to be in agreement with that poster in that conclusion, just not on the cause of it.

This story isn't about the savings rate and whether the 2005 number is a signal of something ominous to come and whether something should be done about it. If you want to talk about that outside of the "Economy sucks if you aren't rich" subtext, we can certainly do that. In this story, however, it would be a threadjack. If you want to create a diary about how the 2005 personal savings rate number is the harbinger of doom for the middle class, go right ahead.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

history shows that government deficit is not a problem in absolute terms it is only a problem in relative terms. As a percentage of the fast growing GDP it is small in historical terms. The overall debt is high, but can be rolled over.

If, as you claim, the middle class is worse off (and I hope you factor in the lower prices of all consumer goods and even food since the huge boost in international trade) it is mostly because of higher taxes and fees at the state and local levels.

I know I am much better off than in the 1990's and my investments are doing fine, but my property taxes have skyrocketed.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle