Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?

"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?

The last week or so has been interesting.
First: Debbie Wasserman-Shultz
Second: Robert Cramer
Third: Scott Foval
Fourth: Donna Brazille
Fifth: Peter Kadzik

And the results are starting to show.

Good source here, with a verifiable link.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/793848744995356672

And Trump up 3% in Virginia.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

Are you still really running with this???...How did the Clinton intensify Trickle down???..How would repealing Glass-Stegall help the middle class???..How would repeal of NAFTA help the middle class???..The charts I provided didn't help??

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

Are you still really running with this???...How did the Clinton intensify Trickle down???..How would repealing Glass-Stegall help the middle class???..How would repeal of NAFTA help the middle class???..The charts I provided didn't help??

You stated Nominal change and inflation adjusted change would show the same percentage. I am going to put you on ignore, to keep my sanity.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.

I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.

I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?

Kadzik has been appointed by DOJ to be in charge of the emails found on Huma's PC. He is a personal friend of Podesta. He also told them about other DOJ proceedings when he was probably not supposed to.

That is what it shows. It shows that he is not exactly an objective party.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.

Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).

Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.

If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.

I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.

It will require getting 50 Senate seats and nominating a moderate like Merrick Garland. I think that gets the process started on eliminating gerrymandering and campaign finance reform. Then once that happens, everything in the country begins to change.

If the dems have a senate majority she can nominate a hardcore liberal and get her appointed, if they don't control the senate - I have no reason to believe HRC can get anyone appointed. If Trump wins and Dems control senate you may actually see moderate getting appointed, assuming Dems don't cave in to pressure. (Not a safe assumption)

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?

Kadzik has been appointed by DOJ to be in charge of the emails found on Huma's PC. He is a personal friend of Podesta. He also told them about other DOJ proceedings when he was probably not supposed to.

That is what it shows. It shows that he is not exactly an objective party.

There's a lot of wishy washy language in these criticisms. Exactly what law did Kadzik or Podesta break?

If you mean the emails that exist are wishy washy, I guess thats your opinion. Kadzik is also the lawyer who represented the pardoned Marc Rich by WJC in 2001 before leaving office. Podesta was involved in that as well.

There is history with Podesta and Kadzik. Now he has been appointed as the DOJ lead guy on the Clinton Investigation. THe only thing "wishy washy" is Kadzik being involved with overseeing the case against HRC .

Stay tuned....more to come.

Again what is it that they are supposed to have done that was illegal?