Say Anything Blog

You have to take inflation into account. Not just income. You also have to adjust the parameters. Anyone earning less than $40,000 in the major metro areas where most of our population lives is poor. You can barely survive on $50,000 if you have a higher than average intelligence and are able to manage your money better than most. You will never be able to buy a home and very rarely buy a new car. You will, most likely, have to share rent with someone else unless you are willing to live in an unsafe neighborhood. This is lower middle class. Your life will not change if you move out of the city because you will be paid less if you can find a job.

Ews, the numbers are adjusted for inflation.  So, once again, you’re just plain wrong.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Once again, ews parrots the leftie line, which is manifestly untrue, and dishonors hard-working Americans who have the character to be self-sufficient.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Are the numbers adjusted to take into account the number of households who have two people working as opposed to 1979.

The Wall Street Journal reports on who is really getting richer.

I don’t see that it really matters that much if families are richer with two income earners.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

At least in the context of the declining middle class.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Sheesh, Rob, where do I start?  In the first place, $100,000 buys a hell of a lot less than it did in 1979.  $100,000 may be middle-class now, but it was not middle-class in 1979.

Next, in spite of that, the author admits that “the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged”.  According to the IRS, 48% of returns filed in 2005 reported “adjusted gross income” of $30,000 or less.  The poor truly are getting poorer, if you adjust for inflation.

Finally, where is this guy getting his figures? According to the IRS, only 10.7 percent of filers (not 24 percent) earned more than $100,000 in 2005, the most recent year for which figures are available.

First, I’ll repeat, Rose’s numbers are adjusted for inflation.  Here’s his full study.

Second, Will, if you’d learn to read for comprehension you’d see that Rose is talking about household income.  Your IRS figures aren’t.

Now I know this is rough for you liberals, because despite Americans owning their own homes at greater rates than ever before and being able to afford more luxury items like video games, ipods, DVD players and the like...and despite the relatively minor impact rising fuel prices has had on our economy, the idea that everyone is getting poorer is an article of faith for you guys.

But this isn’t true.  It’s a bit like you guys are like ancient clergy trying to come to terms with the fact that the earth is round and not flat.  You can bluster all you want, but it doesn’t change reality.

Americans are getting more prosperous, not less so despite your need for it to be the opposite.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t see that it really matters that much if families are richer with two income earners.

It makes alot of difference if two people are having to work to earn the same amount of money.

It makes alot of difference if two people are having to work to earn the same amount of money.

But the point of this article is that family incomes are higher which is why the middle class is shrinking. 

Of course if you guys were in favor of letting people keep more of the money they’ve earned you’d have a bit of credibility.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Rob:
Maybe you got the wrong URL, but the article you cited, while textually supporting your argument to a certain degree, is quite tangental to the argument at hand.  And the PDF linked to from that article is almost completely a different subject.  There is no mention of the figures being adjusted for inflation, and the study is on 15 year averages of household incomes. 

Did you actually read the article?
From your source:

Over the last six years, wealthy Americans also have reaped a disproportionate share of the economy’s growth, while earnings for individuals in the middle have stagnated.

In general, I am a capitolist (although today’s capitolists are not all that inspiring).  But I will say that ews48, Lestat, Graeme, and Will are making a lot more sense in this argument. 

Car on the right has red lighted.
Contest forfited to 4 passenger car on the left.
Maybe next time.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

Actually that was the opinion of the economist rather than a fact like the one Rob highlighted.

The fact is that tax rates for all Americans went down, less for the higher income people. 

And the fact is that higher income people are paying a larger share of the burden then ever before.

A certain portion of people won’t do anything beyond the minimum to survive, which happens to be very little these days.  On the other hand our affluence makes it easier for people that do the right things to become richer (standing on the shoulders of giants).

That explains why the rich are getting richer and the people who have nothing still have nothing.

Of course the only way to help those that are at the bottom is to quit telling them they don’t need to strive to be better.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

In principle I agree.  And I agree that the main problem with one of the problems of the poor is their unwillingness to do more to help themselves.

Trouble is, the so called facts that Rob highlighted (or at least the ones he linked to) don’t support this arguement, and in fact support the opposite of the original argument that the middle class is moving up. His own links suggest that the middle class is stagnating while the rich are leaving them behind. 

TRex

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

But the point of this article is that family incomes are higher which is why the middle class is shrinking. 
Of course if you guys were in favor of letting people keep more of the money they’ve earned you’d have a bit of credibility.

For one thing if it takes twice as much work to earn the same or slightly higher incomes than that means wages and salaries have gone down.

Also if you have both parents working in a household that has children than you have to pay childcare costs.  It is these type of hidden costs that you are ignoring.

Lestat and TRex, the point of the article is that the middle class is shrinking because more people are reaching the upper class.

That’s it.  So yes the article does say that. 

Lestat:  First of all the move to two income families has also come with having less children.  (Perhaps one caused by the other don’t you think).  Daycare expenses are a fairly short period in a person’s career. 

Tres, the economist quoted is a Democrat who is showing that most of the class warfare arguments the Dems rely apply to a small portion of the population.  (25% is what he said.)

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Let me put it in straightforward, easy to understand terms. People in America are growing increasingly wealthy. Period.

What part of that are you leftards not capable of comprehending? Oh! Right! None of it. You morons can not read a simple, declarative sentence and understand it. That is what makes you leftards.

Never mind. Carry on.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Well, the article by George Will does say that, and it references some article by Stephen Rose (but unfortunately, the article by George Will does not link to the article by Rose).  The article by Rose that Rob links to does not say that, and in fact says somewhat the opposite.

So, all name calling aside, the problem is the supporting documentation does not support the simple declarative sentence.  So if the name callers want to discuss this, I suggest they actually READ the articles they use to support their arguments.

On the other hand, I am out of here for the night.  While I occationally take the right to task for being lazy arguers, it’s early to bed and early to rise… got work to do tommorrow.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

Trex, I linked to an article by Rose where he said much the same thing.

The whole point of Rob’s article was to inoculate the readers from hearing class exploiters like Edwards when they say the middle class was shrinking. 

It is shrinking but only because people are getting wealthier.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I have no need to read any article whatsoever. I live out here in the real world, where Americans are steadily becoming more wealthy, with the exception of those who buy into the lies of leftarded politicians and college “educators” and racebaitingpovertypimps. Int which category do you fall?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I am not just wrong. I just trust what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears more than any report that someone generates based on their interpretation of numbers that they got from some other source.

I have been traveling the country extensively for over 30 years for tech firms, been in every state and every major city, most towns with populations of 20K or more, many with much less, and talked to thousands of people. I have watched as the traditional family of four transitioned to a two income family out of necessity and major cities have lost their soles to foreign investment.

The small home I bought on Long Island in a middle class neighborhood 5 years ago, because it was cheaper than paying for hotel rooms, for $225K is now worth just under $1 million. The home I bought in California in a blue collar neighborhood for $200K 20 years ago is now worth well over a million. After you put 50% down, you payments and taxes will be 5-6K to get to live in a middle class neighborhood. If your family income is $100K, you have no kids, and you pinch pennies, you might be able to save the down payment in 10 years. You will get a high interest rate. 

If I give you 30K per year and plop you down in middle class neighborhoods in Queens, Northbrook, San Jose, the Bay Area, the LA basin, North Dallas, etc. you will be living in a basement, rented room, garage, or sharing rent. You will be driving an old junker. If I give you $50K, you will be struggling to live in a one bedroom apartment unless you are a single parent and want your kid to have its own bedroom in which case you will be looking for section 8 housing. You will not be driving a new car. A ten year teacher with a Masters begged me to rent my basement to her and her child for $1500 per month because she wants her child to be safe in school. No economic report is going to convince me anything different from what I see with my own eyes.

You can not sit in the rural Midwest, read economic reports online, and get a clear picture of what is actually happening.

Golly EWS how did those middle class homes get so expensive.

Could it be that so many middle class people became wealthy that they could afford to bid all of those houses up in value.

Of course there’s some people working at Penny’s that can’t afford to buy them now.  That’s a problem for them and maybe you think there’s something you can do about it.  I don’t think so, but if you and your buddies want to spend your own money tilting at windmills than go ahead.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Could it be that so many middle class people became wealthy that they could afford to bid all of those houses up in value.

That would be “supply and demand”! Do you think all of those “green” limousine liberals who oppose new construction could be artificially holding down supply, thus driving up the prices?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

That’s true proof, but still the people who are buying those homes are able to afford to buy them which means there is a lot more affluent people around now.

Of course your point means that everyone would be better off if liberals wouldn’t stand in the way of development.  People would definatly get more for their money.

Hey notice this in EWS’s screed:

A ten year teacher with a Masters begged me to rent my basement to her and her child for $1500 per month because she wants her child to be safe in school.

I don’t suppose EWS is smart enough to realize that the schools in question are screwed up because of liberal policies.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Actually, the study by Rose I linked is exactly the one cited by George Will in his column.  You’ll find the pertinent data under the “Estimating the Number of
People With Fundamental Class Interests In Voting Democratic” heading, where my point in linking the study is also made.

All dollar amounts used in the study are 2005 dollars.

So, once again, the middle class is declining because the middle class is upwardly mobile.  Granted, that leaves a gap between the “lower class” and the “upper class” but let’s remember that the “lower class” not only contains the poor but also the young and just-starting out.  If we remember that the latter tend to move from the “lower class” to the “middle class” as they get older, to be replaced by other young just-starting-outers, the gap doesn’t quite look so bad.

Further, we must remember that a certain segment of the population is going to remain poor no matter what we do.  After all, there are always going to be a certain number of people who are substance abusers, or lazy or who simply don’t want to improve their level of education in order to move up in the world.

No amount of policy manipulation will change the reality of these people.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I haven’t had a chance to review the literature on this, but it’s my understanding that the number of dual-income families has gone down over time, since reaching its peak sometime (again from memory) in the ‘70s.  As I understand it, after women entered the marketplace, there was a severe deflation in income earning power (increased labor market with no increase in demand for labor), which forced most women, even those who would otherwise choose not to, to enter the market place.

Over time, this has changed to the extent where Will and Lestat’s “poor families” today are basically equivalent to middle class American in the ‘70s.  In the lowest bracket, the median families owns their own air-conditioned home, has at least two cars, several TVs and so forth, all which would have been middle class living conditions as few as thirty years ago.

I just wonder why Will and Lestat so desperately want things to be so awful in this country, even if they have to go through more contortions than a pretzel to make it look that way for them.

Do you think all of those “green” limousine liberals who oppose new construction could be
artificially holding down supply, thus driving up the prices?

That is exactly what has been going on for thirty years in my area.  There is nothing quite so dependably inflationary as taxation and regulation.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

That’s interesting.  I suppose part of the pressure forcing women to enter the workforce was inflation pushing people to higher tax brackets while wages didn’t keep up.

The bottom line is that a person is paid for what they produce.  If you want a higher standard of living produce more or produce something worth more.

With all of these women in the workforce now that means there’s more opportunity and more affluence to go around.

The biggest drain to the economy is the non and counterproductive spending by the government.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I just wonder why Will and Lestat so desperately want things to be so awful in this country…

What’s bad for America is good for the lefties, since they want to change our free and prosperous country into a Marxist “workers’ paradise”.  They need to propagandize us into believing that our system doesn’t work, when the truth is that their system doesn’t work, and they constantly need new recruits, like any pyramid scheme.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I think part of why a lot of families aren’t double income now is because of the price of sending both parents to work in terms of day care.

In a lot of cases, depending on the level of income the parents are capable of, a family loses money with both parents working.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I suppose part of the pressure forcing women to enter the workforce was inflation pushing people to higher tax brackets while wages didn’t keep up.

When the feminists propagandized women to be dissatisfied with being wives and mothers, and lied to them that joining the workforce would be fulfilling, the labor market became flooded with supply, without an increase in demand, thus driving down wages, as someone else has already pointed out.  The subsequent fall in real earning power affected both men and women.  It was politics, as usual.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Well I don’t know if there was all THAT much of a lack of demand. 

Once women were working they were spending the money they had earned.  At least in my family my wife’s money doesn’t last that long.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Well I don’t know if there was all THAT much of a lack of demand.

If the supply of labor had been deficient, wages would have been rising sharply and they weren’t.  The politically-led mass increase of entry of women into the workplace increased supply relative to demand, which lowers wages.  It wasn’t a lack of demand, it was a lack of increased demand.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Actually, the study by Rose I linked is exactly the one cited by George Will in his column.  You’ll find the pertinent data under the “Estimating the Number of
People With Fundamental Class Interests In Voting Democratic” heading, where my point in linking the study is also made.

Rob, you’re making stuff up again.  There’s nothing in the article to support your claims.  Rose does mention a study, and there is a table labeled “2005 dollars”, but there’s nothing to support the contention that “the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24” since 1979.  In fact, the number 100,000 does not appear anywhere in the article, nor does the year 1979.

Will, why are you going to the IRS for the numbers, since these are individual adjusted gross income figures, instead of the labor department, where they are not?

You need to use the household figures, which are published by the US Census.

And this reveals in 2006 dollars that the cut-off in 2006 for the upper quintile was $97,032 not $100k.  In 1980, the cut off was $31,480 (2006 dollars). 

Granted that the numbers appear off, the basic themes discussed by Rob are confirmed.  What used to be the cutoff for upper middle ($30,000) is now the cut-off for lower-middle.  What used to be the cut-off for the highest bracket is now stuck somewhere in the central bracket.

Quite obviously the myth that the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting richer has been busted.  And I know that must make Will and Lestat feel terribly.

What I set out to do in linking to Rose’s study was to prove that he was using constant dollar values for his studies.  Since Will is desperate to make the issue about nit-picking instead of the facts at hand, I went ahead and emailed Mr. Rose directly asking if he used constant dollars in the study referenced by Mr. Will above.

I’ll post the answer I receive, at which point I’m sure Will and the rest will apologize for being wrong.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Whister, to be clear, we were discussing the short-term effect on supply and demand of labor.  Increasing household income increases the demand for more goods, so over time the labor market adjusts.  It just took about 30 years or so to do it.

And Rob, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the studies, but from my memory, even for households with no children the number of dual earners is going down.  This is a consequence of the improvement of income so that one person can sustain a household for most households today, whereas in say 1970 that wasn’t the case.

Rob, I would say that what Mr. Rose has to say isn’t that relevant.  I’ve posted the link for the Census Bureau numbers, which I would consider as good as it gets.

This is what I love about the democratization of information that the internet provides.  It used to be we depended on people like Mr. Rose to provide us the figures, and we were at his mercy for how the data could be viewed.  Nowadays we can view the primary source directly, without needing the lens of the media to do it for us.

That’s not knocking his analysis or points by the way.  It was a good article, just that I like to go back to primary sources when it is possible.

Oops.  (What’s the code for the “embarrassed” emoticon again?)

I was looking at the the wrong table.  The cut off in 1980 for the top quintile was $73,338 2006 dollars.  Things aren’t as rosy as I made them out, but the point is that all brackets saw an improvement from 1980 to 2006.  So obviously the poor aren’t getting poorer, at least over those time scales.

And Rob, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the studies, but from my memory, even for households with no children the number of dual earners is going down.

That’s interesting.  I tossed my earlier comment out not based on any numbers but anecdotal observations.  I know a number of people who have told me that one of them stay home because the cost of day care warrants it.

But, that aside, I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if the number of single-wage families increased also because more families could afford to do it.  We’re certainly in prosperous times in this country.

Rob, I would say that what Mr. Rose has to say isn’t that relevant.  I’ve posted the link for the Census Bureau numbers, which I would consider as good as it gets.

Sure, but the numbers from Rose’s study above were attacked for not being adjusted for inflation and since the liberals here typically can’t let go of that sort of thing I thought it was worthwhile to get it “straight from the horse’s mouth” as it were.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I decided to go back and analyze the trend lines over the available interval.  Here is it in graphical format (the trend lines are maximum likelihood estimates), note I’m plotting the income on a log axis. When you do it that way, a straight line refers to a constant rate of increase…

So all groups are experiencing a growth in real income.  It’s just about 3x faster in the highest bracket (the rich are getting richer faster).

Urp.  “X Axis” is calendar year.  Sorry.

The other thing to note is that recessions hit the poor the hardest in terms of their relative income.  (See the 1980, 1990 and 2001 recessions).

Also, to anticipate dumb comments from the left, Bush was elected in 2001, so his first fiscal policies would have taken effect in 2002.  So 2002 is the earliest year one should look at to examine what effect his policies had on income.

Anyway kind of fun… but have to work.

Rob,

You repeatedly and insistently cited a reference that did not specifically support your claim.  You were literally just making stuff up.  Only now that I’ve pointed this out, are you willing to do a little digging and try to honestly find out where Rose got his numbers.

Frankly, though, I don’t care.  I agree that the upper middle class has done pretty well in recent decades.  Not as well as the truly rich, but pretty darn well, which I guess is Rose’s main point.  But I’m really more interested in how people at the bottom end of the economic ladder have done.  As Rose himself points out, they have reaped only a meager slice of the gains of recent decades.  More specifically, household income is down for 60% of American households since George Bush took office (in 2006 dollars).  Yes, Carrick, even if you measure from 2002.

The one error in your chart is that it assumes that people are stuck in the same bracket their entire lives.

What we’ve seen in the IRS longitudinal studies is that people often work their way up from the lower brackets to the highest. 

Then people in the highest likely drop to a lower bracket when they retire.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I retract my previous statement about household income.  While it is true that the upper limit for the 3rd quintile is down since 2002, which is what I based my statement on, it is also true that the median income increased 1.4% from 2002 and 2006.  I don’t see the numbers for 2007 yet. 1.4% over 4 years isn’t great, but it’s better than nothing!

Well that means that wages are increasing.

What’s more important is that within the data there’s a lot of movement.  As people acquire more experience they get paid more.  At the same time many of the highest paid people drop out because of retirement or death. 

I think it’d be more important to evaluate a couple different career tracks particularily to contrast the career tracks of “winners” and “losers”.  What accounted for the differences in earning potential?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

You repeatedly and insistently cited a reference that did not specifically support your claim.  You were literally just making stuff up.  Only now that I’ve pointed this out, are you willing to do a little digging and try to honestly find out where Rose got his numbers.

That’s actually not true at all.  The study I linked pertained to the very issues we’re talking about.  That Rose has expanded on his theme in various op/eds in the media is neither here nor there.

But regardless, my original point which you are so fiercely trying to obfuscate is correct.  The middle class is “declining” because the middle class is getting right.

That remains fact, despite your best efforts to change the subject.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Will, 1.04 over four years works out to a 1.0% increase per year, which is to say typical of the longer term trends.

The other dark secret is that CPI-adjusted wages underestimates the increase in spending power, because it fails to take into account changes in the quality of the product (compare a TV now to 1967 for example).

Will, if you are as interested as you say you are, you should compare quality of life indicators like % home ownership in the lowest bracket, % with a high school degree, average number of occupants per room, and so forth.  These numbers are out of data and I don’t have time to spend digging up current ones, but this study summarizes Census bureau data:

Clearly over that period, the poor have made great strides.  A “poor” person in 2001 now corresponds to a middle-income person in 1970.  I would be interested in comparing 2001 to 2006/2007 if those numbers were available, but frankly can’t take anytime today to spend on that.

By the way, the correct numbers for median household are:

(116011-111278)/111278 = 1.043

This translates into a 1% increase per year....  I misread what Will said, and thought he was talking about fractions.  Not sure where he gets 1.4% over four years, but that’s not what the Census numbers say.

What are the prospects for a person who finishes high school, takes advantage of programs to expand their knowledge base after high school (trade school or college), shows up to work on time, doesn’t do drugs or drink to excess?

I would say they have a world of opportunity.

The only thing government should be concerned with is to quit screwing up the education of so many young people.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Carrick,

Your point about spending power indicators and quality of life measurements is an excellent one.  All too often, those who fancy themselves to be champions of the “poor” and downtrodden are so wedded to the self-delusional convenience of static analysis, they fail to realize their own irrelevance.  Where national economic policy is concerned, sustained economic growth is far more important than the relative position of various segments of society, which are never static anyway.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

All Americans are growing steadily wealthier. What part of that simple, declarative statement do you leftarded morons not understand? Keep telling yourselves socialist fucking lies, the rest of the human race will simply step over your dead, bloated corpses.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Carrick -

Um, the median income in 2006 was $48,201, not $111,278.  Actually 111278 was the number of households in 2006, and the 1% increase per year you calculated above was the increase in the number of households. 

My orginal figures were correct.  The median income increased 1.4% over the 4-year period from 2002 to 2006, or 0.35% per year.  Not great, especially when you consider 2002 was in the depths of a recession and 2006 will probably turn out to be close the peak of the recovery.

I wonder how much incomes are depressed because of the illegals depressing wages?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Just heard back from Mr. Rose who said “of course” the numbers used in the study quoted by George Will above were 2006 dollars.

So, again, the numbers were adjusted for inflation.

The middle class is shrinking because Americans are getting richer.  Not that things like “facts” and “reality” get in the way of liberal dogma.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: