http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf.On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have
experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those
at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under
Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan
differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on
average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on
average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at
the bottom of the income distribution than at the top. Similar partisan differences appear in the
distribution of post-tax income growth of households since 1980...
...almost all previous analyses have missed what may be the most important influence on the changing U.S. income distribution over the past
half-century – the contrasting policy choices of Democratic and Republican presidents. Under
Democratic administrations income growth has been more vigorous among the poor than among
the rich; under Republican administrations the reverse has been true. The cumulative effect of
these differences has been enormous.McCain is on camera admitting he is ignorant about economics. He can afford to be, with an heiress wife. The rest of us need someone who has a clue.
2. Because McCain approves of Bush's Iraq war fiasco and apparently will continue to loot the treasury on behalf of Halliburton, KBR, etc. His "bomb, bomb, bomb...Iran" moment was sick, as was his 100 year war remark (since retracted.) Robert Kagan and Kristol are two of his advisors. They are, of course, neo-cons who got us in this mess in Iraq and have no remorse.
3. In Sept. 2007, he voted against restoring habeas corpus to guantanamo detainees. although he spoke up about torture, he okay'd Bush's Military Commissions's Act which gave Bush the "right" to decide that torture was "legal," and thus pardon himself and his fellow war criminals. In 2008 he voted against the act that would have made it illegal to waterboard, even tho he spoke against it.
In other words, he says one thing and does another as far as torture is concerned.
4. he also voted against at least minimum breaks between troop deployments (and supported "the surge.")
5. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent (see republicans are bad for 95% of americans, economically, above.)
6. He wants to create privatized soc. security - which will be just another 'rich get richer and the poor eat dog food' scheme for the elderly.
7. He is opposed to universal health care. He wants to allow 5k a year toward medical expenses. He obviously doesn't have to pay for his own presecriptions... or rather, he has an heiress wife, so that does he care if that 5k would be eaten up by big pharma in a few months for those with long-term illnesses requiring medication.
8. He is opposed to funding for public transportation via Amtrak - this is a SERIOUS issue for anyone who understands how imp. mass transit is to the future well-being of the U.S.
9. He opposed Webb's Educational Assistance Act for Veterans after 9-11 (because, he said, offering a "G-I Bill" for college would make soldiers want to leave the military sooner. (yes, I swear he said that...)
10. He is opposed to a federal minimum wage. The minimum wage in this country has been stagnant or falling far below cost of living for years. A living min. wage would be about 12.00. We're just about half way to that now. A lot of single parents work jobs like that, esp. women with no higher ed. As the richest (or we were) nation in the world, why can't we afford to pay a wage that allows people work with dignity?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
