And Roger, I know that you probably don't give too much credit to anything that is written or produced by New York Times, but I want to call attention to the following claims in an article in NYT from yesterday, March 8, 2008:
Quote
And if the good times have really ended, they were never that good to begin with. Most American households are still not earning as much annually as they did in 1999, once inflation is taken into account. Since the Census Bureau began keeping records in the 1960s, a prolonged expansion has never ended without household income having set a new record.
Quote
The median household earned $48,201 in 2006, down from $49,244 in 1999, according to the Census Bureau. It now looks as if a full decade may pass before most Americans receive a raise.
If New York Times is right about this, the economic boom that was there during the best of the Bush Jr. years never benefitted the median American household. Bush's tax cuts really only benefitted the very rich Americans, who indeed got amazing "raises" thanks to their lowered taxes. Is this the sort of economic boom you would recommend, Roger? One that benefits the richest Americans enormously, but gives no raise at all to the median American?
Here is the full article. If you can't access it because you don't have a login account with the New York times, try googling for it. The article was written by David Leonhardt, and the heading of the article is Seeing an End to the Good Times (Such as They Were).
