A two for one bonus. I love it when the RWNM jumps on the same piece of news and complains about that old liberal press bias. Their latest "liberal outrage" is the following statement from Chris Matthews:
And that people at the top because of the tax breaks they got under Bush, and because of the way the economy is just geared right now, the working stiff out there, making 30 or 40 a year, is not getting a raise, they're working as hard as ever -- 50 hours, 60 hours a week* -- they're not spending time with their family, and they're wearing out. And they're wearing out, and they're not making any more money, and prices still creep up, and they're saying to themselves, this isn't doing it for me.
Newsbusters response is below the fold.
Here was Newsbuster's brilliant response:
The average American's net wealth is the highest in history. More Americans own their home than ever in history. Unemployment is currently lower than the average of the previous three decades. The average weekly pay for non-supervisory production workers has increased by almost 16 percent in the past five years while inflation has risen by 13 percent. Yet, Chris Matthews stated on "Hardball" Tuesday evening that the current economy is only helping the people at the very top.
Let's deconstruct this one element at a time.
The average American's net wealth is the highest in history
First, this is a true statement. Household net worth is at an all time high. However, that is only part of the truth - the truth that makes Republican policies look good. What they failed to mention is household net worth increased from 21 trillion to 41 trillion under Clinton and 41 trillion to 51 trillion under Bush. So, Clinton's economy's increase in net worth was 300% higher than Bush. Oops.
Don't believe me Newbusters and Expose the Left? Maybe the Federal Reserve is a more credible source:
In contrast, the growth in wealth between 1998-2001 surveys and between the 1995-1998 surveys was stronger both in the mean and in the median [compared to the 2001-2004 survey], and the growth was shared by most demographic groups.
More Americans own their home than ever in history
No argument here. They actually spoke the truth about something. Of course, that's their quota for this piece (or maybe the year. This is the RWNM after all).
Unemployment is currently lower than the average of the previous three decades.
Obviously Newsbusters hasn't read this report from the Boston Federal Reserve or this report from the New York Federal Reserve. I know - this involves reading instead of parroting; it involves thinking critically, which is clearly beyond the abilities of either website. These reports raise the troubling question about why people have left the labor force. The labor participation rate has decreased from 67.2% in 2001 to 66% in January 2006 indicating people have left not entered the labor force.
Touting the unemployment rate without looking at other labor force statistics indicates a deep unfamiliarity with labor statistics and what they represent. To be counted as unemployed in the official unemployment, a person must actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the official number. So, if someone doesn't look for work, they're not counted as unemployed. If people leave the labor force, they're not counted.
Of course, there is also the fact that Bush's economy has only created 2 million establishment jobs since January 2001 - the worst record of job creation in the last 40 years. That's something to be proud of. Of course, lack of solid job creation leads to lack of meaningful wage growth.
The average weekly pay for non-supervisory production workers has increased by almost 16 percent in the past five years while inflation has risen by 13 percent.
Here, Newsbusters shoots themselves in the foot by providing the rebuttal in their answer. Wages have risen 3% over 5 years according to their calculations. However, their calculations are wrong. Non-supervisory wages were $14.28 in January 2001 and $16.41 in January 2006. Over the same time, the inflation rate increased from 175.1 to 198.3. Wages increased 14.91% and inflation increased 13.24% for a whopping non-supervisory increase of 1.67% over five years. Color me impressed.
Again, the Federal Reserve provides further rebuttal.
The survey shows that, over the 2001-2004 period, the median value of real family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising 1.6%, whereas the mean value fell 2.3%. Patterns of change were mixed across demographic groups. These results stand in contrast to the strong and broad gains seen for the period between 1998 and 2001 surveys and to the smaller but similarly broad gains between the 1995 and 19989 surveys.
As if that is not enough, notice how the poverty rate has increased each year for the last 4 years. That's a sign of real economic strength.
That damn blowjob getting Clinton, improving wages at a better clip than dear leader. How horrible. Then there is the fact that Clinton balanced three budgets.....
Over the last 20 years, the RWNM has been very effective with one tactic: if a statistic is negative for Republicans, call it a liberal talking point.. Then it becomes a partisan issue instead of a factual issue. The RWNM is using this tactic more and more - hell, it's pretty much all they've got anymore.