From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:47:02 GMT
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Dec16.220855.27935@walter.bellcore.com> nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.024244.19084@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec14.193115.20114@walter.bellcore.com> nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Dec13.111044.15163@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>|> >|> In article <1992Dec13.062447.26229@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>|> >|> >dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >>In article <1992Dec12.223948.25318@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >>>The problem is that the growth of the 80s was centered primarily on
>|> >|> >>>the already well-off.  The 80s were an age of gluttony which we will
>|> >|> >>>probably never see again.
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >>The growth was not centered around only the well-off.  Read the thread
>|> >|> >>on the REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE.
>|> >
>|> >How on earth do you conclude that from the figures posted in the thread you
>|> >cite???
>|> > 
>|> >In case anyone else followed this thread to the end looking for the correction
>|> >to this mis-statement, here are the figures that were posted in the
>|> >Reagan-Bush retrospective thread:
>|> >
>|> >>        AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
>|> >
>|> >>        Lowest  Second  Third   Fourth  Highest  Top
>|> >>        Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth    5%
>|> >>-----------------------------------------------------
>|> >>1977    7,193   17,715  29,287  42,911  76,522  117,023
>|> >>1980    6,836   17,015  28,077  41,364  73,752  110,213
>|> >>1989    7,372   18,341  30,488  46,177  90,150  145,651
>|> >>1990    7,195   18,030  29,781  44,901  87,137  138,756
>|> >%change    0.0      1.8     1.7     4.6    13.9     18.6
>|> >
>|> >This supports the claim that the growth of the 80s was centered 
>|> >on the already well-off.  Mr. Harp was quite right.
>|> 
>|> 
>|> I conclude that on the basis of my response to Mr. Harp's conclusions.
>|> Please do follow the thread to the end.  
>
>I did, and it didn't help.
>|> For those who missed it, the
>|> response I made was in alt.president.clinton, article 1818.
>
>Hold on a minute -- first, you referred us to the Reagan-Bush retrospective;
>but when I quote your figures from that, you say that your claim is supported 
>by...
>
>the very thread that points us to the Reagan-Bush retrospective!!
>
>This must be what's meant by a circular argument...  I think I'll just
>put it in my circular file!
>
>|> 
>|> 
>|> David
>|> dnm9@columbia.edu



Nancy, I do believe there has been some confusion.  To wit, I posted
those figures originally as a response to someone's poem, which
grossly misrepresented the economic conditions during Reagan's
presidency.  JD Powell then inserted his line, from which post you
quote above. Then, in a following post, which I have not yet seen
reproduced, quoted, or contradicted by anyone yet, I answer to JD's
post which you quote above.  You are quite welcome to reassert the
legitimacy of Greg's position, but your comments and refutation of or
agreement with my later post would probably do a world of good in
furthering this debate.

Said post is indexed with the following heading:

From: David Neal Messina
 
Subject: Re: The Reagan-Bush Years : A Retrospective
Organization: Columbia University 
Distribution: usa 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:21:52 GMT 

Since I recently discovered that article numbers may vary, I believe
searching for the date should lead everyone to the proper article.
If the confusion persists, I will repost the article.  (If so, respond
by email, as I will be away from this connection after Monday night,
and I may not have caught up on newsgroups by then.)

Incidentally, since this was an article about the growth during the
Reagan years, I will direct you, as did a gentleman named Ralph in
another post, to redo JD's line from 1980-1990, not from 1977-1990,
since Carter was the president until 1980.  The results are markedly
different.


Regards,
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush