On 20 Jan 2004, at 12:31 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:14:41PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
OK, first analysis of income by 20% grouping and top 5%.
RR + GB^2Clinton
1st 20% 7.6% 15.9%
2nd 20% 8.9% 15.5%
3rd 20% 11.2% 14.6%
4th 20% 14.0% 15.8%
5th 20% 24.8% 28.8%
top 5% 40.7% 43.4%
The numbers don't exactly match with the GDP numbers for a couple of
reasons.
There was approximately 2%-3% greater growth in the numbers of
households under RR + GB^2 than under Clinton.
The share of the GDP growth that went to household income was greater
under Clinton.
That is fairly strong evidence in support of your contention that
Democrats are better for the poor than Republicans. Under Clinton, the
bottom 40% had approximately DOUBLE the rate of growth as under the
best
8 years of RR + GB^2, as you said.
I wonder why JDG hasn't commented.
One wouldn't want to let contingent facts get in the way of revealed
truth :)
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run
out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC,
1984.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
