If you look at your graph you will see that every time the UR dropped below 6 % it was quickly followed by a spike upwards until the 90's. It continued below 6 % right up to the present. This is a significant change. It went below 6 % before the 80's tax cuts as well. You can't blame that on the tax cuts. It is part of the traditional economic cycle. Prior to the nineties the Fed considered unemployment below 6 % inflationary and it was. That is one of the triggers for a recession at least when we fight inflation by raising interest rates and is why it was previously followed by a large spike up. You also overlooked how long the unemployment rate was high after the tax cuts. Your data supports my point about the 90's being more successful than the 80's.

Your comparison of the income growth during the 80's ignores starting in a recession. Compare the income at the end of the 80's with the figures before the 80's and you will see no real progress had been made by the bottom 20% while the top 20%'s income had grown by over 20% from 1973 to 1990. Even the middle 60 % saw little gains. If it was broken down more you would see even bigger growth for the to 10, 5, and 1 %. A fine example of the way Republicans leave out the benefits to their constituency when claiming they have benefited everyone.

The economic growth rate you site corresponds to a < 2.5% average (10^(log10(1.22/.956)/10). Hardly exceptional. I believe the 90's exceeded that with a number closer to 3%. Why didn't you include data through the 90's?

Regards,
Mark