Household incomes down 8% under Obama!

It happened because he took over and had to deal with Bush's mess. The economy was going downhill when he took office and he has managed to stall it while the economy gets better slowly and steadily.

To blame someone for the mess that they didn't cause in the first place is wrong, and you know it.

That might have been valid 3 years ago. But after 3 years with unprecedented access to government the Democrats really can't blame Bush anymore.
The problem is not Bush's recession. The problem is Obama's recovery. This is the weakest recovery on record, and appears to be close to an end anyway.
Obama's policies have produced records: lowest growth out of a recession, highest unemployment, lowest work force participation, highest decline in household income, highest decline in household wealth, etc. Why anyone thinks this man deserves a second term is beyond me.


The economy doesn't simply turn around in 3 years.

This is a capitalist economy, you know. You can't control where our money goes when there is constant outsourcing, price gouging, hoarding, etc.

Bush Era tax cuts have still yet to expire, which means a Bigger deficit (up to almost 1 Trillion)

Despite corporations having tax cuts, they are hiring less, laying people off anyway, and all of the higher up positions keep making their paychecks bigger and bigger at the expense of everyone else.

Small businesses keep going under while big business chains keep getting bigger.

Tuition prices keep going UP, UP, UP when college is still shitty and gets you NOWHERE do to the oversaturated job market.

The US doesn't try to import wealth through immigration (wealthy immigrants who WANT to come to the US)

Political corruption and lobbying

etc.



Just look at Romney's main contributors. They are all corporations who helped cause this mess. They see him as an investment for their benefit of putting more $$$ into their pockets, and have no problem screwing the majority over just to get what they want through illegal means.

Reagan had a recession and it was over in under 2 years. Bush inherited a recession and it was over in 18 months. The recession Obama inherited has been over for 2 years. This is his economy, he owns it. And it sucks.
 
Jeeez.. :eusa_shifty:

It couldn't have anything to do with losing 750K jobs a month the first 6 months of his presidency... Or that we are rebounding from the GREAT recession... That's unpossible!

My electric bills go up during the summer time when it's hot outside... That has to be Obamas fault!

This again is why America is finding Neocon politics to be irrelevant.

:lol:

That was 3 years ago. If we are rebounding growth should be substantially higher than it was. It isn't. The opposite. Growth is terrible. That is due exclusively to policies and programs enacted by Obama and the Dems for the first 2 years.
 
Household incomes down 8% under Obama!


September 27, 2012



"After nearly a decade of steep declines, American manufacturing jobs have begun to rebound since the beginning of the Obama administration, as the slide that occurred under President George W. Bush and during the Great Recession has largely been reversed."

:party: . :party: . :party: . :party:



:woohoo: . :woohoo: . :woohoo: . :woohoo: . :woohoo: . :woohoo: . :woohoo:


Plunge in Goods Orders May Restrain U.S. Expansion: Economy - Bloomberg

Second-quarter GDP cut to 1.3 percent on drought | Reuters
 
few jobs, the ones we have are low paying and people are dropping out of the force with zero hope. higher fuel and food prices dont help, I just love the "green" agenda, it make Al Gore "green" and the rest of us poor

It happened because he took over and had to deal with Bush's mess. The economy was going downhill when he took office and he has managed to stall it while the economy gets better slowly and steadily.

To blame someone for the mess that they didn't cause in the first place is wrong, and you know it.


So how long does it take? funny how republicans get out of these things rather fast...but obama cant?

so say Obama wins and same conditions 4 years from now? still Bush?

It took Reagan into his second term before things got better. Reagan also had more federal revenues as revenues were over 19% of GDP for a number of years while Obama has to deal with revenues that are only around 15% of GDP. This helped Reagan expand government to help ease unemployment. Last of all, Democrats worked with Reagan and vice versa. Obama has had to deal with a Republican House whose only interest is in seeing him defeated, therefore nothing but obstruction from the Republicans.
 

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept of long term cause and effect in economics?

Meaning, the situation we're in today began 10 years ago.

Household incomes are down because people are unemployed and not spending money. People are unemployed because we are still recovering from the great recession.

Only congress has the power to stimulate the economy through tax credits to employers. Why haven't they done that?
 

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept of long term cause and effect in economics?

Meaning, the situation we're in today began 10 years ago.

Household incomes are down because people are unemployed and not spending money. People are unemployed because we are still recovering from the great recession.

Only congress has the power to stimulate the economy through tax credits to employers. Why haven't they done that?

They've been doing nothing but. And it doesnt work.
 

few jobs, the ones we have are low paying and people are dropping out of the force with zero hope. higher fuel and food prices dont help, I just love the "green" agenda, it make Al Gore "green" and the rest of us poor

Now this is funny.. George Bush has a greener house then AL GORE.. Yeah . GORE iS MAKING MILLIONS on this Green energy but doesnt practice what he preaches snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses
 

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept of long term cause and effect in economics?

Meaning, the situation we're in today began 10 years ago.

Household incomes are down because people are unemployed and not spending money. People are unemployed because we are still recovering from the great recession.

Only congress has the power to stimulate the economy through tax credits to employers. Why haven't they done that?

I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but I have an issue with the tax credits to employers, and this is why: In a normal recession I would agree that tax credits for hiring more employees would be a good idea. The problem is that employers, American businesses, are currently sitting on $2 trillion to $3 trillion in cash. They don't need anymore tax breaks to hire more people; they have already received a windfall.

I'm not certain how the tax laws changed, but they have. In the past, in order for companies to vastly reduce their tax liabilities, they would have to invest profits back into their business through the purchase of capitol goods or just straight out expansion of their businesses. Today, they do nothing and still pay no taxes. Somehow, we created a tax situation that allows these companies to sit on their profits. This is what we must address.
 
The numbers are astounding

A3AtNLDCcAELd3e.jpg:large
 
It happened because he took over and had to deal with Bush's mess. The economy was going downhill when he took office and he has managed to stall it while the economy gets better slowly and steadily.

To blame someone for the mess that they didn't cause in the first place is wrong, and you know it.

The "mess" was created by Obama and you know it! The highest unemployment ever reached under Bush was the 7% range. It reached 10% under Obama. The highest the national debt ever reached under Bush was $9 trillion. It has reached $16 trillion under Obama. Gas prices are higher under Obama than any point in history.
 

Forum List

Back
Top