Net worth of U.S. family drops 40% in 3 years

[skookerasbil]

Americans saw wealth plummet 40*percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says - The Washington Post

 

[g5000]

Fox & Friends Falsely Claims Fed Saw 40% Wealth Drop In “Last Three Years”

Doocy has the blonde's brain.

 

[skookerasbil]

Fox & Friends Falsely Claims Fed Saw 40% Wealth Drop In “Last Three Years”

Doocy has the blonde's brain.

INdeed.........which will make watching him the morning after the elction such a fucking hoot!!! The smile on his face the whole morning will be classic. I certainly wont miss it..........especially after seeing the miserable slobs on MSNBC election night looking like they got telephone poles slammed up their collective butts for 4 hours!!!. All = cant miss TV.


By the way......if you are a conservative, Im implore all of you to watch MSNBC on election night. I had told everybody for weeks to tune into MSNBC for the Wisconsin recall vote and it was priceless entertainment watching those miserable fucks Schultz and O'Donnell going mental all night. Fuck Fox......you gotta watch MSNBC that night!!

 

[Vast LWC]

Here:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Recession of 1947-8 had 3.1% decline in GDP, followed by strong growth, about 15%
1960 had only 1.7% decline, followed by less strong growth
73-75 had 3.2% decline, followed by nearly 10% growth
81-81 saw 2.7% decline followed by 8% growth
This one had a 5% decline and has been followed by 3.5% max growth.

Which one is the oddball in this picture?

All of those recessions occurred while the safeguards created by the Roosevelt administration were still in place.

Which is why none of those recessions were as dramatic as the one that just passed.

Which, I believe, is the point here.

Therefore, to make any historic comparison, one must go back to 1929 and before.

 

[paulitician]

What an Obamanation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Recession of 1947-8 had 3.1% decline in GDP, followed by strong growth, about 15%
1960 had only 1.7% decline, followed by less strong growth
73-75 had 3.2% decline, followed by nearly 10% growth
81-81 saw 2.7% decline followed by 8% growth
This one had a 5% decline and has been followed by 3.5% max growth.

Which one is the oddball in this picture?

All of those recessions occurred while the safeguards created by the Roosevelt administration were still in place.

Which is why none of those recessions were as dramatic as the one that just passed.

Which, I believe, is the point here.

Therefore, to make any historic comparison, one must go back to 1929 and before.

Wrong.
Tell me what was different between the 1980 recession and this one. Or the one in 2000.

 

[SniperFire]

Home prices are still falling.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Home prices are still falling.....

The result of yet another failed program from the Obamoids.
In 1990s the S&Ls were failing like crazy, for a lot of reasons. The gov't created the RTC, merged some banks, took over others. They took control of the real estate owned and held auctions in every major city. Here some condos were going for $5k a unit. Investors snapped them up. Housing prices dropped like a stone initially but within 18 months they were back to rising.
Compare this time when Obama has passed about 3 different programs to "help homeowners" (read: voters). The market has never cleared, there is a huge unsold inventory of foreclosed and not yet foreclosed homes, lenders are afraid to do anything, and 80% of the people who went through modification lose their homes anyway.

 

[Lakhota]

By Ezra Klein

In the graph atop this post, I ran the numbers on total government employment after the 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2008 recessions. I made government employment on the eve of the recession equal to “1,” so what you’re seeing is total change in the ensuing 54 months, which is how much time has elapsed since the start of this recession.

Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent.

But what if we did more than that? At this point in George W. Bush’s administration, public-sector employment had grown by 3.7 percent. That would be equal to a bit over 800,000 jobs today. If you add those hypothetical jobs, the unemployment rate falls to 7.3 percent.

Today, Ben Polak, chairman of the economics department at Yale University, and Peter K. Schott, professor of economics at the Yale School of Management, widen the lens, with similar results:

Without this hidden austerity program, the economy would look very different. If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent.​

More: Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

America's Hidden Austerity Program - NYTimes.com

Think Government Job Losses Don't Hurt Us? Think Again | Media Matters for America

 

[The Rabbi]

So let's just tax everyone and then hire them and pay them a gov't salary! Better yet, just send a check!
Are people really that stupid?

 

[francoHFW]

Here:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Recession of 1947-8 had 3.1% decline in GDP, followed by strong growth, about 15%
1960 had only 1.7% decline, followed by less strong growth
73-75 had 3.2% decline, followed by nearly 10% growth
81-81 saw 2.7% decline followed by 8% growth
This one had a 5% decline and has been followed by 3.5% max growth.

Which one is the oddball in this picture?

All of those recessions occurred while the safeguards created by the Roosevelt administration were still in place.

Which is why none of those recessions were as dramatic as the one that just passed.

Which, I believe, is the point here.

Therefore, to make any historic comparison, one must go back to 1929 and before.

Wrong.
Tell me what was different between the 1980 recession and this one. Or the one in 2000.

This one had a NINE per cent economic retraction, even with 2 trillion in bailouts and stimulus, and is WORLDWIDE. Super job, pubbies! Pub dupes...

 

[rdean]

Americans saw wealth plummet 40*percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says - The Washington Post

Proof Republican economic policies work?

 

[paulitician]

The Obama Depression. Lets hope it ends in November. Get out and vote people.

 

[francoHFW]

Half the GOP, 20% of the USA, now believe Obama started this mess. So STOOOPID!

 

[Toro]

The derivatives bubble goes even deeper than this. Personal retirement accounts were not the only investors hit.

Insurance companies make most of their profits from investments, not premiums. So when they lost their asses when the derivatives bubble popped, guess what happened to insurance premiums?

College endowment funds make their money from investments. So when they lost their asses when the derivatives bubble popped, guess what happened to tuition and scholarships?

Public pensions depend on a decent return on investment to meet their future outlays. So when they lost their asses when the derivatives bubble popped, guess what happened to public pension funds and their ability to keep their promises?



Your pocket was picked six ways to Sunday by Wall Street and its derivatives bubble.

How do we fix it?

1. Repeal FSMA of 1999 and the CFMA of 2000.

2. Regulate CDS the same way insurance is regulated, and ban naked CDS outright. A buyer of CDS must establish an insurable interest.

3. Require OTC derivatives to be traded on a public exchange.


Wall Street will fight this tooth and nail, of course. That last one particularly bites into their profits because the current structure prevents a price point from being established, which means they can rape the living shit out of their clients. It also means they have to put up collateral for every deal they make, thus making defaulting on a triggered credit event less likely. Which is as it should be.

The problem with banning naked CDS is that much of it looks naked but is really not. Instead, it is often used to hedge other long positions.

 

[rdean]

Half the GOP, 20% of the USA, now believe Obama started this mess. So STOOOPID!

I suspect that's true.

I was watching Fox and they edited Obama's and Axelrod's talks so much, it looked like Max Headroom. I know they edited out comments by Mitt Romney on firefighters, police and teachers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYdpOjletnc]Max Headroom, The Best Bits Ever! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

All of those recessions occurred while the safeguards created by the Roosevelt administration were still in place.

Which is why none of those recessions were as dramatic as the one that just passed.

Which, I believe, is the point here.

Therefore, to make any historic comparison, one must go back to 1929 and before.

Wrong.
Tell me what was different between the 1980 recession and this one. Or the one in 2000.

This one had a NINE per cent economic retraction, even with 2 trillion in bailouts and stimulus, and is WORLDWIDE. Super job, pubbies! Pub dupes...

THIS IS A POLITICS FORUM s0n!!!!!


All of your reasoning doesnt matter for shit.........ideology in a POLITICS forum is gay. Its all about perception..........perception...........perception.


s0n.........I suggest getting a good supply of Benedryl and rye whiskey for election night!!

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Half the GOP, 20% of the USA, now believe Obama started this mess. So STOOOPID!

I have never heard anyone say Obama started this mess, Obama has failed to correct the mess like he promised on a dozen occasions.

Obama Promise to Cut Debt in half in 4 years .....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II-9Q-kExYo]Obama's Deficit Reduction Promise - YouTube[/ame]

16 Lies in Obama's own Words

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpLWCvIZDuI&feature=related]Obama - 16 broken promises - YouTube[/ame]

The One Term President lie, Obama says he is accountable... what a liar

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0]FLASHBACK: Obama: My Presidency Will Be 'A One-Term Proposition' If Economy Doesn't Turn In 3 Years - YouTube[/ame]

No Hype here, Obama own words......lol.......

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By all means go ahead.

1839
1873
1929

The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%.

"Should have" according to what metric? Something you just pulled out of your ass?

Here:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Recession of 1947-8 had 3.1% decline in GDP, followed by strong growth, about 15%
1960 had only 1.7% decline, followed by less strong growth
73-75 had 3.2% decline, followed by nearly 10% growth
81-81 saw 2.7% decline followed by 8% growth
This one had a 5% decline and has been followed by 3.5% max growth.

Which one is the oddball in this picture?

You said "We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history."

I proved there are at least three instances where that did not happen.

I never disputed there are also instances where it did happen.

You seemed to be suggesting its a general rule. Its not.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By all means go ahead.

1839
1873
1929

The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%.

"Should have" according to what metric? Something you just pulled out of your ass?

Here:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Recession of 1947-8 had 3.1% decline in GDP, followed by strong growth, about 15%
1960 had only 1.7% decline, followed by less strong growth
73-75 had 3.2% decline, followed by nearly 10% growth
81-81 saw 2.7% decline followed by 8% growth
This one had a 5% decline and has been followed by 3.5% max growth.

Which one is the oddball in this picture?

You said sharp recession is ALWAYS followed by sharp recovery.
I pointed out three cases where that is not true:
1839
1873
1929
Then you respond with a list of cases where it is true.

I suspect we're operating on different definitions of the word "ALWAYS".



EDIT: Besides, isn't it the right wing mantra that we can't judge today's President by yesterday's? Or is it only Bush we're not allowed to talk about?