Obama's Accelerating Downward Spiral For America

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
SNIP'

Comment now

New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.

In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better.

Obama never tires of telling us that the economy was in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression when he entered office, as if he was the only President to have suffered a recession early in his term. But nobody expected that he would use the vast powers of the most powerful office in the world to make it worse. But that is what he has done.

Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”

The Journal elaborated, “The President portrays the financial decline of American families on his watch as part of a decades-long trend. He’s wrong. Real income for middle income households rose by roughly 30% from 1983 to 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” And MSNBC hosts, listen up, you might learn something. The Journal further explains, “The political left likes to blame the ebbing of union power. But non-government unionization fell dramatically in the 1980s and 90s, and incomes rose.”

True, income growth lagged from where it should have been during the Bush years. But that only reflected the abandonment of half of Reagan’s economic program during those years. While Bush’s tax rate reductions did promote growth, Bush and the Republican Congress lost control of federal spending during the 2000s. Federal spending as a percent of GDP increased by one-seventh during the Bush years, almost exactly reversing the gains that had been won under Speaker Gingrich’s Republican Congress in the 1990s. (Clinton played a good rhetorical game appearing to fight the spending reductions, but deserves great credit for substantively giving into them in the end.)

read it all here
Obama's Accelerating Downward Spiral For America - Forbes
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA]President Bush's speech on the financial crisis 9/24/08 (1) - YouTube[/ame]
 
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964.

Clearly, it must be because Obama caused the recession. He hates America and is a communist muslim kenyan/indonesian/space alien whose friends are all terrorists and carneys.
 
Last edited:
four years ago Bush was president.


In a couple of weeks the American people would be told their economy was collapsing due to deregualtion of the banking industry.

what doi the idiot republicans want to do now ?

deregulate everything and give tax cuts to the very people who cheated the minute the rules were relaxed
 
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better.

]

In January of 2009 ALONE, we lost 800,000 jobs.

Now pay attention:

The month you LOSE your job is not where your income loss shows up. Your income goes down after you've been unemployed for awhile. The impact on incomes for those MASSIVE job losses in 2008 and into the early months of 2009 don't show up until months later.
 
Last edited:
SNIP'

Comment now

New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.

In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better.

Obama never tires of telling us that the economy was in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression when he entered office, as if he was the only President to have suffered a recession early in his term. But nobody expected that he would use the vast powers of the most powerful office in the world to make it worse. But that is what he has done.

Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”

The Journal elaborated, “The President portrays the financial decline of American families on his watch as part of a decades-long trend. He’s wrong. Real income for middle income households rose by roughly 30% from 1983 to 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” And MSNBC hosts, listen up, you might learn something. The Journal further explains, “The political left likes to blame the ebbing of union power. But non-government unionization fell dramatically in the 1980s and 90s, and incomes rose.”

True, income growth lagged from where it should have been during the Bush years. But that only reflected the abandonment of half of Reagan’s economic program during those years. While Bush’s tax rate reductions did promote growth, Bush and the Republican Congress lost control of federal spending during the 2000s. Federal spending as a percent of GDP increased by one-seventh during the Bush years, almost exactly reversing the gains that had been won under Speaker Gingrich’s Republican Congress in the 1990s. (Clinton played a good rhetorical game appearing to fight the spending reductions, but deserves great credit for substantively giving into them in the end.)

read it all here
Obama's Accelerating Downward Spiral For America - Forbes



Gawd.


What a horrid excuse for a Presidency. I would take Carter all day long over this asschaps.


America deserves much, much better.
 
Yes they do deserve better than we have right now.

The only way to get better is to reelcted Obama.

If the republicans get control again they will deregulate and give tax breaks to the very people who fucked us in the finacial markets so they could profit.
 
No, Americans are not happy about the present state of the economy. However, most understand that the crisis the GOP created in 2008 is not one that is easily overcame in just four years. And they understand that putting the GOP back in control would only lead to an even worse crisis. We will see the result of this understanding in November.
 
Do stupid fuking rethugs like Snipper and Stapanie, get up every morning and tell themselves; there was no President before Obama, there was no President before Obama, there was no President before Obama. etc etc ad infinitum.

How ignorant are you two?

Never mind. You have already answered that question. The only one you have ever answered. Prettyfukingstupid. And you two prove it every day.
 
No, Americans are not happy about the present state of the economy. However, most understand that the crisis the GOP created in 2008 is not one that is easily overcame in just four years. And they understand that putting the GOP back in control would only lead to an even worse crisis. We will see the result of this understanding in November.

oh yeah, because Obama has done so much for us and the economy..
vote him out people, we can't AFFORD any more of his VISIONS, (ObamaCare), taxes put on us everywhere we turn, etc
 
when was the last time a living president was not invited to the republican convention?


they all pretend Bush never exsisted now.

while he was president they praised his every turd
 
No, Americans are not happy about the present state of the economy. However, most understand that the crisis the GOP created in 2008 is not one that is easily overcame in just four years. And they understand that putting the GOP back in control would only lead to an even worse crisis. We will see the result of this understanding in November.

oh yeah, because Obama has done so much for us and the economy..
vote him out people, we can't AFFORD any more of his VISIONS, (ObamaCare), taxes put on us everywhere we turn, etc

deregulation and tax cuts are what caused this mess.

why do you still champion them?
 
when was the last time a living president was not invited to the republican convention?


they all pretend Bush never exsisted now.

while he was president they praised his every turd

well, that is something for you to fret about..we'll worry about the important thing
 
.

Funny thing. I'm freakin' neck deep in the economy, finance and investing pretty much 7 days a week, I have to analyze and read analyses of multiple levels of domestic and foreign equity & debt markets constantly, I have to consider the actions of politicians all over the freakin' planet and their potential ramifications on global markets, and I have to look carefully at employment and business & consumer behavior all the time.

And neither I nor the experts I know and follow can tell you with certainty where the global economy is right now, nor where it is heading. It's a massive, deep, complex and symbiotic puzzle that has constantly moving parts.

But all this time, I guess all I should have done was point the finger of blame at one President or the other. "It's all HIS fault, yeah, that guy over there."

Wow, all the time I could have saved!

.
 
Last edited:
The unmoving polls from spring until present demonstrate how set the opinions are in this nation. And at present, it looks like the majority of Americans do not trust Romney-Ryan not to take us back to October of 2008.
 
Record poverty, record foodstamps, record debt, complete government disfunction, Mideast meltdown, record long term unemployment, record divisiveness....

... I am sure there are some records I missed!

LOL @ our piece of shit leader.
 
.

Funny thing. I'm freakin' neck deep in the economy, finance and investing pretty much 7 days a week, I have to analyze and read analyses of multiple levels of domestic and foreign equity & debt markets constantly, I have to consider the actions of politicians all over the freakin' planet and their potential ramifications on global markets, and I have to look carefully at employment and business & consumer behavior all the time.

And neither I nor the experts I know and follow can tell you with certainty where the global economy is right now, nor where it is heading. It's a massive, deep, complex and symbiotic puzzle that has constantly moving parts.

But all this time, I guess all I should have done was point the finger of blame at one President or the other.

Wow, all the time I could have saved!

.

This mess was avoidable.

Bush allowed the broker rules to go without replacing them with what was passed in the GLBact.

No broker rules.

If you are who you say you are how can you pretend that doesnt matter?
 
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
 

Forum List

Back
Top