Census data shows Obamacare and welfare kept millions out of poverty

[Dad2three]

Middle Class Lost In Obama's 'Middle Class Economics'
Economy: After six-plus years of President Obama's big-spending, tax-raising policies, middle-class families have seen their incomes decline and more families have fallen into poverty, Census data show.

The Census Bureau's latest annual report on income and poverty in America shows that there was little to cheer about in 2014.

View attachment 50460


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Middle Class Lost In Obama's 'Middle Class Economics'
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Reagan tripled the national debt, obama was handed one of the worst disasters in decades. Jobs are being added rapidly.

maybe if you took obamas dick out of your mouth, his ball sack would not be blocking your view and you would see that he has done more financial harm to this country than the last 5 presidents before him combined.

LMAOROG. You have gotten quite the origination there Bubs, THAT'S for sure

 

[bripat9643]

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

Didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession?

HE AND HIS KLOWN POSSE SAID BY CUTTING TAXES ON THE RICH, THE ECONOMY WOULD BOOM RIGHT? Despite cutting the top rate from 70% to 50% the first 6 years, which the cut coincided with the recession, weird right?

Carter handed Ronnie a 7.5% unemployment rate (the same handed to him by Ford) Bubba, which he quickly turned into 10.8%


WHEN DID THOSE TAX CUTS TAKE EFFECT (Aug 1981) AGAIN BUBS?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did

RECOVERY? Oh yes after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator" policies, lol


Now what the Dubya/GOP left Obama was an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs a month AND had lost 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of Dubya



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

'

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.



Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

Your LIE that I claimed tax cuts LED to Ronnie's recession is noted Bubs


I ONLY pointed out DESPITE RONNIE AND COMP SAYING IT WOULD BOOM THE ECONOMY, IT TOOK 3+ YEARS TO GET UNEMPLOYMENT BACK TO WHERE CARTER HAD IT, AFTER TAXES WERE CUT!

 

[bripat9643]

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

Didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession?

HE AND HIS KLOWN POSSE SAID BY CUTTING TAXES ON THE RICH, THE ECONOMY WOULD BOOM RIGHT? Despite cutting the top rate from 70% to 50% the first 6 years, which the cut coincided with the recession, weird right?

Carter handed Ronnie a 7.5% unemployment rate (the same handed to him by Ford) Bubba, which he quickly turned into 10.8%


WHEN DID THOSE TAX CUTS TAKE EFFECT (Aug 1981) AGAIN BUBS?

Your chart shows that the recession was already approaching its peak when the tax cuts took effect.

You shot down your own argument.

Oh . . . and your claim that you aren't proposing a cause effect relationship between tax cuts and recession wouldn't fool an 8-year-old.

 

[bripat9643]

Only a certified retard would try to claim that tax cuts causes a recession.

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

Your LIE that I claimed tax cuts LED to Ronnie's recession is noted Bubs


I ONLY pointed out DESPITE RONNIE AND COMP SAYING IT WOULD BOOM THE ECONOMY, IT TOOK 3+ YEARS TO GET UNEMPLOYMENT BACK TO WHERE CARTER HAD IT, AFTER TAXES WERE CUT!

You just claimed again that tax cuts caused the recession.

You're a special kind of stupid, D2three

 

[Dad2three]

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

Didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession?

HE AND HIS KLOWN POSSE SAID BY CUTTING TAXES ON THE RICH, THE ECONOMY WOULD BOOM RIGHT? Despite cutting the top rate from 70% to 50% the first 6 years, which the cut coincided with the recession, weird right?

Carter handed Ronnie a 7.5% unemployment rate (the same handed to him by Ford) Bubba, which he quickly turned into 10.8%


WHEN DID THOSE TAX CUTS TAKE EFFECT (Aug 1981) AGAIN BUBS?

Your chart shows that the recession was already approaching its peak when the tax cuts took effect.

You shot down your own argument.

Oh . . . and your claim that you aren't proposing a cause effect relationship between tax cuts and recession wouldn't fool an 8-year-old.

Sure Bubba, INSTEAD of unemployment going down from the 7.8% rate in August, it shot up to 10.8%, lol

Yeah, THAT'S the OPPOSITE of what you right wingers CLAIMED would happen right?

I STILL WANT TO KNOW HOW THE FUKK COULD THE ECONOMY GROW AT ALL, WHEN THE TOP TAX RATE WAS A SOCIALIST 50% RONNIE'S FIRST 6 YEARS?

 

[Dad2three]

Only a certified retard would claim that was what was said Bubba

Allow me to quote you, Bubba:

"Oh right that recession that started UNDER REAGAN AFTER HE GUTTED TAXES ON THE RICH FROM 70% TO 50%? Weird right, the opposite of what he promised right? Took unemployment from 7% to 10% that Ronnie did"​

Of course without the Dubya/GOP gutting revenues via their tax cuts that tilted heavily towards the richest, we could have dealt better with the consequences of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies!

In other words, tax cuts cause recessions. First you deny it, then you admit it.

Weird, did you read SOME causation in there Bubba, OR JUST THAT RONNIE AND COMP PROMISED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? oops

You dishonest POS


NEXT

Reagan didn't promise there wouldn't be a recession. Carter insured that with his 14% inflation, 20% interest rates and 8% unemployment.

Your LIE that I claimed tax cuts LED to Ronnie's recession is noted Bubs


I ONLY pointed out DESPITE RONNIE AND COMP SAYING IT WOULD BOOM THE ECONOMY, IT TOOK 3+ YEARS TO GET UNEMPLOYMENT BACK TO WHERE CARTER HAD IT, AFTER TAXES WERE CUT!

You just claimed again that tax cuts caused the recession.

You're a special kind of stupid, D2three

Sure dummy, sure

Ronnie/Dubya's tax cuts are going to "stimulate" the economy any day now too?? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The Deficit Explained And Fiscal Conservatism Debunked (In Two Graphs)

Note that the last five times we’ve had budget surpluses (four of them were Clinton budgets), revenue was near 20% of GDP. So that is a good guideline for the minimum size of govt Americans actually want in the modern age. But the Clinton surpluses were squandered in the Bush years when revenue dropped to below 15% of GDP and spending soared to 25%.

 

[Anathema]

The pubbies must be horrified.
Census data shows Obamacare and welfare kept millions out of poverty

It's not the job of the Government to defeat poverty

 

[David_42]

The pubbies must be horrified.
Census data shows Obamacare and welfare kept millions out of poverty

It's not the job of the Government to defeat poverty.

Yeah, because the capitalists will obviously do it.. LOL.

 

[Anathema]

Yeah, because the capitalists will obviously do it.. LOL.

It's not their job either. It is every INDIVIDUALS job to keep themselves out of poverty.

 

[David_42]

Yeah, because the capitalists will obviously do it.. LOL.

It's not their job either. It is every INDIVIDUALS job to keep themselves out of poverty.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, because the capitalists will obviously do it.. LOL.

It's not their job either. It is every INDIVIDUALS job to keep themselves out of poverty.

Says the Randian fetishists that's NEVER been used ANYWHERE, successfully at least!

 

[Anathema]

Impressive response, sir. Did you use that to open you PhD dissertation in Philosophy as well?

 

[Anathema]

Says the Randian fetishists that's NEVER been used ANYWHERE, successfully at least!

No. Says the man who believes that it is HIS responsibility to provise for and support GIS family. The man who gas never and will never take money frim the Government. If/when I can't support myself and my family, it's time to leave this world.

 

[Dad2three]

Says the Randian fetishists that's NEVER been used ANYWHERE, successfully at least!

No. Says the man who believes that it is HIS responsibility to provise for and support GIS family. The man who gas never and will never take money frim the Government. If/when I can't support myself and my family, it's time to leave this world.

Good for you Bubs

Weird how the rest of the industrialized world uses GOOD GOV'T POLICY. But you Klowns want to rely on that Calvinist BS about just working harder, lol

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course it did,,,,The rich have fucked over the market place and ******* sent us into a recession...So all the people that needed help got it under Obama.

Can you take your lips off your Obama blow up doll long enough to read you own posts ?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Poverty has increased under Obama, .......oooops......

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The Deficit Explained And Fiscal Conservatism Debunked (In Two Graphs)

Note that the last five times we’ve had budget surpluses (four of them were Clinton budgets), revenue was near 20% of GDP. So that is a good guideline for the minimum size of govt Americans actually want in the modern age. But the Clinton surpluses were squandered in the Bush years when revenue dropped to below 15% of GDP and spending soared to 25%.

looking at those charts I would say that it looks like Bush 1 actually got the economy moving in the right direction, then it took a few years of clintons errors to turn it back around. By the time clinton left office the surplus was already gone and the downward trend was fairly steep, however, Bush 2 was able to turn it back around and start heading back up, until clintons housing bubble finally burst, the real decline during the Bush 2 admin appears to have come about the same time that the democrats took over congress and the senate
I think we can look at the chart and extrapolate the data that clearly shows the republican leadership worked and the democrats continuously undo all good done.