Median Household Incomes D O W N under Obama! I Do Mean D-O-W-N

[pinqy]

Oh, and no, the labor force participation is nowhere near it's historic low of 58.1%

Good thing I didn't say "record" I said "historic." Labor participation is still scraping bottom while the recession bottomed out six years ago.

"Historical" means" in the last 6 years???? Good to know. I always thought in meant "through history."

But you misunderstand the relationship of the UE rate and the LFPR. The UE rate shows the percent of those available for work who are not working. The LFPR shows the percent of the population that is available for work. Lower excess supply is a good thing, even if the supply is lower overall or as a percent of total possible supply.

Gotcha, when I turn on the liberal media and they keep hyping the declining unemployment rate while ignoring the ultra low labor participation rate, I'm failing to grasp what their message is. LOL, sure I am...

You're perfectly free to share your view on why the participation rate, which is influenced by non-labor market demographic factors is so important.

 

[Iceweasel]

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

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.

Obama's stimulus really was very large, though it was also too small given the scale of the problem. But, in a sop to Republicans, much of its was conducted through tax cuts, and quite a bit was also done through transfer payments.

obama didn't need to ramp up for the cold war, if anything he had the opportunity to downsize the military. And Reagan didn't get his spending cuts, something liberals refuse to grasp.

 

[BlindBoo]

And no matter how many liberals spin it differently, median income is STILL down under Obama. STILL DOWN.

No matter how you spin it the downturn didn't happen on Jan, 2009. Nope, median income was falling before Obama took office. The answer is simple. The economic cycle and the political cycle do not match.

Clearly we were in a recession when Obama took office, the thing that didn't happen when Obama took over that normally does happen is ... a recovery ...

Bush inherited the recession part of Clinton's cycle as well.

The difference is that W was responsible for a recession that effectively started six months before he became President and he's still responsible for a recession that's continuing six years after he left office. So he's now been responsible for 14 12 years of economics when he spent 8 years as President. That's how liberal math works.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

 

[Uncensored2008]

So with everything Obama has tried to spin or lie about, he's not been able to dispute this OP: Median household incomes are nowhere near as high as they were under Bush.

And the economy is about to get worse.

This I don't agree with.

I predict that the economy is about to get better, for several reasons:

• Lower oil and natural gas costs put more disposable income in the hands of consumers, right at the holidays
• Republican control of both houses. Even without a repeal of Obama's fascist care, the GOP will slow the rot that it represents.
• The economic issues in Asia. Japan is in the toilet, China is close behind. Taiwan is faltering. The U.S. is again in the position of preeminent manufacturer of technology.

I expect 2015 to be the best year GDP wise since 2006. This depends on Obama being neutered by the GOP - if corruption wins the day and the Chicago mob steals the elections with voter fraud, then all bets are off.

 

[Iceweasel]

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

Clinton ended with a Republican congress, Bush ended with Democrats. Coincidence? I think not. Bush also has a lot on his plate with the natural and man made disasters. As it turns out, obama IS a man made disaster.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What polls? You have some polls comparing Bush and Obama? Let's see them.

I know you are a partisan hack and that you don't reason, but the approval ratings for Obama are virtually identical to those of Bush at this point in his term.

 

[Iceweasel]

So with everything Obama has tried to spin or lie about, he's not been able to dispute this OP: Median household incomes are nowhere near as high as they were under Bush.

And the economy is about to get worse.

This I don't agree with.

I predict that the economy is about to get better, for several reasons:

• Lower oil and natural gas costs put more disposable income in the hands of consumers, right at the holidays
• Republican control of both houses. Even without a repeal of Obama's fascist care, the GOP will slow the rot that it represents.
• The economic issues in Asia. Japan is in the toilet, China is close behind. Taiwan is faltering. The U.S. is again in the position of preeminent manufacturer of technology.

I expect 2015 to be the best year GDP wise since 2006. This depends on Obama being neutered by the GOP - if corruption wins the day and the Chicago mob steals the elections with voter fraud, then all bets are off.

If so, the libs will give obama the credit, like they did with Clinton.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama doesn't set wages.

Oh good, so the utter fuckup isn't pushing some retarded Minimum Wage scheme to devalue the earnings of the middle class and push their purchasing power down I was worried the fucking moron would promote a $15 an hour minimum that would suck the life out of those who had worked up to that wage and currently enjoyed the purchasing power - knowing that value is not set by socialist planners and that the invisible hand would quickly adjust purchasing power to match the lowest wage.

But it's good to hear that the worst president in history is not planning such a stupid move.

 

[kaz]

And no matter how many liberals spin it differently, median income is STILL down under Obama. STILL DOWN.

No matter how you spin it the downturn didn't happen on Jan, 2009. Nope, median income was falling before Obama took office. The answer is simple. The economic cycle and the political cycle do not match.

Clearly we were in a recession when Obama took office, the thing that didn't happen when Obama took over that normally does happen is ... a recovery ...

Bush inherited the recession part of Clinton's cycle as well.

The difference is that W was responsible for a recession that effectively started six months before he became President and he's still responsible for a recession that's continuing six years after he left office. So he's now been responsible for 14 12 years of economics when he spent 8 years as President. That's how liberal math works.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

You mean Obama's spending minus the wars and TARP that were outside the budget?

And BTW, the logical fallacy you just committed is called the fallacy of the single cause.

 

[BlindBoo]

No matter how you spin it the downturn didn't happen on Jan, 2009. Nope, median income was falling before Obama took office. The answer is simple. The economic cycle and the political cycle do not match.

Clearly we were in a recession when Obama took office, the thing that didn't happen when Obama took over that normally does happen is ... a recovery ...

Bush inherited the recession part of Clinton's cycle as well.

The difference is that W was responsible for a recession that effectively started six months before he became President and he's still responsible for a recession that's continuing six years after he left office. So he's now been responsible for 14 12 years of economics when he spent 8 years as President. That's how liberal math works.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

You mean Obama's spending minus the wars and TARP that were outside the budget?

And BTW, the logical fallacy you just committed is called the fallacy of the single cause.

It is a much more realistic look at our economics since the 1990's. In stark contrast to the OP's assessment of President Obama's record. which has yet to be completed, under President Bush, median household income did decline. But in fact the last paragraph is what I've said since I first posted in this thread, it makes the OP's point moot.

 

[kaz]

Clearly we were in a recession when Obama took office, the thing that didn't happen when Obama took over that normally does happen is ... a recovery ...

Bush inherited the recession part of Clinton's cycle as well.

The difference is that W was responsible for a recession that effectively started six months before he became President and he's still responsible for a recession that's continuing six years after he left office. So he's now been responsible for 14 12 years of economics when he spent 8 years as President. That's how liberal math works.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

You mean Obama's spending minus the wars and TARP that were outside the budget?

And BTW, the logical fallacy you just committed is called the fallacy of the single cause.

It is a much more realistic look at our economics since the 1990's. In stark contrast to the OP's assessment of President Obama's record. which has yet to be completed, under President Bush, median household income did decline. But in fact the last paragraph is what I've said since I first posted in this thread, it makes the OP's point moot.

The reality is that perception is everything. Recessions are driven by fear to spend. Reagan made the country feel good, that was his most important policy. W made people feel mixed on the economy. He did nothing but harm it with his endless spending, but despite his record, people didn't feel he was anti-business. Other than Obamacare, Obama has not gotten the rampant spending he wants. However, the perception is that he hates us (the business community). We will spend, but we are loathe to make long term commitments because of what Obama wants to do to us if he can. And the one thing he did get, Obamacare, is a massively anti-free market program. Perception more than anything though is why the economy continues to stagnate under Obama and is actually still in a recession if you look at real instead of nominal numbers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No matter how you spin it the downturn didn't happen on Jan, 2009. Nope, median income was falling before Obama took office. The answer is simple. The economic cycle and the political cycle do not match.

Clearly we were in a recession when Obama took office, the thing that didn't happen when Obama took over that normally does happen is ... a recovery ...

Bush inherited the recession part of Clinton's cycle as well.

The difference is that W was responsible for a recession that effectively started six months before he became President and he's still responsible for a recession that's continuing six years after he left office. So he's now been responsible for 14 12 years of economics when he spent 8 years as President. That's how liberal math works.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

You mean Obama's spending minus the wars and TARP that were outside the budget?

And BTW, the logical fallacy you just committed is called the fallacy of the single cause.

Obama put the wars on the budget, fool.

 

[EconChick]

Bush inherited the recession part of Clinton's cycle as well.

The difference is that W was responsible for a recession that effectively started six months before he became President and he's still responsible for a recession that's continuing six years after he left office. So he's now been responsible for 14 12 years of economics when he spent 8 years as President. That's how liberal math works.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic

You mean Obama's spending minus the wars and TARP that were outside the budget?

And BTW, the logical fallacy you just committed is called the fallacy of the single cause.

It is a much more realistic look at our economics since the 1990's. In stark contrast to the OP's assessment of President Obama's record. which has yet to be completed, under President Bush, median household income did decline. But in fact the last paragraph is what I've said since I first posted in this thread, it makes the OP's point moot.

The reality is that perception is everything. Recessions are driven by fear to spend. Reagan made the country feel good, that was his most important policy. W made people feel mixed on the economy. He did nothing but harm it with his endless spending, but despite his record, people didn't feel he was anti-business. Other than Obamacare, Obama has not gotten the rampant spending he wants. However, the perception is that he hates us (the business community). We will spend, but we are loathe to make long term commitments because of what Obama wants to do to us if he can. And the one thing he did get, Obamacare, is a massively anti-free market program. Perception more than anything though is why the economy continues to stagnate under Obama and is actually still in a recession if you look at real instead of nominal numbers.

Yep, and is why they're holding on to trillions instead of spending them. Because they have no idea what the next knife in the back is going to be to the business community.

Uncertainty may seem like just an 11 letter word, but it is extremely important to the business psyche!

 

[Uncensored2008]

If so, the libs will give obama the credit, like they did with Clinton.

Then Republicans better learn to get the message out.

Start with a campaign of mockery for those who get their "news": from cartoons and comedy central. The leftists on this forum as so stupid they think "Family Guy" is legitimate social commentary.

 

[kaz]

Perception more than anything though is why the economy continues to stagnate under Obama and is actually still in a recession if you look at real instead of nominal numbers.

Yep, and is why they're holding on to trillions instead of spending them. Because they have no idea what the next knife in the back is going to be to the business community.

Uncertainty may seem like just an 11 letter word, but it is extremely important to the business psyche!

The other reason is that much of that money is overseas where our government is blocking its return with idiotic repatriation taxes which no other western power is stupid enough to charge it's corporations.

That is further proof that Liberals are ideologues. They want government to get 35% of repatriated money. Companies don't bring it home. When W cut it for one year to 5%, the treasury got far more tax dollars from that tax than any other year when it's seven times as high.

You have the whole world to invest in, do you want $1 in the world other than the USA or 65 cents in the USA? Companies are rational, they don't repatriate money. Yet liberals still puff their chest and blast anyone who proposes to end that idiocy. They are authoritarian leftist zealots, it has nothing to do with helping anyone, it has to do with control

 

[EconChick]

Perception more than anything though is why the economy continues to stagnate under Obama and is actually still in a recession if you look at real instead of nominal numbers.

Yep, and is why they're holding on to trillions instead of spending them. Because they have no idea what the next knife in the back is going to be to the business community.

Uncertainty may seem like just an 11 letter word, but it is extremely important to the business psyche!

The other reason is that much of that money is overseas where our government is blocking its return with idiotic repatriation taxes which no other western power is stupid enough to charge it's corporations.

That is further proof that Liberals are ideologues. They want government to get 35% of repatriated money. Companies don't bring it home. When W cut it for one year to 5%, the treasury got far more tax dollars from that tax than any other year when it's seven times as high.

You have the whole world to invest in, do you want $1 in the world other than the USA or 65 cents in the USA? Companies are rational, they don't repatriate money. Yet liberals still puff their chest and blast anyone who proposes to end that idiocy. They are authoritarian leftist zealots, it has nothing to do with helping anyone, it has to do with control

Yep, it defies math. And common sense.

 

[EconChick]

Obama has just not helped the middle class. It's that simple. And his base has extremely high unemployment rates.

 

[EconChick]

No matter how far lefties spin it.....the middle class isn't keeping as much in their pockets as they did under Bush.

Even prominent liberals have admitted it.

 

[EconChick]

It looks like the libs on USMB finally decided the OP was right.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Despite manipulation of economic statistics by libs to pretend the economy is great, everyday Americans know better. There is malaise in the air. All Americans have to do is look at their own household incomes. Study after study shows those median incomes are down under Obama. Many say it's an average of about $4,000 less.

Obama s Economy We ve Fallen And We Can t Get Up - Investors.com

I know, right... those crazy libs with their practically unheard of economic metrics like GDP and the unemployment rate.