Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[The Rabbi]

Hindsight is 20/20. And your side lost. We were right to go in. Bush's actions in the face of the surrender caucus among the Democrats won the war.
Obama fucked up the peace and now the ME is a blazing shithole.

5000 dead

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

You are truly clueless. No need to prove it.
Remind me how Obama's surge in Afghanistan has accomplished anything other than needless loss of American life.

No, seriously

You are one sick SOB laughing off 5000 dead in a senseless war

But it was only 5000 killed

No, you are seriously stupid and dishonest. You dont give a shit about any Americans killed. If you did you would be complaining about Obama's senseless wars. You are a hypocrite and a moron.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

proof? btw the costs went up in almost every case.
Not to mention people were happy with their HC and Barry lied about keeping their HCP and Dr.

No one was happy with annual premium hikes of between 15-18%. Since Obamacare went into full swing, we've seen that slow to under 4% the last few years.

The rich have gotten richer and everyone else has stagnated not because Obama, but because the stupid Republican-controlled congress has a vested interest in making sure to pass nothing that might help working people, less Obama get the credit for it. This fact has been out in the open since inauguration night in January of 2009 when Mitch McConnell--de facto leader of the Republican party ever since--said he'd make Obama a one-term President.

From that moment on, before Obama even had a chance to start, Republicans decided they'd oppose everything in a cynical ploy to make voters so frustrated with Washington inaction that it would surely bring Obama down, or at least confuse enough voters into believing Obama to be ineffectual.

Despite having to govern a huge country with one whole party not participating in the process, Obama has managed quite well. Just 6 years after the economic crash, household income has actually begun to rise. Because of Republican intransigence, Obama now gets FULL credit for 68 consecutive months of private sector job growth, a new American record.

Imagine how much better the country would be doing had Republicans actually decided to go to work for the American people these last 6 years instead of only serving themselves.

For your information, the median family income is lower today than before DumBama took office. Yes, the Republicans stopped Obama. That's why American put Republicans into leadership--to stop him, not work with him.

So Mitch said that he wanted to see DumBama as a one term President. What's wrong with that? You mean to tell me that Democrats hope a Republican President is a two-term President? Of course not. Both parties want to see their own in the White House. You on the left act like it's an anomaly or something.

68 months of private job growth? Then why do we still have record amounts of the poor, record people not working since the mid 70's, record number of government dependents?

Not too good of a record if you ask me.

Median wages are down?

I blame the job creators

Of course you do. You certainly can't blame Obama......... you never do.

After all we have done for the "job creators"
Record low taxes, low capital gains, bailouts, TARP

What do we have to show for it?
Lower wages

Why are we helping job creators again?

Record low taxes? And who provided those, DumBama? I don't think so.

So we have lower wages now, who do you think is responsible? Not the guy that imposed fines on businesses for not carrying health insurance or forcing them to provide it. Not the guy that 's ushering in foreigners including illegals that will work for next to nothing. Of course not. It's those job creators.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what was our most success in Iraq? The surge. What is a surge? More military boots on the ground. It worked.

Surge was only necessary to cover our ass

Never should have been there in the first place

Hindsight is 20/20. And your side lost. We were right to go in. Bush's actions in the face of the surrender caucus among the Democrats won the war.
Obama fucked up the peace and now the ME is a blazing shithole.

5000 dead

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

 

[rightwinger]

No one was happy with annual premium hikes of between 15-18%. Since Obamacare went into full swing, we've seen that slow to under 4% the last few years.

The rich have gotten richer and everyone else has stagnated not because Obama, but because the stupid Republican-controlled congress has a vested interest in making sure to pass nothing that might help working people, less Obama get the credit for it. This fact has been out in the open since inauguration night in January of 2009 when Mitch McConnell--de facto leader of the Republican party ever since--said he'd make Obama a one-term President.

From that moment on, before Obama even had a chance to start, Republicans decided they'd oppose everything in a cynical ploy to make voters so frustrated with Washington inaction that it would surely bring Obama down, or at least confuse enough voters into believing Obama to be ineffectual.

Despite having to govern a huge country with one whole party not participating in the process, Obama has managed quite well. Just 6 years after the economic crash, household income has actually begun to rise. Because of Republican intransigence, Obama now gets FULL credit for 68 consecutive months of private sector job growth, a new American record.

Imagine how much better the country would be doing had Republicans actually decided to go to work for the American people these last 6 years instead of only serving themselves.

For your information, the median family income is lower today than before DumBama took office. Yes, the Republicans stopped Obama. That's why American put Republicans into leadership--to stop him, not work with him.

So Mitch said that he wanted to see DumBama as a one term President. What's wrong with that? You mean to tell me that Democrats hope a Republican President is a two-term President? Of course not. Both parties want to see their own in the White House. You on the left act like it's an anomaly or something.

68 months of private job growth? Then why do we still have record amounts of the poor, record people not working since the mid 70's, record number of government dependents?

Not too good of a record if you ask me.

Median wages are down?

I blame the job creators

Of course you do. You certainly can't blame Obama......... you never do.

After all we have done for the "job creators"
Record low taxes, low capital gains, bailouts, TARP

What do we have to show for it?
Lower wages

Why are we helping job creators again?

Record low taxes? And who provided those, DumBama? I don't think so.

So we have lower wages now, who do you think is responsible? Not the guy that imposed fines on businesses for not carrying health insurance or forcing them to provide it. Not the guy that 's ushering in foreigners including illegals that will work for next to nothing. Of course not. It's those job creators.

Who is responsible?

The job creators who are worshipped by conservatives

 

[rightwinger]

Surge was only necessary to cover our ass

Never should have been there in the first place

Hindsight is 20/20. And your side lost. We were right to go in. Bush's actions in the face of the surrender caucus among the Democrats won the war.
Obama fucked up the peace and now the ME is a blazing shithole.

5000 dead

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

 

[The Rabbi]

Hindsight is 20/20. And your side lost. We were right to go in. Bush's actions in the face of the surrender caucus among the Democrats won the war.
Obama fucked up the peace and now the ME is a blazing shithole.

5000 dead

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

 

[Brain357]

5000 dead

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Heck as we have seen now he was holding down terrorists. There would be no ISIS if Saddam was still around.

 

[rightwinger]

5000 dead

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For your information, the median family income is lower today than before DumBama took office. Yes, the Republicans stopped Obama. That's why American put Republicans into leadership--to stop him, not work with him.

So Mitch said that he wanted to see DumBama as a one term President. What's wrong with that? You mean to tell me that Democrats hope a Republican President is a two-term President? Of course not. Both parties want to see their own in the White House. You on the left act like it's an anomaly or something.

68 months of private job growth? Then why do we still have record amounts of the poor, record people not working since the mid 70's, record number of government dependents?

Not too good of a record if you ask me.

Median wages are down?

I blame the job creators

Of course you do. You certainly can't blame Obama......... you never do.

After all we have done for the "job creators"
Record low taxes, low capital gains, bailouts, TARP

What do we have to show for it?
Lower wages

Why are we helping job creators again?

Record low taxes? And who provided those, DumBama? I don't think so.

So we have lower wages now, who do you think is responsible? Not the guy that imposed fines on businesses for not carrying health insurance or forcing them to provide it. Not the guy that 's ushering in foreigners including illegals that will work for next to nothing. Of course not. It's those job creators.

Who is responsible?

The job creators who are worshipped by conservatives

There are a lot of people responsible. The main blame goes to the American consumer who won't support good paying jobs. They will opt to have manufactured goods from slave labor countries.

Government is second in line. As I mentioned, DumBama and Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Next is our market. Nobody wants to invest in a company that has a growth of 2% whether they gross a million dollars a year or three billion dollars a year. We have way more investors now than we did 30 years ago, and companies rely on that money for maintenance and growth. If a company is doing fine with a 4% growth and has investors, they will lose those investors if they fall to 2.5% growth because they decided to heed the liberal cry for better paying jobs.

But you think it's so simplistic like just blaming the job creators. Amazing.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Ray 12770488

. ... invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again.

How on earth could kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq in March 2003 that were peacefully verifying that Iraq had no WMD so that U.S. and UK troops could invade a country that had no connection to 9/11 or to Al Qaeda be justified on a basis that it would prevent another 9/11 attack? That makes no sense and is not an argument for invasion that the Bush Administration used to justify their really dumb war.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cheap at twice the price.
How many were killed in 9/11?

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

 

[Indeependent]

You send an additional 5000 Americans to their death to avenge 3000 killed on 9/11 and you attack a country that wasn't even involved?

You call that cheap? You are one sick SOB

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

As opposed to your usual fully-incoherent inanities?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

 

[The Rabbi]

For your information, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 911.

After 911, everybody started pointing fingers. How could we have let our guard down knowing these terrorists were hot to take down America? We've known about this enemy for decades. They've attacked us before! They used our e-mail and cell phones to communicate, and we didn't do a thing to intercept!!!!

Invading Iraq was not because of 911, invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again. The terrorists who participated in 911 were all dead. The Patriot Act was passed so that if terrorists ever entered our country, we would at least be able to track their communications, and if possible, track them before they even got here.

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

As opposed to your usual fully-incoherent inanities?

If your meds were working properly my posts would be comprehensibel to you.

 

[Indeependent]

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

As opposed to your usual fully-incoherent inanities?

If your meds were working properly my posts would be comprehensibel to you.

"comprehensibel"...New word...I like.

 

[Brain357]

Hence....."you attacked a country that wasn't even involved"

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

As opposed to your usual fully-incoherent inanities?

If your meds were working properly my posts would be comprehensibel to you.

I doubt any drugs could make you comprehensible.

 

[Indeependent]

Germany wasnt involved in Pearl Harbor either, Nutwinger.

Bullshit.....you never seen Animal House?

Once again demonstrating your ability to beclown yourself. Good job, Nutwinger. You really racked them up today. Defeated in every thread and reduced to posting half-coherent inanities.

As opposed to your usual fully-incoherent inanities?

If your meds were working properly my posts would be comprehensibel to you.

I doubt any drugs could make you comprehensible.

You realize TheRabbi has never made one statement to explain ANYTHING on this forum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12770488

. ... invading Iraq was so that another 911 didn't happen again.

How on earth could kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq in March 2003 that were peacefully verifying that Iraq had no WMD so that U.S. and UK troops could invade a country that had no connection to 9/11 or to Al Qaeda be justified on a basis that it would prevent another 9/11 attack? That makes no sense and is not an argument for invasion that the Bush Administration used to justify their really dumb war.

Because of our domestic and foreign intelligence that were convinced Iraq had WMD's. While it turned out not to be the case, Bush did give Saddam every ability to prove he had destroyed those weapons. Even the UN at the time stated that Saddam's proof of such dismantling of WMD's were BS. Also many believe those weapons were moved to Syria.

The UN inspections? Give me a break. Less than a dozen inspectors checking out a country the size of Texas. It was a complete joke.

 

[francoHFW]

Ray 12771426

.....Democrats across the country are making it more expensive and harder on the employers in this country with their increase in minimum wage and socialized healthcare, plus all the regulations that follow.

Healthcare has not been socialized. The out of control rate of increase of US healthcare costs prior to the ACA was on a doomsday course for businesses as well as health care consumers. That rate of increase has been brought under control and the private insurers have no problem with it.

There was great job growth under Clinton when minimum wage workers had more purchasing power in return for their labor.

It does not make sense that businesses can't cope specifically when it's not disputed that today's workers are more productive than ever.

More productive than ever? Then what is your explanation behind the median family income lower than when DumBama took office? What is your explanation behind having the most American people not working since the mid 70's? What is your explanation behind our record poverty levels and government dependency?

When I was younger, people did work harder than ever. In many cases I had two jobs, and I was not alone. Many of my friends and family did the same. How many people today do you know with two or more jobs? No need to. There are expanded socialized programs to make up the wage indifference.

The Clinton success story is twofold: Clinton presided with a Republican Congress for the first time in over 40 years. He was President during the tech bubble which burst at the end of his second term. It had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. If anything, it might have been due to Welfare Reform pushed by the Republican Congress.

Possibly the same Reaganist disaster that has lasted over 30 years? DUH

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts