1989

[Edgetho]

How long ago was that? Let me get my Abacus out... Lessee.... 1999 = ten years, 2009 = 20 years, add 4 more to get to 2013....

Twenty-Four Years. Think about that. Twenty Four years. Over two decades.

Know why that's significant? Because the average American Household makes less than they did..... Twenty-Four years ago...

Almost a Quarter of a Century later and we're doing WORSE? Congratulations dimocraps. I didn't think you could sink any lower. But you never fail to disappoint

Here, this writer says it better than I can...

PressTV - Median household income has fallen for five years in a row

According to the Census report, the high point for median household income in the United States was back in 1999 ($56,080). It almost got back to that level in 2007 ($55,627), but ever since then there has been a steady decline. The following figures come directly from the report, and as you can see, median household income has fallen every single year for the past five years…

2007: $55,627

2008: $53,644

2009: $53,285

2010: $51,892

2011: $51,100

2012: $51,017

How far does that number have to go down before we admit that we have a major problem on our hands?

Edge:
And in case you libtards want to cry about the source (you're alwasy crying about something)...

Here's Pravda West (aka; WaPo) verifying the story.

Why hasn't the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM been trumpeting this like it's the end of the World? Take a guess

The typical American family makes less than it did in 1989

And for your information....... Republicans STOMPED dimocraps in 1994 and took over BOTH Houses of Congress until 2007, interrupted only by the traitor Jim Jeffords' Senate jump to the dimocraps in 2001 for 19 Months.

Suck on it, dimocraps. We had the best of times. You are facing decades of poverty and struggling just to get by. But we had the good sense to vote for Republicans and you....??

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of morons.

Oh yeah....... It had to be the fault of..... BOOOOOOSSSSHH!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

1989

The end of the Reagan administration. Looks like Reaganomics did what it set out to do

 

[TemplarKormac]

1989

The end of the Reagan administration. Looks like Reaganomics did what it set out to do

2008-2016

Looks like Obamanomics has yet to accomplish what it set out to do.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan reduced regulation, slashed taxes on the upper brackets, weakened unions, attacked the poor

Now Republicans gloat because the standard of living for most Americans (not the 1%) has declined

 

[Edgetho]

Reagan reduced regulation, slashed taxes on the upper brackets, weakened unions, attacked the poor

Now Republicans gloat because the standard of living for most Americans (not the 1%) has declined

boo

fucking

hoo

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan reduced regulation, slashed taxes on the upper brackets, weakened unions, attacked the poor

Now Republicans gloat because the standard of living for most Americans (not the 1%) has declined

boo

fucking

hoo

Its your thread Skippy

 

[Redfish]

Reagan reduced regulation, slashed taxes on the upper brackets, weakened unions, attacked the poor

Now Republicans gloat because the standard of living for most Americans (not the 1%) has declined

horseshit, the 1% has managed much better under obama than under reagan.

obama has more in poverty than ever before, more on welfare than ever before, more collecting unemployment than ever before, more on food stamps than ever before.

obama is a fiscal and international failure--------face it RW, the current mess belongs to him.

 

[Mr Natural]

Reagan reduced regulation, slashed taxes on the upper brackets, weakened unions, attacked the poor

Now Republicans gloat because the standard of living for most Americans (not the 1%) has declined

boo

fucking

hoo

Hey asshole, you're the one who brought it up.

 

[Redfish]

Reagan reduced regulation, slashed taxes on the upper brackets, weakened unions, attacked the poor

Now Republicans gloat because the standard of living for most Americans (not the 1%) has declined

boo

fucking

hoo

Hey asshole, you're the one who brought it up.

Ed Norton is pissed that he is associated with a fool like RW.

 

[bendog]

We have two parties the cater to Wall St and multinationalism, and you guys are throwing shit at each other like monkeys in a zoo. Although I note who started the thread.

 

[Redfish]

We have two parties the cater to Wall St and multinationalism, and you guys are throwing shit at each other like monkeys in a zoo. Although I note who started the thread.

true, but a vast oversimplification. what we need is term limits, contribution limits, a ban on all lobbyists, a 50% cut in the pay of congress, a 50% cut in congression staffs.

the problem is not wall street, the problem is that we allow bribery of legislators.

 

[bendog]

We have two parties the cater to Wall St and multinationalism, and you guys are throwing shit at each other like monkeys in a zoo. Although I note who started the thread.

true, but a vast oversimplification. what we need is term limits, contribution limits, a ban on all lobbyists, a 50% cut in the pay of congress, a 50% cut in congression staffs.

the problem is not wall street, the problem is that we allow bribery of legislators.

I just see it as an econ issue, not a political one. Reagan didn't just wake up one day and decide he hated unions. Slick didn't wake on day and say "hey Nafta looks good."

We may be seeing the beginning of the dollar finally coming down in terms of where is should be in value to other currencies. China continues to grow. There's no reason to peg oil to the dollar. The Fed has injected a lot of dollars, and there's no inflation ... and no hint of it happening. We may see manftring return. Of course we may default on the debt and become Mexico's poor neighbor.

 

[Pete7469]

The state of the economy can't be blamed when bad or credited when good on any one president. He is not a dictator with a centrally planned economy, even though the bed wetters would love it if the current one was. There are far too many variables for our economy to be controlled. Certainly government can do things that harm it, or allow it to flourish.

As much as I despise the moonbat messiah, and hold his mindless zealots in contempt this economy isn't all his fault. I don't believe for one second however that he wants business to flourish. The things he has done so far show no indication that's his goal. Government dependency is.

The republicrats had control of government from 2002-2006 and could have done great things. Instead they "compromised" and gave the democrooks almost everything they wanted. They allowed huge somes of money to flow to their own contributors just like the democrooks are currently doing.

The piglets must be weened from the tits. The sow needs to go on a diet. That's the only real solution.

 

[Steven_R]

Remember when PATCO tried to extort America by shitting down the air traffic system and Reagan fired the lot of them and just used military ATC until new controllers could be trained?

Good times.

 

[Edgetho]

Remember when PATCO tried to extort America by shitting down the air traffic system and Reagan fired the lot of them and just used military ATC until new controllers could be trained?

Good times.

He didn't fire them, they quit

 

[Pete7469]

Remember when PATCO tried to extort America by shitting down the air traffic system and Reagan fired the lot of them and just used military ATC until new controllers could be trained?

Good times.

He didn't fire them, they quit

Even FDR opposed gov't employee unions.

There shouldn't be any, and Reagan was right to let those greedy assholes shoot themselves in the foot, just like Hostess did.

 

[Steven_R]

They struck, were ordered to return to work, refused, and on August 5, 1981 11,000+ of them got pink slipped for their efforts.

True story: my dad used to work in the FAA on ground equipment, so he wasn't effected by the whole mess. Some of the FAA equipment was on smaller private airfields and he had to work on that equipment. Some of the PATCO guys found work on those fields (for substantially less pay) and would cuss Reagan's name up and down for firing them.

 

[Edgetho]

They struck, were ordered to return to work, refused, and on August 5, 1981 11,000+ of them got pink slipped for their efforts.

True story: my dad used to work in the FAA on ground equipment, so he wasn't effected by the whole mess. Some of the FAA equipment was on smaller private airfields and he had to work on that equipment. Some of the PATCO guys found work on those fields (for substantially less pay) and would cuss Reagan's name up and down for firing them.

Reagan also barred them from Federal Service for life.

It is against the law, explicitly, for Federal Workers to strike. No "Ifs" "Ands" or "Buts" about it.

It is illegal and they actually should have gone to prison especially when you consider the importance of Public Safety.

I heard that if there had been a plane crash, Reagan was gonna lock them all up.

He should have anyway

 

[DiamondDave]

Household income down.. taxation up, government spending up, entitlements up, deficit up, debt up... coincidence?? I think not