Is this the Obama recovery everyone's talking about?

[Rocko]

 

[The T]

Yep! Economy is on the mend...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow! That's stunning proof that we are not undergoing a recovery! No explanation needed!

 

[Rocko]

Wow! That's stunning proof that we are not undergoing a recovery! No explanation needed!

You're right, the chart speaks for itself!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow! That's stunning proof that we are not undergoing a recovery! No explanation needed!

You're right, the chart speaks for itself!

Absolutely. There is no recovery. We are actually in the middle of another recession.....soon to be a depression. You have provided proof positive.

Way to go!

 

[Rocko]

Wow! That's stunning proof that we are not undergoing a recovery! No explanation needed!

You're right, the chart speaks for itself!

Absolutely. There is no recovery. We are actually in the middle of another recession.....soon to be a depression. You have provided proof positive.

Way to go!

Straw man. Instead of trying to play semantics, do you care to discuss the chart? Didn't think so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obamanomics is working according to plan

 

[Wildman]

from the looks of your chart, i was far better off in 1960 when i was a laid off steel worker than i am now.

when "Big Steel" went on strike, jobs were in a backstroke, none to be found.., that recession forced me to reenlist in the Navy before my reserve status ran out.

thank GOD for Ronald Reagan !!

 

[NightFox]

Wow! That's stunning proof that we are not undergoing a recovery! No explanation needed!

I suppose the chart doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we're experiencing an economic recovery if one also supposes that there is no correlation between disposable income and the health of the economy, I'm not sure which school of economics makes such claims but I guess there could be one out there that does. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone and share which school of economics it is you adhere to and perhaps some details as to the reasoning behind the disconnection of disposable incomes and the general health of the economy.

 

[NightFox]

from the looks of your chart, i was far better off in 1960 when i was a laid off steel worker than i am now.

The chart doesn't indicate YOU were far better off in 1960, it indicates that disposable incomes were far better off across the general economy in 1960. One could imply from the data the you were in fact better off since the underlying economy was healthier and thus your economic prospects (ignoring all other general and case specific factors) were better then than they are now.

 

[Chris]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 39 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama has done a very good job.

 

[Chris]

Unemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.6%
The stock market has more than doubled since the stimulus.
9 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $14 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.

Obama has done a very good job.

 

[NightFox]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Presidents don't "inherit" anything they volunteer for the job.

Obama has done a very good job.

If he's done such a good job :

1.) How come he keeps having to "pivot" back to "focusing" on the economy?
2.) Half the country disapproves of his job performance and the half that does approve would give him props if he showed up at their doorsteps and lit their houses on fire.

The fact of the matter is throwing massive piles of other peoples money at problems isn't indicative of "doing a very good job" , it's indicative of doing a job that any 8th grader could handle.

 

[Sallow]

Are you upset with this?

 

[Sallow]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Presidents don't "inherit" anything they volunteer for the job.

Obama has done a very good job.

If he's done such a good job :

1.) How come he keeps having to "pivot" back to "focusing" on the economy?
2.) Half the country disapproves of his job performance and the half that does approve would give him props if he showed up at their doorsteps and lit their houses on fire.

The fact of the matter is throwing massive piles of other peoples money at problems isn't indicative of "doing a very good job" , it's indicative of doing a job that any 8th grader could handle.

Presidents don't "volunteer", the actively seek the job. And spend a lot of money to get it.

Obama's done a very good job of reversing the damage caused by the Bush economy. However, conservatives have spend a good 30 years or so convincing the electorate that the government is evil and private enterprise is good.

This has allowed conservatives to get footholds at the state level and destroy Unions and bargaining power for labor.

Add in the tax cuts and off shoring have deeply weakened the power of people to become socially mobile.

This has been great for the rich, who have seen their compensation grow by 700% during this time period.

This is what conservatives wanted.

So what's the beef?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow! That's stunning proof that we are not undergoing a recovery! No explanation needed!

I suppose the chart doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we're experiencing an economic recovery if one also supposes that there is no correlation between disposable income and the health of the economy, I'm not sure which school of economics makes such claims but I guess there could be one out there that does. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone and share which school of economics it is you adhere to and perhaps some details as to the reasoning behind the disconnection of disposable incomes and the general health of the economy.

No thanks. I would rather have the OP demonstrate that a steep fall in the amount of disposable income over a 5 year period is an indication that there is currently no recovery taking place in our economy.

I see that you are one of those "conservatives" who believes that you can chase away opposition by requesting an in-depth reply to a very shallow OP. You would like me to spend several minutes discussing "schools of economics" with a dude who can't explain a chart that he posted here. You are correct in your assumption that I won't do that. But......you failed to realize that I would see right through your attempt. Silly fox.

You have assumed that I think that there is, in fact, no connection between levels of disposable income and economic recovery. I have made no such assumption. Are you going to do the OP's job and show that there is? Something tells me that you will not.

What I have done in this thread is mock a dopey OP which ignores all of the economic data that points to the FACT that the economy is recovering.

 

[rdean]

Is this the Obama recovery everyone's talking about?

No, that one has been blocked by Republican obstructionism. You want examples?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I supposed (on some level) even y'all echo 'chamberists' know that one stat proves nothing, and in particular when posted without context.

One might consider the investor class. which has rebounded very well since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2007-2009. The real estate bubble as it inflated allowed foolish homeowners to refinance and use the money taken from equity to play with. A number of other nuanced and obvious explanations may be brought to light if context is applied to the stat in the OP, if and only if a non partisan hack applied themselves honestly to the issue. Of course this is not the place for such to occur.

The costs of food and fees (look at how the banks have recovered by adding more and more fees) have hit the middle class hard, and consider the banks which were complicit in creating the Bush Recession pay diddly squat in interest, yet the cost to borrow amounts to usury.

 

[NightFox]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Presidents don't "inherit" anything they volunteer for the job.

Obama has done a very good job.

If he's done such a good job :

1.) How come he keeps having to "pivot" back to "focusing" on the economy?
2.) Half the country disapproves of his job performance and the half that does approve would give him props if he showed up at their doorsteps and lit their houses on fire.

The fact of the matter is throwing massive piles of other peoples money at problems isn't indicative of "doing a very good job" , it's indicative of doing a job that any 8th grader could handle.

Presidents don't "volunteer", the actively seek the job. And spend a lot of money to get it.

I was attempting to be charitable.

Obama's done a very good job of reversing the damage caused by the Bush economy.

Obama hasn't reversed anything, the "damage" has just been papered over with lots of freshly minted greenbacks and there is no such thing as "the Bush economy" since the economy doesn't belong to Washington and the damage inflicted on the economy by the Federal Government has been perpetrated by many politicians from both parties and the unelected bureaucrats in Washington over an extended period of time.

However, conservatives have spend a good 30 years or so convincing the electorate that the government is evil and private enterprise is good.

That's a silly notion to begin with, neither is inherently good nor evil, however the unholy marriage between government and private enterprise that we currently enjoy yields little "good" and lots of "evil".

This has allowed conservatives to get footholds at the state level and destroy Unions and bargaining power for labor.

Conservatives have had little to do with the decline in Union Membership (much to some conservatives chagrin I'm sure), Unions did that to themselves by failing to adapt to changing economic realities, the bright side is that many Unions HAVE adapted (the UAW for example) and thus can offer members a real value proposition for membership.

Add in the tax cuts and off shoring have deeply weakened the power of people to become socially mobile.

Why would one suspect that "tax cuts" would be a factor in economic decline? and the term "off shoring" is a myth used by people that seem to want to claim that companies move overseas out of sheer meanness instead of acknowledging the truth that domestic labor markets have become uncompetitive in a dynamic global economy.

This has been great for the rich, who have seen their compensation grow by 700% during this time period.

Yes apparently being rich is still great (otherwise why would everyone want to be "rich"?), the increasing disparity however is largely a factor of the "rich" being able to buy economic favoritism from government, increasing the size, scope and power of government is likely only to accelerate this trend.

This is what conservatives wanted.

Perhaps some conservatives wanted this but none of the conservatives I've ever spoken with expressed such a desire.

 

[Wry Catcher]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Presidents don't "inherit" anything they volunteer for the job.

Obama has done a very good job.

If he's done such a good job :

1.) How come he keeps having to "pivot" back to "focusing" on the economy?
2.) Half the country disapproves of his job performance and the half that does approve would give him props if he showed up at their doorsteps and lit their houses on fire.

The fact of the matter is throwing massive piles of other peoples money at problems isn't indicative of "doing a very good job" , it's indicative of doing a job that any 8th grader could handle.

The answer to #1, Politics. #2: Half the people in this country are below average in intelligence. There's a stat which proves nothing but is in fact true.

Obama 'volunteered' for a job when the economy and our foreign policy was in chaos. I do find The President at fault for not using the power of his office to punish McConnell and other partisan demagogues for putting their party before the American People at large.