Is this the Obama recovery everyone's talking about?

[CrusaderFrank]

Is this the Obama recovery everyone's talking about?

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

Obama's Stimulus: Passed

ObamaCare: Passed

Dodd Frank: Passed

Auto Bailout, the one that saved Detroit: Passed

Fannie and Freddie now record profits

What were you saying?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still whining about Booooooooooooooooooosh: Priceless

 

[rdean]

Is this the Obama recovery everyone's talking about?

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

Obama's Stimulus: Passed

ObamaCare: Passed

Dodd Frank: Passed

Auto Bailout, the one that saved Detroit: Passed

Fannie and Freddie now record profits

What were you saying?

All successful. How many of those passed when Democrats held the house? Thanks for making my point.

 

[Agit8r]

Not really finding where that data supposedly came from

Real disposable personal income: Per capita (A229RX0A048NBEA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[asterism]

That chart is misleading because it only tracks the 5 year moving average of average growth of disposable income of some segment of the population, averaging wages and living expenses (no details are provided).

It most likely tracks the life stages of the baby boom generation, who saw disposable income spike when they were young and then decrease over time as financial obligations ate up more and more of their drinking money which is normal. Now that they are retiring, their disposable income is negative because they are living off their savings, pensions, and social security.

Used alone, it's meaningless and doesn't prove any point about "recovery" unless you think that the dot com boom was only half as robust as the late 1960s economy.

 

[asterism]

Is this the Obama recovery everyone's talking about?

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

Obama's Stimulus: Passed

ObamaCare: Passed

Dodd Frank: Passed

Auto Bailout, the one that saved Detroit: Passed

Fannie and Freddie now record profits

What were you saying?

All successful. How many of those passed when Democrats held the house? Thanks for making my point.

Successful?

No.

 

[francoHFW]

The stimulus ran out in 2010, and Pubs gave the economy the Debt "Crisis" kick in 2011, the sequester in 2012. Great job, a-holes. They've refused ANY normal economic help since they got the filibuster in 2/2010...

This is the Pub disfunction recovery...

 

[007]

Yup, so is this...

 

[Sallow]

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


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".


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.


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.

Although you make a valiant attempt to retort my arguments it really doesn't hold up.

Tax cuts, which were suppose to "encourage" employment really didn't.

In fact..they did the opposite. They discouraged employment in this country, and employers used the extra cash to lobby against Unions and bring in people that would destroy them on a state level.

Having a "flabby" job market is just what conservatives want. It drives down labor costs and puts labor in an impossible bargaining position. No Unions, flabby labor market = Low wages.

Every time.

 

[Sallow]

Still whining about Booooooooooooooooooosh: Priceless

Bush had 2 terms to rebuild the World Trade Center and get Bin Laden.

How'd he do?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Why is the public sector to blame for the cruel wage & salary levels of the private sector?

The public sector pays well, has good bennys, and forces cheap and cruel greedy business to pay more than they otherwise would with the very popular minimum wage laws.

We tried conservatism from 2001 to 2007 under unified GOP rule, and it was a disaster. The GOP got sacked in 2006 by the voters from Congress and then from the White House is 2008, and conservative policies were the reason.

 

[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.

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.

Fair enough , then one might suggest that a more effective strategy of obtaining such a demonstration would be to directly ask for it instead of offering up a vapid reply that implies much but actually says nothing.

I see that you are one of those "conservatives"

Get your vision checked because I'm no conservative

who believes that you can chase away opposition by requesting an in-depth reply to a very shallow OP.

Perhaps you read something that wasn't there, no in-depth reply was asked for, simply "I adhere to XYZ school of economics ... here's the rational that school provides explaining why I implied there is no correlation between disposable incomes and the existence or non-existence of an "economic recovery". If that level of inquiry "scares you away" then I will certainly refrain from making such inquiries of you in the future.

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.

Honestly it's really not that important to me whether you spend any time on it or not, if you did, great, it would expand the discussion, if not, that's cool too.

But......you failed to realize that I would see right through your attempt. Silly fox.

My silly attempt at asking a straightforward question? sheesh and I thought I had grown cynical, apparently I have a lot to learn regarding cynicism.

You have assumed that I think that there is, in fact, no connection between levels of disposable income and economic recovery.

No it is what I gleaned from your perfunctory reply, however if that was mistaken then such would have been easily corrected by expounding on the post I replied to.

I have made no such assumption.

Fair enough.

Are you going to do the OP's job and show that there is?

What "job" would that be?

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.

The economy is recovering in certain aspects and not in others, the important question is whether any recovery is indicative of a structural correction or just another inflationary bubble brought on by an unwarranted expansion of the monetary supply. The first indicates a sustainable forward path for the economy, the second indicates just another sugar rush before the next collapse. The decline in disposable incomes is an especially troubling statistic since it is an indicator of the second scenario.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frederic Bastiat

 

[asterism]

The stimulus ran out in 2010, and Pubs gave the economy the Debt "Crisis" kick in 2011, the sequester in 2012. Great job, a-holes. They've refused ANY normal economic help since they got the filibuster in 2/2010...

This is the Pub disfunction recovery...

The stimulus wasn't supposed to work until it "ran out" it was supposed to stimulate the economy into robust recovery.

It failed.

 

[asterism]

Still whining about Booooooooooooooooooosh: Priceless

Bush had 2 terms to rebuild the World Trade Center and get Bin Laden.

How'd he do?

Pretty good.

What did Obama do specifically to make those things happen? What was changed from Bush policies in effect when Obama took office?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Are you upset with this?

Are you happy with this?

Are you even "satisfied" with it?

 

[Sallow]

Are you upset with this?

Are you happy with this?

Are you even "satisfied" with it?

This what you folks wanted.

Well.

Here it is.

 

[Sallow]

The stimulus ran out in 2010, and Pubs gave the economy the Debt "Crisis" kick in 2011, the sequester in 2012. Great job, a-holes. They've refused ANY normal economic help since they got the filibuster in 2/2010...

This is the Pub disfunction recovery...

The stimulus wasn't supposed to work until it "ran out" it was supposed to stimulate the economy into robust recovery.

It failed.

Well no.

It didn't fail to stimulate the economy.

It did exactly what it was projected to do.

Saved jobs, created jobs..and built infrastructure.

 

[Sallow]

Still whining about Booooooooooooooooooosh: Priceless

Bush had 2 terms to rebuild the World Trade Center and get Bin Laden.

How'd he do?

Pretty good.

What did Obama do specifically to make those things happen? What was changed from Bush policies in effect when Obama took office?

Bush left office with a big fucking hole in the ground in NYC..and Osama bin Laden still alive.

What changed?

Bin Laden is dead.

And the Freedom tower is on the rise.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Let me see what was different
-We had a stiffer educational system that wanted to make innovators
-A fairer tax system
-We wanted to innovate and go on exploration and dream
-People had money to spend. NOT TWO parents to raise a single child.

The republicans want to kill the few good things we have today and not work on the corruption. The democrats wants to make a lot of the fuck up's bigger fuck up's.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Bush had 2 terms to rebuild the World Trade Center and get Bin Laden.

How'd he do?

Pretty good.

What did Obama do specifically to make those things happen? What was changed from Bush policies in effect when Obama took office?

Bush left office with a big fucking hole in the ground in NYC..and Osama bin Laden still alive.

What changed?

Bin Laden is dead.

And the Freedom tower is on the rise.

The SEALS took out Osama. All Obama did was permit them to do their job. And he does get SOME credit for authorizing that incursion into a sovereign country. But, it was first necessary to actually LOCATE Osama. You can't possibly believe that W would have hesitated to give that same order had Osama bin Laden been found before HE left office.

And Obama has NOTHING to do with the building of the Freedom Tower.