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

[Mac1958]

Also, since IDB is quite well-known in the industry for its political slant, I thought I would go to the source, Sentier Research. According to the IDB piece, the growth/loss figures are inflation-adjusted, not gross, and I can't find that data yet. This graph provided by Sentier looks similar to the pattern in post 106, above, with MHI increasing over the last few years (the red line).

Also, the chart in post 106 clearly shows that the upper income strata has enjoyed a significantly higher rate of increase than the lower strata for quite some time.

My guess is that IDB is just being IDB, which is partisan right. And, as we all know, partisans give cherry-picked information and data whenever possible in order to push their agenda. Both ends of the spectrum.

Anyone in finance or economics knows to consult and carefully analyze several sources before making an observation, claim or prediction. Unless, of course, their only goal is to simply push their political agenda without regard to honesty. In that case, they're less of an economist and more just another partisan pundit.

Source: Sentier Medians and the Household Income Index HII

We all know you're a fucking idiot, mac. You're a flaming liberal who claims you don't fall on one side or the other.

Your use of statistics is mindnumbingly ignorant.

I started as a liberal being indoctrinated by the same academic idiots you're indoctrinated by.

Except I broke away from the brainwashing.

You have not.

Your stats are laughable.

And stop telling us you're not a liberal.

YOU ARE DUDE, you ARE.

Funny, I have hardcore left winger BillyERock1991 calling me a right wing idiot in another thread.

You folks are a hoot, seriously.

I provided (1) Census Bureau data and (2) data taken directly from the study sourced in the IDB opinion piece. The piece you sourced.

You have provided (1) IDB's dependably conservative interpretation of part of the study and (2) your traditional posing, preening, personal insults and name-calling.

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with that.

As I understand it, you're an economics student or some kind of trainee in economics. If you're going to take economic positions like this, where you transparently hang your proverbial hat on one badly biased source, I'm assuming that you're not planning on being taken seriously as a traditional economist. Are you planning on being a "pundit", someone who has some kind of basic credentialing and then goes on political talk shows to push your hardcore partisan agenda? Goodness knows, there aren't enough of those people running around.

Because after observing your posts and your behavior here, that has to be the assumption. You're clearly incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, careful, dispassionate analysis.

.

Yo, dumbass, you're too fucking stupid to even see what years you showed in the graph.

You need to stick to wheeezling people out of money with your stock brokerage job.

I'm a trainee? No, shit for brains, masters in econ and partially through the doctorate. Your econ training? ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I can't help what uneducated morons you and Loner Loser are.


LOL

A person with a Masters in economics using IBD for their source?

Thanks for so vividly illustrating my point.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

American labor is producing more, but just getting a smaller share:

That's a dream chart for the conservative anti-labor anti-union crowd.

So why are you trying to blame Obama for something YOU PEOPLE want?

And if you look at the chart carefully, you'll see that median incomes are down about $2000 under Obama,

and were down about the same $2000 under GW Bush.

So are we blaming presidents??

They were up at $55, 589 by the time Bush left.

Never hit that under O.

Keep lying Carb....keep bumping my thread hun....that's all I care ab out.

Under Bush it went from about 56,000 to 54,000. A DECLINE.

Under Obama it's gone from that 54,000 to 52,000. The same amount of decline.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, we're systematically proving you full of shit and your response is to give up and resort to personal attacks.

LOL, you need to lay off the crack.

Kaz and I have given about ten sources by now - from both the left and right - that prove the OP.

As for personal attacks, as I always say, I don't start them but I sure will finish them with both barrels. Talk to your Princess, Loner Loser, about starting the personal attacks.

I'll play in every level, high or low.

You libs are being TROUNCED. It sucks to be a lib.

Sources that prove what? That median incomes are down? I don't dispute that.

But productivity is up. GDP per capita is up. Do you understand the significance? Yes or no.

GDP per capita doesn't tell you too much when you have the type of disparity of wealth that is in America. Face it median income is down under obama. That's a big indicator that he sucks.

As I just proved, it was down the same amount under Bush.

Show me where O brought them up to 55, 589.

You can't.

Prove that presidents bring them up and down. You can't.

 

[EconChick]

Carb, UR another idiot that doesn't know how to read graphs.


Studied economics my ass.

What's UR econ degree in?


That's what I thought.

Gotta go, you keep bumping my thread now, ya hear? Idiot

LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

American labor is producing more, but just getting a smaller share:

That's a dream chart for the conservative anti-labor anti-union crowd.

So why are you trying to blame Obama for something YOU PEOPLE want?

And if you look at the chart carefully, you'll see that median incomes are down about $2000 under Obama,

and were down about the same $2000 under GW Bush.

So are we blaming presidents??

Look at the length of the recession, how does that not factor in? Productivity is increasingly automated so I don't see how that relates directly to income. obama and Congress has hurt business and will continue to do so until it's reversed. You can't hurt business and expect positive economic results, better and more jobs. Why is that so hard to believe?

 

[hadit]

American labor is producing more, but just getting a smaller share:

That's a dream chart for the conservative anti-labor anti-union crowd.

So why are you trying to blame Obama for something YOU PEOPLE want?

And if you look at the chart carefully, you'll see that median incomes are down about $2000 under Obama,

and were down about the same $2000 under GW Bush.

So are we blaming presidents??

Wasn't Obama supposed to make it better?

 

[EconChick]

What are you on welfare or the dole, Carb? You have all day to be on here lying about the economy? LOL.............


Some of us have to work and pay for your welfare dude, LOL.....

But I'll be back, hun.

 

[EconChick]

LOL, you need to lay off the crack.

Kaz and I have given about ten sources by now - from both the left and right - that prove the OP.

As for personal attacks, as I always say, I don't start them but I sure will finish them with both barrels. Talk to your Princess, Loner Loser, about starting the personal attacks.

I'll play in every level, high or low.

You libs are being TROUNCED. It sucks to be a lib.

Sources that prove what? That median incomes are down? I don't dispute that.

But productivity is up. GDP per capita is up. Do you understand the significance? Yes or no.

GDP per capita doesn't tell you too much when you have the type of disparity of wealth that is in America. Face it median income is down under obama. That's a big indicator that he sucks.

As I just proved, it was down the same amount under Bush.

Show me where O brought them up to 55, 589.

You can't.

Prove that presidents bring them up and down. You can't.

BUSTED again. So O is useless. Thx

 

[EconChick]

Also, since IDB is quite well-known in the industry for its political slant, I thought I would go to the source, Sentier Research. According to the IDB piece, the growth/loss figures are inflation-adjusted, not gross, and I can't find that data yet. This graph provided by Sentier looks similar to the pattern in post 106, above, with MHI increasing over the last few years (the red line).

Also, the chart in post 106 clearly shows that the upper income strata has enjoyed a significantly higher rate of increase than the lower strata for quite some time.

My guess is that IDB is just being IDB, which is partisan right. And, as we all know, partisans give cherry-picked information and data whenever possible in order to push their agenda. Both ends of the spectrum.

Anyone in finance or economics knows to consult and carefully analyze several sources before making an observation, claim or prediction. Unless, of course, their only goal is to simply push their political agenda without regard to honesty. In that case, they're less of an economist and more just another partisan pundit.

Source: Sentier Medians and the Household Income Index HII

We all know you're a fucking idiot, mac. You're a flaming liberal who claims you don't fall on one side or the other.

Your use of statistics is mindnumbingly ignorant.

I started as a liberal being indoctrinated by the same academic idiots you're indoctrinated by.

Except I broke away from the brainwashing.

You have not.

Your stats are laughable.

And stop telling us you're not a liberal.

YOU ARE DUDE, you ARE.

Funny, I have hardcore left winger BillyERock1991 calling me a right wing idiot in another thread.

You folks are a hoot, seriously.

I provided (1) Census Bureau data and (2) data taken directly from the study sourced in the IDB opinion piece. The piece you sourced.

You have provided (1) IDB's dependably conservative interpretation of part of the study and (2) your traditional posing, preening, personal insults and name-calling.

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with that.

As I understand it, you're an economics student or some kind of trainee in economics. If you're going to take economic positions like this, where you transparently hang your proverbial hat on one badly biased source, I'm assuming that you're not planning on being taken seriously as a traditional economist. Are you planning on being a "pundit", someone who has some kind of basic credentialing and then goes on political talk shows to push your hardcore partisan agenda? Goodness knows, there aren't enough of those people running around.

Because after observing your posts and your behavior here, that has to be the assumption. You're clearly incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, careful, dispassionate analysis.

.

Yo, dumbass, you're too fucking stupid to even see what years you showed in the graph.

You need to stick to wheeezling people out of money with your stock brokerage job.

I'm a trainee? No, shit for brains, masters in econ and partially through the doctorate. Your econ training? ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I can't help what uneducated morons you and Loner Loser are.


LOL

A person with a Masters in economics using IBD for their source?

Thanks for so vividly illustrating my point.

.

LOL, idiot, you've been completely discredited. LOL. Even Carb admits YOU ARE WRONG. LMAO.

But thanks for bumping my thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, we're systematically proving you full of shit and your response is to give up and resort to personal attacks.

LOL, you need to lay off the crack.

Kaz and I have given about ten sources by now - from both the left and right - that prove the OP.

As for personal attacks, as I always say, I don't start them but I sure will finish them with both barrels. Talk to your Princess, Loner Loser, about starting the personal attacks.

I'll play in every level, high or low.

You libs are being TROUNCED. It sucks to be a lib.

Sources that prove what? That median incomes are down? I don't dispute that.

But productivity is up. GDP per capita is up. Do you understand the significance? Yes or no.

GDP per capita doesn't tell you too much when you have the type of disparity of wealth that is in America. Face it median income is down under obama. That's a big indicator that he sucks.

As I just proved, it was down the same amount under Bush.

Show me where O brought them up to 55, 589.

You can't.

$55, 589 is the June 2009 level. Obama was president in June 2009 in case you missed it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sources that prove what? That median incomes are down? I don't dispute that.

But productivity is up. GDP per capita is up. Do you understand the significance? Yes or no.

GDP per capita doesn't tell you too much when you have the type of disparity of wealth that is in America. Face it median income is down under obama. That's a big indicator that he sucks.

As I just proved, it was down the same amount under Bush.

Show me where O brought them up to 55, 589.

You can't.

Prove that presidents bring them up and down. You can't.

BUSTED again. So O is useless. Thx

So you concede that Presidents don't control median income? lol, then what was the point of your thread?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw,

YOUR ARTICLE IN THE OP IS A YEAR OLD.

The up to date numbers:

 

[Geaux4it]

Only the Wall Street Fatcats have done well in this Obomination. Which is crazy ironic, considering how much his Communist/Progressive sycophants are supposed to hate Wall Street. I actually see some of the ole USMB OWS wankers now boasting about record Wall Street profits. Such dishonest hypocrites. We're actually experiencing record poverty. Almost 100 Million Citizens are not working at all. That's the reality.

Obamas economy is so bad the FED had to keep the presses running. Now that they are tapering, the market takes a dump/crash

-Geaux

 

[Mac1958]

Also, since IDB is quite well-known in the industry for its political slant, I thought I would go to the source, Sentier Research. According to the IDB piece, the growth/loss figures are inflation-adjusted, not gross, and I can't find that data yet. This graph provided by Sentier looks similar to the pattern in post 106, above, with MHI increasing over the last few years (the red line).

Also, the chart in post 106 clearly shows that the upper income strata has enjoyed a significantly higher rate of increase than the lower strata for quite some time.

My guess is that IDB is just being IDB, which is partisan right. And, as we all know, partisans give cherry-picked information and data whenever possible in order to push their agenda. Both ends of the spectrum.

Anyone in finance or economics knows to consult and carefully analyze several sources before making an observation, claim or prediction. Unless, of course, their only goal is to simply push their political agenda without regard to honesty. In that case, they're less of an economist and more just another partisan pundit.

Source: Sentier Medians and the Household Income Index HII

We all know you're a fucking idiot, mac. You're a flaming liberal who claims you don't fall on one side or the other.

Your use of statistics is mindnumbingly ignorant.

I started as a liberal being indoctrinated by the same academic idiots you're indoctrinated by.

Except I broke away from the brainwashing.

You have not.

Your stats are laughable.

And stop telling us you're not a liberal.

YOU ARE DUDE, you ARE.

Funny, I have hardcore left winger BillyERock1991 calling me a right wing idiot in another thread.

You folks are a hoot, seriously.

I provided (1) Census Bureau data and (2) data taken directly from the study sourced in the IDB opinion piece. The piece you sourced.

You have provided (1) IDB's dependably conservative interpretation of part of the study and (2) your traditional posing, preening, personal insults and name-calling.

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with that.

As I understand it, you're an economics student or some kind of trainee in economics. If you're going to take economic positions like this, where you transparently hang your proverbial hat on one badly biased source, I'm assuming that you're not planning on being taken seriously as a traditional economist. Are you planning on being a "pundit", someone who has some kind of basic credentialing and then goes on political talk shows to push your hardcore partisan agenda? Goodness knows, there aren't enough of those people running around.

Because after observing your posts and your behavior here, that has to be the assumption. You're clearly incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, careful, dispassionate analysis.

.

Yo, dumbass, you're too fucking stupid to even see what years you showed in the graph.

You need to stick to wheeezling people out of money with your stock brokerage job.

I'm a trainee? No, shit for brains, masters in econ and partially through the doctorate. Your econ training? ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I can't help what uneducated morons you and Loner Loser are.


LOL

A person with a Masters in economics using IBD for their source?

Thanks for so vividly illustrating my point.

.

LOL, idiot, you've been completely discredited. LOL. Even Carb admits YOU ARE WRONG. LMAO.

But thanks for bumping my thread.

Okay, whatever makes you feel a little better about yourself.

Your image here is clearly very important to you.

.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The sign of a USMB nutter. Never....ever.....apologize. Never...ever.....concede a point. Just claim victory.

You finally admitted you're a nutter. Congratulations!

 

[NYcarbineer]

What are you on welfare or the dole, Carb? You have all day to be on here lying about the economy? LOL.............


Some of us have to work and pay for your welfare dude, LOL.....

But I'll be back, hun.

I'm retired with 2 pensions.

People who want to trade insults instead of debating the subject are almost always people who've discovered they can't debate the subject.

It's even funnier when it was their subject.

 

[kaz]

So what. I come from a blue collar family and I've studied economics.

Now that we're even on that score, how about you stick to your own topic?

No, you're not even with me, Carbondolt. Not one.

That's why I trounce you in every debate we get in.

So did you watch the MSNBC video? Biden's economist? Quoted by the W Post????????/

LOL

You're desperate dude. You can lie about the OP all you want....the overwhelming evidence has been provided in this thread. LOL

That I've reduced you to hysterical tantrums is evidence enough of how much smarter than you I am.

Sorry, but you asked for it.

LMAO.........................that's a sure sign libs have lost the argument, LOL.




When you idiots have run out of every other argument and you've been trounced the only thing left for you to say is my Laughing the hell out of trouncing you is a tantrum.

Maybe he got his degree from the Paul "wrong in the trillions column" Krugman School of Progressive Economics and Fundamental Misunderstanding

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

LOL, it's fun watching Carb come unglued because he can't win the argument. In fact, he AGREED that median income has gone down under Obama!


Ooops, Mac and LL.....Carb undermined ya real well.

Once again NYCryBaby and the rest of the "liberals" in the thread show they are authoritarian leftists, not liberals. A true liberal cares about the plight of the common man. Authoritarian leftists use that the rich are getting richer by choosing mean instead of median income and then tell the average man who is losing that Obama's a good President using data that is skewed by the rich getting richer.

Can't make that shit up.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

So what? Just another reminder of how bad the economic crash of 2008 truly was. Combine that with a do-nothing Congress since. But of course it is a disingenuous argument, like saying gas prices were 1.89 when took office and now look at them. Median income bottomed out in 2011 and have been slowly rising since then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you're not even with me, Carbondolt. Not one.

That's why I trounce you in every debate we get in.

So did you watch the MSNBC video? Biden's economist? Quoted by the W Post????????/

LOL

You're desperate dude. You can lie about the OP all you want....the overwhelming evidence has been provided in this thread. LOL

That I've reduced you to hysterical tantrums is evidence enough of how much smarter than you I am.

Sorry, but you asked for it.

LMAO.........................that's a sure sign libs have lost the argument, LOL.




When you idiots have run out of every other argument and you've been trounced the only thing left for you to say is my Laughing the hell out of trouncing you is a tantrum.

Maybe he got his degree from the Paul "wrong in the trillions column" Krugman School of Progressive Economics and Fundamental Misunderstanding

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

LOL, it's fun watching Carb come unglued because he can't win the argument. In fact, he AGREED that median income has gone down under Obama!


Ooops, Mac and LL.....Carb undermined ya real well.

Once again NYCryBaby and the rest of the "liberals" in the thread show they are authoritarian leftists, not liberals. A true liberal cares about the plight of the common man. Authoritarian leftists use that the rich are getting richer by choosing mean instead of median income and then tell the average man who is losing that Obama's a good President using data that is skewed by the rich getting richer.

Can't make that shit up.

I haven't been talking about any such thing. Learn to read, then post.

 

[EconChick]

LOL, you need to lay off the crack.

Kaz and I have given about ten sources by now - from both the left and right - that prove the OP.

As for personal attacks, as I always say, I don't start them but I sure will finish them with both barrels. Talk to your Princess, Loner Loser, about starting the personal attacks.

I'll play in every level, high or low.

You libs are being TROUNCED. It sucks to be a lib.

Sources that prove what? That median incomes are down? I don't dispute that.

But productivity is up. GDP per capita is up. Do you understand the significance? Yes or no.

GDP per capita doesn't tell you too much when you have the type of disparity of wealth that is in America. Face it median income is down under obama. That's a big indicator that he sucks.

As I just proved, it was down the same amount under Bush.

Show me where O brought them up to 55, 589.

You can't.

$55, 589 is the June 2009 level. Obama was president in June 2009 in case you missed it.

Only an idiot would think a president could have any impact on the economy before he even had a chance to get his policies passed. LOL

That's the Bush impact and everyone knows it. Except for dumb liberals.