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

[EconChick]

Speaking of meltdowns....

But thanks for continuing to bump my thread shit for brains. OP was spot on. LOL

 

[paulitician]

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

It will crash. It always does. But there won't be any Bailouts this time. We already have 100 Million not working at all. And now that this President has opened the Border floodgates, jobs will become more scarce and wages will drop significantly. It is gonna get a whole lot worse. Wall Street doing well doesn't mean average Citizens are.

 

[Mac1958]

"I am a economist. I had to do hard maths like 2+2+(4-1)/3!"

Little known fact: Current curriculum for economics degrees includes a course titled "Destroying any credibility you may have by acting like a 12-year old on internet message boards".

True story. It's pass/fail only, I hear.

.

 

[EconChick]

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

It will crash. It always does. But there won't be any Bailouts this time. We already have 100 Million not working at all. And now that this President has opened the Border floodgates, jobs will become more scarce and wages will drop significantly. It is gonna get a whole lot worse. Wall Street doing well doesn't mean average Citizens are.

Yep, P, it always does crash. Basic physics.

 

[EconChick]

"I am a economist. I had to do hard maths like 2+2+(4-1)/3!"

Little known fact: Current curriculum for economics degrees includes a course titled "Destroying any credibility you may have by acting like a 12-year old on internet message boards".

True story. It's pass/fail only, I hear.

.

I'm really under your skin, aren't I.

LOL

That's because I showcased what an idiot you are on stats......AND ON THE OP.

Wait, actually Kaz did....but I think he likes you more than I do so he didn't do it on purpose.

Poor princess.

 

[paulitician]

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

Obama's economy is so bad, and Dems so desperate,they are finding ways to blame the Ebola crisis on the GOP: ( video at link )

The Agenda Project is a progressive non-profit political organization founded in 2010 by author Erica Payne. This ad, featuring clips of Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and many other Republicans implies that austerity cuts to the CDC and NIH are responsible for the 2014 Ebola outbreak. This ad with run in Kentucky and other states leading up to the election.

Ad Blames GOP Budget Cuts For Ebola Outbreak Video RealClearPolitics

Hilarious. 'Austerity?' Is that what Communists/Progressives call $18 Trillion in Debt? Let's at least try Austerity first, before we condemn it. And Ebola is on Obola. He's destroyed our Immigration System. It's in shambles.

 

[paulitician]

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

It will crash. It always does. But there won't be any Bailouts this time. We already have 100 Million not working at all. And now that this President has opened the Border floodgates, jobs will become more scarce and wages will drop significantly. It is gonna get a whole lot worse. Wall Street doing well doesn't mean average Citizens are.

Yep, P, it always does crash. Basic physics.

Yeah, it is ironic that it's the Communist/Progressive Anti-Wall Street kooks doing most of the boasting about record Wall Street profits. Talk about shocking dishonesty & hypocrisy? But a crash is coming. And it will be even uglier next time. Bailouts aren't gonna happen.

And with the Border wide open, the competition for even the worst jobs is gonna be extremely intense. People will be fighting tooth & nail to get even the lowest paying jobs. The future definitely doesn't look bright. Hate to say that, but it is what it is.

 

[EconChick]

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

It will crash. It always does. But there won't be any Bailouts this time. We already have 100 Million not working at all. And now that this President has opened the Border floodgates, jobs will become more scarce and wages will drop significantly. It is gonna get a whole lot worse. Wall Street doing well doesn't mean average Citizens are.

Yep, P, it always does crash. Basic physics.

Yeah, it is ironic that it's the Communist/Progressive Anti-Wall Street kooks doing most of the boasting about record Wall Street profits. Talk about shocking dishonesty & hypocrisy? But a crash is coming. And it will be even uglier next time. Bailouts aren't gonna happen.

And with the Border wide open, the competition for even the worst jobs is gonna be extremely intense. People will be fighting tooth & nail to get even the lowest paying jobs. The future definitely doesn't look bright. Hate to say that, but it is what it is.

OUCH!

And spot on!

 

[paperview]

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

Why is the OP posting a nearly 14 month old article?

Can't an Econ-0-Chick post something more up to date when she starts a "malaise in the air" thread?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Word.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

.

No, princess, if my image mattered, I wouldn't take the time to get on the internet and fight you stupid libs (and yes you are a lib) in the trenches. I'd just stay in my high browed world raking in the gold and sipping martinis.


Many of us are sickened by you fucking Socialist or Socialist leaning idiots that have damaged this country.

You have brought us out of the woodwork, dumbass.

And thanks for admitting finally that my OP was right.

how is deregulating an industry socialist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

No, princess, if my image mattered, I wouldn't take the time to get on the internet and fight you stupid libs (and yes you are a lib) in the trenches. I'd just stay in my high browed world raking in the gold and sipping martinis.


Many of us are sickened by you fucking Socialist or Socialist leaning idiots that have damaged this country.

You have brought us out of the woodwork, dumbass.

And thanks for admitting finally that my OP was right.

how is deregulating an industry socialist?

You have to respect Econchick's expertise, because, according to her, she has almost as much economic education as Paul Krugman...

...or you could recognize that since Paul Krugman is much more educated than she is in economics,

you should effectively follow Econchick's advice and believe HIM over HER.

 

[Clementine]

It's great if the 1% will trickle on you..

Seriously, that's all you have to say? It's not a defense because there isn't one, so you took the opportunity to bash a past Republican president. You have learned well when it comes to liberal tactics. (BTW, that's not a compliment)

 

[Moonglow]

It's great if the 1% will trickle on you..

Seriously, that's all you have to say? It's not a defense because there isn't one, so you took the opportunity to bash a past Republican president. You have learned well when it comes to liberal tactics. (BTW, that's not a compliment)

Do you always smell your own farts?

 

[Plasmaball]

It's great if the 1% will trickle on you..

Seriously, that's all you have to say? It's not a defense because there isn't one, so you took the opportunity to bash a past Republican president. You have learned well when it comes to liberal tactics. (BTW, that's not a compliment)

Do you always smell your own farts?

You have to...did one last night which shold have been considered a fucking wmd..had to open the door or I would have gassed myself

 

[Mac1958]

"I am a economist. I had to do hard maths like 2+2+(4-1)/3!"

Little known fact: Current curriculum for economics degrees includes a course titled "Destroying any credibility you may have by acting like a 12-year old on internet message boards".

True story. It's pass/fail only, I hear.

.

I'm really under your skin, aren't I.

LOL

That's because I showcased what an idiot you are on stats......AND ON THE OP.

Wait, actually Kaz did....but I think he likes you more than I do so he didn't do it on purpose.

Poor princess.

What you did was provide an article from a reliably right wing website that provided incomplete and misleading information.

When called on it, with specifics, you defaulted to your standard, childish name-calling and personal insults. And nothing more.

I'm going to hope you're lying about your so-called credentials, because you're making the rest in the industry look foolish.

A real economist does not cherry pick information and data like that. They feel a professional obligation to carefully and dispassionately analyze all data.

.

 

[EconChick]

"I am a economist. I had to do hard maths like 2+2+(4-1)/3!"

Little known fact: Current curriculum for economics degrees includes a course titled "Destroying any credibility you may have by acting like a 12-year old on internet message boards".

True story. It's pass/fail only, I hear.

.

I'm really under your skin, aren't I.

LOL

That's because I showcased what an idiot you are on stats......AND ON THE OP.

Wait, actually Kaz did....but I think he likes you more than I do so he didn't do it on purpose.

Poor princess.

What you did was provide an article from a reliably right wing website that provided incomplete and misleading information.

When called on it, with specifics, you defaulted to your standard, childish name-calling and personal insults. And nothing more.

I'm going to hope you're lying about your so-called credentials, because you're making the rest in the industry look foolish.

A real economist does not cherry pick information and data like that. They feel a professional obligation to carefully and dispassionately analyze all data.

.

You're an idiot. Keep deflecting how you're SO inept, you couldn't even tell the difference between MEAN and MEDIAN.

That is grade school level knowledge.

But by all means....keep bumping my thread as you try to deflect from being the massive idiot you keep proving yourself to be on MY areas of expertise: Foreign Policy and Macroeconomics.

You need to stick to being a stock broker.

And the OP has been proven right using both left AND right sources in this very thread, dumbass.

 

[Mac1958]

"I am a economist. I had to do hard maths like 2+2+(4-1)/3!"

Little known fact: Current curriculum for economics degrees includes a course titled "Destroying any credibility you may have by acting like a 12-year old on internet message boards".

True story. It's pass/fail only, I hear.

.

I'm really under your skin, aren't I.

LOL

That's because I showcased what an idiot you are on stats......AND ON THE OP.

Wait, actually Kaz did....but I think he likes you more than I do so he didn't do it on purpose.

Poor princess.

What you did was provide an article from a reliably right wing website that provided incomplete and misleading information.

When called on it, with specifics, you defaulted to your standard, childish name-calling and personal insults. And nothing more.

I'm going to hope you're lying about your so-called credentials, because you're making the rest in the industry look foolish.

A real economist does not cherry pick information and data like that. They feel a professional obligation to carefully and dispassionately analyze all data.

.

You're an idiot. Keep deflecting how you're SO inept, you couldn't even tell the difference between MEAN and MEDIAN.

That is grade school level knowledge.

But by all means....keep bumping my thread as you try to deflect from being the massive idiot you keep proving yourself to be on MY areas of expertise: Foreign Policy and Macroeconomics.

You need to stick to being a stock broker.

And the OP has been proven right using both left AND right sources in this very thread, dumbass.

I don't mind bumping your thread. I like having your behavior and dishonesty on display for all.

When you demonstrate expertise in Macroeconomics, it will be the first time, and I'm looking forward to it.

Nothing on this thread of yours has been "proven" other than the fact that someone who claims to have expertise in Macroeconomics would use IBD as a "source".

And an economist would know the difference between a financial advisor and a stock broker.

Bump, bump, bump.

.

 

[EconChick]

Here Mac, let me give you and Loser Loner a quick math lesson on the difference in the terms. ECONOMISTS know the difference. Economists on the left and right use the MEDIAN, princess.

Mean Median Mode and Range

Mean, median, and mode are three kinds of "averages". There are many "averages" in statistics, but these are, I think, the three most common, and are certainly the three you are most likely to encounter in your pre-statistics courses, if the topic comes up at all.

The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers. The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers. To find the median, your numbers have to be listed in numerical order, so you may have to rewrite your list first. The "mode" is the value that occurs most often. If no number is repeated, then there is no mode for the list.

The "range" is just the difference between the largest and smallest values.

• Find the mean, median, mode, and range for the following list of values:
  • 
    13, 18, 13, 14, 13, 16, 14, 21, 13

• 
  The mean is the usual average, so:
  • 
    (13 + 18 + 13 + 14 + 13 + 16 + 14 + 21 + 13) ÷ 9 = 15
  Note that the mean isn't a value from the original list. This is a common result. You should not assume that your mean will be one of your original numbers.
  The median is the middle value, so I'll have to rewrite the list in order:
  • 
    13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 21

There are nine numbers in the list, so the middle one will be the (9 + 1) ÷ 2 = 10 ÷ 2 = 5th number:

• 
  13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 21

So the median is 14

 

[EconChick]

"I am a economist. I had to do hard maths like 2+2+(4-1)/3!"

Little known fact: Current curriculum for economics degrees includes a course titled "Destroying any credibility you may have by acting like a 12-year old on internet message boards".

True story. It's pass/fail only, I hear.

.

I'm really under your skin, aren't I.

LOL

That's because I showcased what an idiot you are on stats......AND ON THE OP.

Wait, actually Kaz did....but I think he likes you more than I do so he didn't do it on purpose.

Poor princess.

What you did was provide an article from a reliably right wing website that provided incomplete and misleading information.

When called on it, with specifics, you defaulted to your standard, childish name-calling and personal insults. And nothing more.

I'm going to hope you're lying about your so-called credentials, because you're making the rest in the industry look foolish.

A real economist does not cherry pick information and data like that. They feel a professional obligation to carefully and dispassionately analyze all data.

.

You're an idiot. Keep deflecting how you're SO inept, you couldn't even tell the difference between MEAN and MEDIAN.

That is grade school level knowledge.

But by all means....keep bumping my thread as you try to deflect from being the massive idiot you keep proving yourself to be on MY areas of expertise: Foreign Policy and Macroeconomics.

You need to stick to being a stock broker.

And the OP has been proven right using both left AND right sources in this very thread, dumbass.

I don't mind bumping your thread. I like having your behavior and dishonesty on display for all.

When you demonstrate expertise in Macroeconomics, it will be the first time, and I'm looking forward to it.

Nothing on this thread of yours has been "proven" other than the fact that someone who claims to have expertise in Macroeconomics would use IBD as a "source".

And an economist would know the difference between a financial advisor and a stock broker.

Bump, bump, bump.

.

Awww, what's wrong, Mac.....you're pretty unglued.

You got readers from your blog reading this and seeing how stupid you ally are? LOL.

There have been at least 5 different sources from various parts of the political continuum that verify the OP. LOL.

Deny it all your want. It's right there for everyone to see.