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

[EconChick]

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Well when you whine about poooooooooooooor Obama inheriting Boooooooooooooooooooooosh's economy, where do you caveat that??????????????????????

You're really trying too hard.

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Your constant meltdowns are embarrassing.

.

Your constant displays of abject ignorance about anything to do with this topic is embarrassing. LOL

You think ANY economy turns on a dime??????

You don't know we're discussing MEDIAN when it's right in the title?

You've been thoroughly discredited. But thanks for bumping. You couldn't plz me more......

My pleasure.

.

Mine too.

Over 2000 views.....just what I wanted....and that's even with you being the most discredited idiot on this thread....ooops, except for Loser Loner.

OP SPOT ON! I even manage to make a rule-breaking troll out of you too. Ta ta, gotta work....

 

[Iceweasel]

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Look at who was controlling congress during the "Bush recession". Then look at the historical record.

 

[kaz]

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

That's for sure Mac. We've had two of the worst ever in a row. As you say, this is exactly what that looks like.

 

[kaz]

(Oh, wait, K....just read the rest....we disagree to the degree of B's liberalism but your overall point is right, LOL.)

How can you say that W wasn't as fiscally liberal as I say?

- One of the largest tax increased in history by drastically raising teh cap on Social Security and eliminating the cap on Medicare taxes.

- A massive new welfare program by adding prescription drug to Medicare.

- Signing a $250 billion Christmas tree called a "transportation" bill and never vetoing a spending bill while every budget he presented grew the Federal budget massively in every conceivable measure (inflation, GDP...) and also massively growing institutional spending increases which are a lie regarding budget growth.

- Proposing and signing TARP which was an abomination to free markets.

- Continuing Slick's sub prime mortgage focus and the Feds virtually zero interest policies to fund them.

- Spending trillions on the wars in the middle east that were not for defense of this country.

- Creating a massive new federal bureaucracy called the "TSA."

The only difference between W and Obama fiscally was Obama's lust for a single payer system. But the taxes and spending W actually got would be a wet dream to Obama.

 

[Mac1958]

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Look at who was controlling congress during the "Bush recession". Then look at the historical record.

Partisans give credit to their President when the economy is good.

Partisans give blame to the other party's President when the economy is bad.

Illustrating why partisans have zero (0) credibility.

The Meltdown was about more than the President.

.

 

[kaz]

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

Agreed, Clinton started the policies that led to the sub prime meltdown, which led to the general housing melt down, which led to the general meltdown.

 

[kaz]

But neither is it reality that someone can be both employed and unemployed in any meaningful defintions of the words.

I'm not an economist like EconChick, but I am a finance guy and finance is a branch of economics.

My understanding of "employed" is that it means fully employed. Clearly you're right logically, part time employment is not unemployment. However, when I hear the stat unemployed, I hear in my mind they are not fully employed. I believe that's the way economists normally look at it.

It's not technically right to say employed and "unemployed" for that, but it's easier to say the unemployment rate than saying the "not fully employed" rate.

If you think about it, there are other even more serious issues with it. Like that it doesn't count people who want jobs and have given up. Also, it counts people who are say accountants working at Burger King as employed when they are not fully employed. You are raising a valid point, but you may be over thinking it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Partisans give credit to their President when the economy is good.

Partisans give blame to the other party's President when the economy is bad.

Illustrating why partisans have zero (0) credibility.

The Meltdown was about more than the President.

Where's yours since you ignored my point?

 

[Mac1958]

Partisans give credit to their President when the economy is good.

Partisans give blame to the other party's President when the economy is bad.

Illustrating why partisans have zero (0) credibility.

The Meltdown was about more than the President.

Where's yours since you ignored my point?

What precisely is your point?

The Meltdown was all the Democrats' fault?

.

 

[Iceweasel]

What precisely is your point?

The Meltdown was all the Democrats' fault?

My point is what I said. In simple English.

 

[EconChick]

(Oh, wait, K....just read the rest....we disagree to the degree of B's liberalism but your overall point is right, LOL.)

How can you say that W wasn't as fiscally liberal as I say?

- One of the largest tax increased in history by drastically raising teh cap on Social Security and eliminating the cap on Medicare taxes.

- A massive new welfare program by adding prescription drug to Medicare.

- Signing a $250 billion Christmas tree called a "transportation" bill and never vetoing a spending bill while every budget he presented grew the Federal budget massively in every conceivable measure (inflation, GDP...) and also massively growing institutional spending increases which are a lie regarding budget growth.

- Proposing and signing TARP which was an abomination to free markets.

- Continuing Slick's sub prime mortgage focus and the Feds virtually zero interest policies to fund them.

- Spending trillions on the wars in the middle east that were not for defense of this country.

- Creating a massive new federal bureaucracy called the "TSA."

The only difference between W and Obama fiscally was Obama's lust for a single payer system. But the taxes and spending W actually got would be a wet dream to Obama.

Kaz: "How can you say that W wasn't as fiscally liberal as I say?"


He WAS more fiscally liberal than Republicans like to admit, however two points:

1) I didn't see you caveat that's all you meant.

Your post is ambiguous as to whether you're saying he's as liberal as Obama on everything or just economic issues. You did start off with "tax and spend liberal" but by the end of your post you seemed to paint them exactly alike on everything. You probably thought you were being clear but I wasn't clear.

2) No one's been as much as a socialist as Obama. His real desire is single payer. Bush was not. Healthcare is such a major part of our economy that it's a huge factor. So no, not AS bad as Obama. But not a Reagan.

Now, the foreign policy side of the equation also figures into the assessment of Bush. As you libertarians are starting to see the open press admit, Bush had reason to go into Iraq. You still think he didn't. I KNOW he did. The fact that he did impacts the fiscal side.

But I don't want to get off on that tangent in this thread. Let's keep that debate in other threads.

I started this thread to talk about a narrow topic: the UNAMBIGUOUS fact that Median Household Incomes have fallen under Obama. We can debate the other issues on other threads.

 

[EconChick]

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Look at who was controlling congress during the "Bush recession". Then look at the historical record.

Partisans give credit to their President when the economy is good.

Partisans give blame to the other party's President when the economy is bad.

Illustrating why partisans have zero (0) credibility.

The Meltdown was about more than the President.

.

Yeahhhhhhhhh, in your vanilla, fence-sitting world, all presidents good or all presidents bad......none lean more toward the right solution than others.

You simply lack any education in history OR economics.

 

[EconChick]

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Look at who was controlling congress during the "Bush recession". Then look at the historical record.

Partisans give credit to their President when the economy is good.

Partisans give blame to the other party's President when the economy is bad.

Illustrating why partisans have zero (0) credibility.

The Meltdown was about more than the President.

.

So that means Obama gets a pass for the median income being down??? I don't think you have any historical perspective for how this is the same apples to apples issues every president has on THIS topic.

 

[Mac1958]

What precisely is your point?

The Meltdown was all the Democrats' fault?

My point is what I said. In simple English.

Well, if that's as specific as you're gonna get, I'll just assume that's it.

.

 

[kaz]

[
I started this thread to talk about a narrow topic: the UNAMBIGUOUS fact that Median Household Incomes have fallen under Obama. We can debate the other issues on other threads.

You know we agree on that, I've been supporting you through the thread and you're absolutely right. What cracks me up is the liberals not being able to read their own graphs that show the same thing.

W didn't just go along with massive government spending though, he pushed it. Another one besides the ones I mentioned is the no child gets ahead program. W cruised through life on his daddy's wings never learning the value of money or appreciating the hard work of the people who earned it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Time began in January, 2009.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Let me do this favor for the two idiots. You seem to need help...still.

The median household income is lower now than it was when Barack Obama took office.

It is also higher now than it was in 2011.

Would you say that president Obama is more responsible for the decline between 2009 and 2011 or for the rise from 2011 to present? Or...are his policies equally responsible for both?

 

[kaz]

Let me do this favor for the two idiots. You seem to need help...still.

The median household income is lower now than it was when Barack Obama took office.

It is also higher now than it was in 2011.

Would you say that president Obama is more responsible for the decline between 2009 and 2011 or for the rise from 2011 to present? Or...are his policies equally responsible for both?

The median income being down almost $4K in real dollars over his presidency is an abysmal failure, and even more so when you consider we were already in a deep recession when he took office. Raising real income from that should have been a tap in putt and he drove the ball into the trees from the green.

 

[EconChick]

[
I started this thread to talk about a narrow topic: the UNAMBIGUOUS fact that Median Household Incomes have fallen under Obama. We can debate the other issues on other threads.

You know we agree on that, I've been supporting you through the thread and you're absolutely right. What cracks me up is the liberals not being able to read their own graphs that show the same thing.

W didn't just go along with massive government spending though, he pushed it. Another one besides the ones I mentioned is the no child gets ahead program. W cruised through life on his daddy's wings never learning the value of money or appreciating the hard work of the people who earned it.

Bush definitely takes a hit on the big spending. If you are someone that believes the wars were not justified, he's an even bigger spender than Obama.

My real expertise is intelligence and foreign policy....economics has just been my hobby for 20 years because I liked to know why I as a military person was doing what I was doing....and I know why we went to war. Obama with his "weakness invites aggression" behavior is demonstrating what people like me have said. As time moves on, more people will understand even more. I'm shocked the NYTimes has come out this close to an election with their article.

Anyway, let's keep that long discussion for another thread....because it's complicated....but yes, you have been completely supportive on the title of this thread. It's because you're such a smart guy.

And also......actually your comment to Pinqy shows why you have the instincts of a good economist because of the way you're stepping back and looking at the definitions that drive all the numbers. Using common sense, you can tell things don't fit nice and neatly. You have questions about why certain things aren't working right.

It's the same thing that caused me to break with all the Keynesian indoctrination 97% of America's schools teach in our economics departments.

But once you do that, realize you'll be up against a very heavy indoctrination that flows out of Ivy League schools in particular down through the titans of industry, politics, and government....because these people didn't know enough to question their econ professors the way you just questioned Pinqy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Let me do this favor for the two idiots. You seem to need help...still.

The median household income is lower now than it was when Barack Obama took office.

It is also higher now than it was in 2011.

Would you say that president Obama is more responsible for the decline between 2009 and 2011 or for the rise from 2011 to present? Or...are his policies equally responsible for both?

The median income being down almost $4K in real dollars over his presidency is an abysmal failure, and even more so when you consider we were already in a deep recession when he took office. Raising real income from that should have been a tap in putt and he drove the ball into the trees from the green.

You aren't joking.....and that is sad.