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

[EconChick]

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.

Exactly.

Kaz, you rally should go get your econ degree. You already are one.....just get the piece of paper, teach, and become the indoctrinator yourself.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is odd. Direct questions almost never get answered here.

 

[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.

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

Yes, it's sad I don't recognize the inherent truth of liberalism and I insist on going by facts and data and reason and other stupid stuff like that.

 

[kaz]

It is odd. Direct questions almost never get answered here.

You got a direct answer. What you wanted was a construed answer.

 

[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.

Yes, it's sad I don't recognize the inherent truth of liberalism and I insist on going by facts and data and reason and other stupid stuff like that.

Why didn't you answer the question as asked. I gave you the options...and you did not choose one. Why not? Did you realize that saying that Obama's policies are responsible for the decline and not the rise is a bit retarded?

You focused only on the decline.....essentially saying that he didn't capitalize on the golden opportunity that he was presented with an economy in a death spiral. As if Bush left him with a "tap in" putt.

Wonderful.

 

[EconChick]

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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

 

[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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

 

[kaz]

Why didn't you answer the question as asked. I gave you the options...and you did not choose one. Why not?

Just answered that question.

It is odd. Direct questions almost never get answered here.

You got a direct answer. What you wanted was a construed answer.

Did you realize that saying that Obama's policies are responsible for the decline and not the rise is a bit retarded?

You focused only on the decline.....essentially saying that he didn't capitalize on the golden opportunity that he was presented with an economy in a death spiral.

Wonderful.

Actually, if you'd been reading the discussion, I said W's policies drove us down and Obama continued the same policies continuing to drive us down.

 

[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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

I don't see anything inconsistent with what an economist would say. Can you be more specific? Presidents are definitely measured by median income changes during their Presidency. And Obama has had a term and a half. How is that not fair?

 

[EconChick]

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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

 

[Mac1958]

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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

I don't see anything inconsistent with what an economist would say. Can you be more specific? Presidents are definitely measured by median income changes during their Presidency. And Obama has had a term and a half. How is that not fair?

Kaz, here's the point.

The damage from the Meltdown clearly caused median incomes to drop significantly. Anything powerful enough to make incomes literally drop is going to take a while not only to stop, but to begin to reverse itself. In this case, it took until 2011. That's really no surprise - our economy is like a battleship -- slowing down, stopping, and then reversing course in the opposite direction is gonna take a while.

So, the downward momentum lasted until 2011, and since then it has reversed. If we're below where we were before the drop began, fine, that's what the numbers say. But the drop began before Obama took office. The catty inference of the thread is that Obama, out of nowhere, just made incomes drop when he showed up. And that just isn't the case.

.

 

[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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

 

[Iceweasel]

The damage from the Meltdown clearly caused median incomes to drop significantly. Anything powerful enough to make incomes literally drop is going to take a while not only to stop, but to begin to reverse itself. In this case, it took until 2011. That's really no surprise - our economy is like a battleship -- slowing down, stopping, and then reversing course in the opposite direction is gonna take a while.

What you fail to understand is that the massive spending in the hopes to kick start the economy didn't work. Passing it off as "oh well, gonna take a while" doesn't cut it. That's a cop out.

So, the downward momentum lasted until 2011, and since then it has reversed. If we're below where we were before the drop began, fine, that's what the numbers say. But the drop began before Obama took office. The catty inference of the thread is that Obama, out of nowhere, just made incomes drop when he showed up. And that just isn't the case.

The inference is between your ears. obama was the wrong man at the wrong time and unfortunately had the political power to ram his policies home. For you it's irrelevant apparently and just politics. For anyone paying attention it isn't.

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

You want a poll on your credibility? Seriously? Econ 101 and 201? Wow. You should be president!

 

[TooTall]

It's on the rise, idiot.

http://sentierresearch.com/Charts/HouseholdIncomeIndex_UnemploymentRate_07_2014.jpg

And.....then there is this.....

http://sentierresearch.com/notifications/SuspendingMedianHouseholdIncomeEstimates.pdf

I got this from your link:

The July 2014 median income of $54,045 was 2.9 percent lower than the median of $55,639 in June 2009, the end of the recent recession and beginning of the “economic recovery.” (Since the recession ended consumer prices have increased by 10.8 percent, creating a sizable “headwind” for changes in median annual household income.) The July 2014 median was 4.6 percent lower than the median of $56,656 in December 2007, the beginning month of the recession that occurred over six years ago. And the July2014 median was 5.7 percent lower than the median of $57,340 in January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series. These comparisons demonstrate how significantly real median annual household income has fallen over the past decade, and how much ground needs to be recovered to return to a median income level that existed more than ten years ago

The last time I checked, lower and fallen do not mean "It's on the rise."

 

[Mac1958]

The damage from the Meltdown clearly caused median incomes to drop significantly. Anything powerful enough to make incomes literally drop is going to take a while not only to stop, but to begin to reverse itself. In this case, it took until 2011. That's really no surprise - our economy is like a battleship -- slowing down, stopping, and then reversing course in the opposite direction is gonna take a while.

What you fail to understand is that the massive spending in the hopes to kick start the economy didn't work. Passing it off as "oh well, gonna take a while" doesn't cut it. That's a cop out.

So, the downward momentum lasted until 2011, and since then it has reversed. If we're below where we were before the drop began, fine, that's what the numbers say. But the drop began before Obama took office. The catty inference of the thread is that Obama, out of nowhere, just made incomes drop when he showed up. And that just isn't the case.

The inference is between your ears. obama was the wrong man at the wrong time and unfortunately had the political power to ram his policies home. For you it's irrelevant apparently and just politics. For anyone paying attention it isn't.

Okay, perhaps you can provide empirical data that proves that quantitative easing didn't stop the economic decay from getting far worse. While I'm in the finance industry and have access to a wide range of analysis and data, I have never seen such proof. I'm always open to information, go ahead. A link with verifiable facts would be great.

And yes, Obama was the wrong man at the wrong time, no argument there. I don't understand, however, how the momentum to which I referred would have been significantly slowed by pretty much anyone or anything. Again, if you have that data, I'd love to see it.

Yes, there's a great deal of politics at play here, and I'm definitely seeing it in this thread.

.

 

[TooTall]

It's on the rise, idiot.

http://sentierresearch.com/Charts/HouseholdIncomeIndex_UnemploymentRate_07_2014.jpg

And.....then there is this.....

http://sentierresearch.com/notifications/SuspendingMedianHouseholdIncomeEstimates.pdf

Oh, and dumb ass....very few people have ever heard of the LEFT leaning organization you used to continue your HACK posts.

But more importantly, if you actually knew how to read data, you'd see the problems right in their report.

Idiot.

What left leaning organization? I used the one you cited in you OP. Didn't you know whose data was cited in your OP?

Man,,,,epic fail.

Is median household income on the rise in this country? That is a yes or no question.

According to the link you provided, not only no, but hell no.

 

[EconChick]

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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.



Oh, and I forgot to address, "jealous."


LOL

I think that crack you've been stuffing up your ass is too strong for your brain because your level of delusion far exceeds even that of the most pathetic crack heads wandering the streets of San Fran.

 

[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?

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

 

[EconChick]

Do you know what's meant by apples to apples???

When this very focused question is put to any president, it's weighed the same way each time. That's why lib economists have also agreed THE MEDICAN INCOME HAS DROPPED UNDER OBAMA. Because they know all his predecessors got the same assessment.



It doesn't matter how you spin it, Obama has never gotten that median number up to $55, 589.

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.