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

[pinqy]

[

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

You didn't say

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

Weird

But since neither of you are willing to explain what that means, I guess it doesn't matter.

Yes, that was the answer to the question you asked how the numbers are manipulated.

But it doesn't answer the question of how the numbers are manipulated. You said CHANGE who is counted, but in answer to how it's changed you give examples of things that have never changed. Who is doing the changing you speak of and how?

Nowhere in there did I say Obama specifically manipulated them.

I never said you did. Quit with the strawman.

You just proved nothing. Do you have a content point or do you just want to bicker?

I just wanted an honest answer. Which you have failed to give.

Again, if you are claiming the numbers are manipulated (I don't care by whom) through "changing who is counted," I'd like an explanation of what you mean by that. HOW are you claiming it's done...what's the process of changing who is counted?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

What does unsolicited have to do with it? You said "shit on th emotives of the POTUS or liberal Americans, you shit on Republicans and their motives all the time, I've never seen you make that point to a liberal that questioning W's motives is wrong. A standard you apply to others and not yourself isn't a standard, it's just another form of attack.

Read.

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

Finally, a key difference at the fundamental level. No, no... the glass is half empty- Obama INDEED does not have America's best interest at heart. I'm a firm believer he does not. His actions warrant no other assessment.

-Geaux

That is you saying crazy things. It's why you don't matter. You spit out crazy shit. You didn't even try to convince me. You just said you believe and that "his actions warrant no other assessment".

That is you saying crazy things and then decorating them with bullshit.

Well done.

 

[kaz]

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

To be clear, I am not "questioning" Obama's motives, I am stating that he's an arrogant ass of a human being who cares not about his country or anyone but himself. He would be a nobody if liberals hadn't decided it would be cool to elect the black guy. He doesn't give a shit about blacks, he just manipulates them then does squat for them. I'm not questioning his motives, I'm saying they are bad.

Why would I not believe that? He blames me for everything he hates about this country. I'm white, male, corporate and "wealthy." Boo, hiss, evil me. I'm everything he says is wrong. And he built his Presidency on that. Why would I possibly turn around and respect him?

And as I said, I have no respect for W as President either. He said he wanted to help me, he believed in free markets and less government. Then he followed the same path as Obama as plundering his country and me. They are two peas in a pod.

 

[Geaux4it]

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

What does unsolicited have to do with it? You said "shit on th emotives of the POTUS or liberal Americans, you shit on Republicans and their motives all the time, I've never seen you make that point to a liberal that questioning W's motives is wrong. A standard you apply to others and not yourself isn't a standard, it's just another form of attack.

Read.

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

Finally, a key difference at the fundamental level. No, no... the glass is half empty- Obama INDEED does not have America's best interest at heart. I'm a firm believer he does not. His actions warrant no other assessment.

-Geaux

That is you saying crazy things. It's why you don't matter. You spit out crazy shit. You didn't even try to convince me. You just said you believe and that "his actions warrant no other assessment".

That is you saying crazy things and then decorating them with bullshit.

Well done.

Oh, sure... lets here it.... ((((((((YAWN))))))))...... Spin Obama's results into America's 'best interest'. Let's hear it.......

LMAO

Lets do a Performance based assessment.

Give me the result, and the effort....

-Geaux

 

[LoneLaugher]

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

What does unsolicited have to do with it? You said "shit on th emotives of the POTUS or liberal Americans, you shit on Republicans and their motives all the time, I've never seen you make that point to a liberal that questioning W's motives is wrong. A standard you apply to others and not yourself isn't a standard, it's just another form of attack.

Read.

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

Finally, a key difference at the fundamental level. No, no... the glass is half empty- Obama INDEED does not have America's best interest at heart. I'm a firm believer he does not. His actions warrant no other assessment.

-Geaux

That is you saying crazy things. It's why you don't matter. You spit out crazy shit. You didn't even try to convince me. You just said you believe and that "his actions warrant no other assessment".

That is you saying crazy things and then decorating them with bullshit.

Well done.

Oh, sure... lets here it.... ((((((((YAWN))))))))...... Spin Obama's results into America's 'best interest'. Let's hear it.......

LMAO

Lets do a Performance based assessment.

Give me the result, and the effort....

-Geaux

You don't matter. You say crazy shit. Get it?

 

[kaz]

Whatever.........dude. You come off like her bitch when you don't call her out on her obvious misrepresentation of the facts and data. Then again....you do the same thing. So...what is to be expected?

There you go, you have it solved. I'm not bickering with you anymore, I'm tired of bickering with liberals. If you see me supporting her based on data that is bogus, let me know. I haven't done that, I've supported my own arguments. The big one I remember you were back and forth with her on the data she started the thread with. I didn't use her data, I gave you about 5 other links, none of those did you come back and challenge.

Also note as the two of you go back and forth in your own bickering, I don't get involved. This is the end of this line with you. I'm not succumbing to your shallow pier pressure. You don't like my content, challenge my content. That it agrees with Econchick and you don't like Econchick is irrelevant to me.

Here is a little test. Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question with integrity.

Here goes:

Is the US economy better now than it was in January 2009?

Yes........or no?

On a nominal basis, yes. On a real basis, no, it's worse. Two questions for you:

1) Can you explain what that means?

2) What is the relevance to comparing the economy now to the bottom of a recession? You are shooting fish in a barrel, it's a ridiculous question.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

To be clear, I am not "questioning" Obama's motives, I am stating that he's an arrogant ass of a human being who cares not about his country or anyone but himself. He would be a nobody if liberals hadn't decided it would be cool to elect the black guy. He doesn't give a shit about blacks, he just manipulates them then does squat for them. I'm not questioning his motives, I'm saying they are bad.

Why would I not believe that? He blames me for everything he hates about this country. I'm white, male, corporate and "wealthy." Boo, hiss, evil me. I'm everything he says is wrong. And he built his Presidency on that. Why would I possibly turn around and respect him?

And as I said, I have no respect for W as President either. He said he wanted to help me, he believed in free markets and less government. Then he followed the same path as Obama as plundering his country and me. They are two peas in a pod.

Look at you! You say crazy shit too! Let's just have a crazy shit flinging party!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whatever.........dude. You come off like her bitch when you don't call her out on her obvious misrepresentation of the facts and data. Then again....you do the same thing. So...what is to be expected?

There you go, you have it solved. I'm not bickering with you anymore, I'm tired of bickering with liberals. If you see me supporting her based on data that is bogus, let me know. I haven't done that, I've supported my own arguments. The big one I remember you were back and forth with her on the data she started the thread with. I didn't use her data, I gave you about 5 other links, none of those did you come back and challenge.

Also note as the two of you go back and forth in your own bickering, I don't get involved. This is the end of this line with you. I'm not succumbing to your shallow pier pressure. You don't like my content, challenge my content. That it agrees with Econchick and you don't like Econchick is irrelevant to me.

Here is a little test. Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question with integrity.

Here goes:

Is the US economy better now than it was in January 2009?

Yes........or no?

On a nominal basis, yes. On a real basis, no, it's worse. Two questions for you:

1) What does that means?

2) What is the relevance to comparing the economy now to the bottom of a recession? You are shooting fish in a barrel, it's a ridiculous question.

You couldn't do it. It was a yes or no question. One word answer required.

I'll leave you to your butthurt.

 

[kaz]

[

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

You didn't say

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

Weird

But since neither of you are willing to explain what that means, I guess it doesn't matter.

Yes, that was the answer to the question you asked how the numbers are manipulated.

But it doesn't answer the question of how the numbers are manipulated. You said CHANGE who is counted, but in answer to how it's changed you give examples of things that have never changed. Who is doing the changing you speak of and how?

Nowhere in there did I say Obama specifically manipulated them.

I never said you did. Quit with the strawman.

You just proved nothing. Do you have a content point or do you just want to bicker?

I just wanted an honest answer. Which you have failed to give.

Again, if you are claiming the numbers are manipulated (I don't care by whom) through "changing who is counted," I'd like an explanation of what you mean by that. HOW are you claiming it's done...what's the process of changing who is counted?

You want an "honest answer" from me to a point that Econchick made, not me. Got it. My view, which I never gave, because you never asked, you just kept challenging me to support Econchick's statement, is that the numbers are manipulated by government over time heavily to make them look less inept than they are. I see no particular link to one specific party to do that, it's both.

 

[kaz]

Lets do a Performance based assessment.

Give me the result, and the effort....

-Geaux

You don't matter. You say crazy shit. Get it?

And the number of times I see you making that point to liberals calling W everything up to and including a liar and a murderer. Well, the next time I see you do that ... will be the first ... A standard you do not apply to yourself and your side first isn't a standard. One thing libertarians are great at is that. We argue amongst ourselves all the time. Republicans? Not so much. Liberals? Never.

 

[kaz]

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

To be clear, I am not "questioning" Obama's motives, I am stating that he's an arrogant ass of a human being who cares not about his country or anyone but himself. He would be a nobody if liberals hadn't decided it would be cool to elect the black guy. He doesn't give a shit about blacks, he just manipulates them then does squat for them. I'm not questioning his motives, I'm saying they are bad.

Why would I not believe that? He blames me for everything he hates about this country. I'm white, male, corporate and "wealthy." Boo, hiss, evil me. I'm everything he says is wrong. And he built his Presidency on that. Why would I possibly turn around and respect him?

And as I said, I have no respect for W as President either. He said he wanted to help me, he believed in free markets and less government. Then he followed the same path as Obama as plundering his country and me. They are two peas in a pod.

Look at you! You say crazy shit too! Let's just have a crazy shit flinging party!

While Obama demonizes me, I should respect him. Noted.

 

[kaz]

Lone Laugher: Is the US economy better now than it was in January 2009? Yes........or no?

On a nominal basis, yes. On a real basis, no, it's worse. Two questions for you:

1) What does that means?

2) What is the relevance to comparing the economy now to the bottom of a recession? You are shooting fish in a barrel, it's a ridiculous question.

You couldn't do it. It was a yes or no question. One word answer required.

I'll leave you to your butthurt.

I gave you two specific answers instead of one vague one. See, you didn't want an accurate answer. You didn't want an answer, you wanted a contrived point.

You also answered my question, no, you don't know the difference between nominal and real data.

As for butthurt, that would be you in your war on Econchick, LOL. What a dick.

 

[pinqy]

You want an "honest answer" from me to a point that Econchick made, not me.

No, I would like an explanation of YOUR point:

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

That's your words, with your claim. I'm not quoting Econchick or addressing any of her points here (unless you're saying she posted under your user account), I'm only asking about YOUR claim. What process are you claiming takes place in "not counting people" or "changing who you count."

My view,...is that the numbers are manipulated by government over time heavily to make them look less inept than they are.

But you refuse to say HOW you think they are manipulated.

 

[kaz]

My view,...is that the numbers are manipulated by government over time heavily to make them look less inept than they are.

But you refuse to say HOW you think they are manipulated.

No I don't, I answered this the first time you asked. The big ones are you count underemployed as employed and you don't count discouraged workers as unemployed. [/discussion until you come up with a new point relevant to me]

 

[pinqy]

My view,...is that the numbers are manipulated by government over time heavily to make them look less inept than they are.

But you refuse to say HOW you think they are manipulated.

No I don't, I answered this the first time you asked. The big ones are you count underemployed as employed and you don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

How on earth do you consider that "manipulation?" Those are the standard since forever definitions. That's not changing or manipulating anything.
The survey respondents' answers are collected and they are classified by the defintions of the various categories. No idea how you think that's manipulation.

Oh, and what would you classify the underemployed as if not employed? I don't understand why you would not want to call someone who has a job as not employed.

 

[kaz]

My view,...is that the numbers are manipulated by government over time heavily to make them look less inept than they are.

But you refuse to say HOW you think they are manipulated.

No I don't, I answered this the first time you asked. The big ones are you count underemployed as employed and you don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

How on earth do you consider that "manipulation?" Those are the standard since forever definitions. That's not changing or manipulating anything.
The survey respondents' answers are collected and they are classified by the defintions of the various categories. No idea how you think that's manipulation.

Oh, and what would you classify the underemployed as if not employed? I don't understand why you would not want to call someone who has a job as not employed.

Well, it depends if one wants a technical definition like you do that serves your liberal President or if you want to accurately reflect the state of the job market, doesn't it? The labor participation rate is at a historic low, and yet the unemployment rate makes it appear that the job market is fine. It's not.

Just so you know, liberals were making the same argument when W was President. I agreed with you when you said that. I don't flip sides based on the party in power like you do.

 

[pinqy]

My view,...is that the numbers are manipulated by government over time heavily to make them look less inept than they are.

But you refuse to say HOW you think they are manipulated.

No I don't, I answered this the first time you asked. The big ones are you count underemployed as employed and you don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

How on earth do you consider that "manipulation?" Those are the standard since forever definitions. That's not changing or manipulating anything.
The survey respondents' answers are collected and they are classified by the defintions of the various categories. No idea how you think that's manipulation.

Oh, and what would you classify the underemployed as if not employed? I don't understand why you would not want to call someone who has a job as not employed.

Well, it depends if one wants a technical definition like you do that serves your liberal President or if you want to accurately reflect the state of the job market, doesn't it? The labor participation rate is at a historic low, and yet the unemployment rate makes it appear that the job market is fine. It's not.

Just so you know, liberals were making the same argument when W was President. I agreed with you when you said that. I don't flip sides based on the party in power like you do.

And again, you are completely incapable or unwilling to give actual explanations or discussion. You shy away from specifics.

And when G.W.Bush was President, I was arguing against Liberals making stupid claims about manipulation and "real unemployment." So don't invent things about my position.

Oh, and no, the labor force participation is nowhere near it's historic low of 58.1%
But you misunderstand the relationship of the UE rate and the LFPR. The UE rate shows the percent of those available for work who are not working. The LFPR shows the percent of the population that is available for work. Lower excess supply is a good thing, even if the supply is lower overall or as a percent of total possible supply.

 

[kaz]

Oh, and no, the labor force participation is nowhere near it's historic low of 58.1%

Good thing I didn't say "record" I said "historic." Labor participation is still scraping bottom while the recession bottomed out six years ago.

But you misunderstand the relationship of the UE rate and the LFPR. The UE rate shows the percent of those available for work who are not working. The LFPR shows the percent of the population that is available for work. Lower excess supply is a good thing, even if the supply is lower overall or as a percent of total possible supply.

Gotcha, when I turn on the liberal media and they keep hyping the declining unemployment rate while ignoring the ultra low labor participation rate, I'm failing to grasp what their message is. LOL, sure I am...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and no, the labor force participation is nowhere near it's historic low of 58.1%

Good thing I didn't say "record" I said "historic." Labor participation is still scraping bottom while the recession bottomed out six years ago.

But you misunderstand the relationship of the UE rate and the LFPR. The UE rate shows the percent of those available for work who are not working. The LFPR shows the percent of the population that is available for work. Lower excess supply is a good thing, even if the supply is lower overall or as a percent of total possible supply.

Gotcha, when I turn on the liberal media and they keep hyping the declining unemployment rate while ignoring the ultra low labor participation rate, I'm failing to grasp what their message is. LOL, sure I am...

Yes, you are.

 

[BlindBoo]

And no matter how many liberals spin it differently, median income is STILL down under Obama. STILL DOWN.

No matter how you spin it the downturn didn't happen on Jan, 2009. Nope, median income was falling before Obama took office. The answer is simple. The economic cycle and the political cycle do not match.

Clearly we were in a recession when Obama took office, the thing that didn't happen when Obama took over that normally does happen is ... a recovery ...

How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

Obama's stimulus really was very large, though it was also too small given the scale of the problem. But, in a sop to Republicans, much of its was conducted through tax cuts, and quite a bit was also done through transfer payments.