Obamanomics Delivers....Poverty

[Freewill]

Household income was lower when Bush left office than it was the day he became President too. So does Bushanomics create poverty too, chief?

The poverty rate consistently increased under Bush. Under Obama it has been statistically steady during the past 4 years.

The claim of this thread title is absurd. That said, one would have hoped poverty would decline and it has not.

Today demographics, politics, and international affairs are a totally different scene.

And Obama has mismanaged all three.

LOL. Preparing to make the Iran deal and pulling troops out of bushs disaster is bad?

Turns out, yes.

Iraq was not a disaster.

 

[bedowin62]

of course failed Progressive ideology delivers poverty and harm to the people who can least afford it

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans vowed to obstruct Obama since day one. So maybe blame the guys mentioned in the link below. Now, some almost, but not quite, intelligent right wingers on this message board know about this near treasonous meeting of repub politicians meeting with private citizens like gingrich and luntz. They vowed to, in effect, sabatoge Obama's presidency after bush left him with the biggest economic disaster since the republican depression of the thirties (that's what it was called back then). Still, said almost, but not quite, halfway intelligent right wingers such as the rabbi, can't seem to make the connection that if you block and stonewall everything the president does, then you're not going to have the booming economy we had before bushcheney ruined it.

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation

Except Obama had a filibuster proof majority for the first 2 years during the recession, plus his pen and his phone.
So that meme is shot.

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

 

[bedowin62]

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

OR COURSE THAT IS SIXTY DAYS LONGER THAN BUSH EVER HAD

but that doesnt stop you losers from crying that Republcans were "obstructing" obama "from Day One" even as the MINORITY OF BOTH CHAMBERS

you are simply a clown; saying a whole bunch of nothing here on a daily basis; basically just mentally masterbating with spoon-fed propaganda you have been fed

 

[Dad2three]

Household income was lower when Bush left office than it was the day he became President too. So does Bushanomics create poverty too, chief?

The poverty rate consistently increased under Bush. Under Obama it has been statistically steady during the past 4 years.

The claim of this thread title is absurd. That said, one would have hoped poverty would decline and it has not.

Poverty Rate U.S. Poverty rate 1990-2013 | Statistic
View attachment 50317

. December 2007


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

OCT 2008

In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.


We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


Obamanomics Delivers....Poverty | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[rightwinger]

Glad to see The Rabbi supporting a redistribution of wealth

 

[David_42]

Glad to see The Rabbi supporting a redistribution of wealth

Conservatives love redistribution of wealth, as long as its upward.

 

[David_42]

Household income was lower when Bush left office than it was the day he became President too. So does Bushanomics create poverty too, chief?

The poverty rate consistently increased under Bush. Under Obama it has been statistically steady during the past 4 years.

The claim of this thread title is absurd. That said, one would have hoped poverty would decline and it has not.

Today demographics, politics, and international affairs are a totally different scene.

And Obama has mismanaged all three.

No, he hasn't.

Of course that is your response. You're a blind fool.

Reducing irans nuclear capacity is totally horrible.. LOL.

Obama has not reduced Iran's nuclear capacity. Quit deflecting, asshole.

With the Iran deal, Iran will give up 97% of enriched uranium, centrifuges will be shut..

 

[rightwinger]

I'm willing to work with any conservative here on our current distribution of wealth. We have been praying to the supply side god for decades and The Rabbi is highlighting the result

The rich get richer and the poor and working class get left out

 

[NYcarbineer]

Household income was lower when Bush left office than it was the day he became President too. So does Bushanomics create poverty too, chief?

The poverty rate consistently increased under Bush. Under Obama it has been statistically steady during the past 4 years.

The claim of this thread title is absurd. That said, one would have hoped poverty would decline and it has not.

Today demographics, politics, and international affairs are a totally different scene.

And Obama has mismanaged all three.

No, he hasn't.

Of course that is your response. You're a blind fool.

What does mismanaging demographics even mean?

 

[bedowin62]

Household income was lower when Bush left office than it was the day he became President too. So does Bushanomics create poverty too, chief?

The poverty rate consistently increased under Bush. Under Obama it has been statistically steady during the past 4 years.

The claim of this thread title is absurd. That said, one would have hoped poverty would decline and it has not.

Poverty Rate U.S. Poverty rate 1990-2013 | Statistic
View attachment 50317

. December 2007


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

OCT 2008

In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.


We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


Obamanomics Delivers....Poverty | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

what would you do if you had to think for yourself???

 

[g5000]

Census Bureau announced household income today. Income was down from last year. And income has yet to achieve the levels it was the very day Bush left office.
If that isnt a record of failure on the economy the Democrats own, I dont know what is.
U.S. household incomes slip, poverty rate up slightly in 2014

Well thank goodness we had a Republican landslide in Congress and they've turned everything around.

Oh, wait...

Hey look over there! Two homos are trying to get married!

 

[bedowin62]

Census Bureau announced household income today. Income was down from last year. And income has yet to achieve the levels it was the very day Bush left office.
If that isnt a record of failure on the economy the Democrats own, I dont know what is.
U.S. household incomes slip, poverty rate up slightly in 2014

Well thank goodness we had a Republican landslide in Congress and they've turned everything around.

Oh, wait...

Hey look over there! Two homos are trying to get married!

congratulations!!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republicans vowed to obstruct Obama since day one. So maybe blame the guys mentioned in the link below. Now, some almost, but not quite, intelligent right wingers on this message board know about this near treasonous meeting of repub politicians meeting with private citizens like gingrich and luntz. They vowed to, in effect, sabatoge Obama's presidency after bush left him with the biggest economic disaster since the republican depression of the thirties (that's what it was called back then). Still, said almost, but not quite, halfway intelligent right wingers such as the rabbi, can't seem to make the connection that if you block and stonewall everything the president does, then you're not going to have the booming economy we had before bushcheney ruined it.

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation

I am no fan of GWB........

I am no fan of the GOP.

But I still can't help but laugh when people blather about Fox News and still post these kinds of talking points.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republicans vowed to obstruct Obama since day one. So maybe blame the guys mentioned in the link below. Now, some almost, but not quite, intelligent right wingers on this message board know about this near treasonous meeting of repub politicians meeting with private citizens like gingrich and luntz. They vowed to, in effect, sabatoge Obama's presidency after bush left him with the biggest economic disaster since the republican depression of the thirties (that's what it was called back then). Still, said almost, but not quite, halfway intelligent right wingers such as the rabbi, can't seem to make the connection that if you block and stonewall everything the president does, then you're not going to have the booming economy we had before bushcheney ruined it.

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation

Except Obama had a filibuster proof majority for the first 2 years during the recession, plus his pen and his phone.
So that meme is shot.

Look, I am no fan of Obama....

But that isn't true and everyone knows it.

I don't like the way Obamacare was passed....

But please try to keep things grounded in reality.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Census Bureau announced household income today. Income was down from last year. And income has yet to achieve the levels it was the very day Bush left office.
If that isnt a record of failure on the economy the Democrats own, I dont know what is.
U.S. household incomes slip, poverty rate up slightly in 2014

Well thank goodness we had a Republican landslide in Congress and they've turned everything around.

Oh, wait...

Hey look over there! Two homos are trying to get married!

While I am open to trying most anything, I don't believe they were elected to "turn everything around". I believe they were elected to stop the mess from getting messier. Not my position...just sayin'.

That landslide has not reversed and some think the GOP may hit 250.

Hopefully, no one will get control of all three again for a long long time.

 

[onecut39]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American household incomes lost ground last year and the poverty rate ticked up, a sign the U.S. economic expansion had yet to lead to gains for many Americans five years after the 2007-2009 recession.

The data released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Wednesday, which showed the inflation-adjusted median income slipping to $53,657 last year from $54,462 in 2013, offered a reminder of the tepid nature of the economy's recovery.

"In 2014, real median household income was 6.5 percent lower

than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession," Census researchers wrote.

At the same time, the poverty rate ticked up to 14.8 percent from 14.5 percent in 2013, the data showed. Census researchers said the changes in both the median income and poverty rate were not statistically significant.

The Census Bureau also said the number of people in the United States without health insurance coverage fell to 33 million last year, or 10.4 percent of the population, from 41.8 million, or 13.3 percent, in 2013.

White House economists welcomed the sharp drop in the number of uninsured, which reflected the impact of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, and a steep decline in the child poverty rate.

Obama was handed a disaster, he has dealt well.

Seven years on, and still decrying Bush.

Moron.

The Bush disaster will be with us for years to come

 

[Spinster]

P. T. Barnum . . . The worst part about elephants is cleaning-up their messes

P. T. Barnum . . . The worst part about elephants is cleaning-up their messes

Not a white elephant, but the mess is the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans vowed to obstruct Obama since day one. So maybe blame the guys mentioned in the link below. Now, some almost, but not quite, intelligent right wingers on this message board know about this near treasonous meeting of repub politicians meeting with private citizens like gingrich and luntz. They vowed to, in effect, sabatoge Obama's presidency after bush left him with the biggest economic disaster since the republican depression of the thirties (that's what it was called back then). Still, said almost, but not quite, halfway intelligent right wingers such as the rabbi, can't seem to make the connection that if you block and stonewall everything the president does, then you're not going to have the booming economy we had before bushcheney ruined it.

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation

Except Obama had a filibuster proof majority for the first 2 years during the recession, plus his pen and his phone.
So that meme is shot.

Look, I am no fan of Obama....

But that isn't true and everyone knows it.

I don't like the way Obamacare was passed....

But please try to keep things grounded in reality.

Which part isnt true? Democrats controlled COngress from 2007 until 2011. That is fact. Equally fact is that Obama himself or his regulators either delayed or changed many of the regulations pursuant to the laws passed in his first two years.
Please show where any of that is incorrect.

 

[The Rabbi]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American household incomes lost ground last year and the poverty rate ticked up, a sign the U.S. economic expansion had yet to lead to gains for many Americans five years after the 2007-2009 recession.

The data released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Wednesday, which showed the inflation-adjusted median income slipping to $53,657 last year from $54,462 in 2013, offered a reminder of the tepid nature of the economy's recovery.

"In 2014, real median household income was 6.5 percent lower

than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession," Census researchers wrote.

At the same time, the poverty rate ticked up to 14.8 percent from 14.5 percent in 2013, the data showed. Census researchers said the changes in both the median income and poverty rate were not statistically significant.

The Census Bureau also said the number of people in the United States without health insurance coverage fell to 33 million last year, or 10.4 percent of the population, from 41.8 million, or 13.3 percent, in 2013.

White House economists welcomed the sharp drop in the number of uninsured, which reflected the impact of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, and a steep decline in the child poverty rate.

Obama was handed a disaster, he has dealt well.

Seven years on, and still decrying Bush.

Moron.

The Bush disaster will be with us for years to come

Forever, unless a Republican gets elected. Then every problem will have started the day of his inauguration and its all his fault.