Proof That The Right Has Truth On Its Side

[Dale Smith]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

So you acknowledge the damage done by the Republicans taking over the House in 2010.

Parties don't matter....but regale us all again with how wonderful things were when leftards took control of the house and senate in 2007 and had it for two years under Barrypuppet....now you know why the other establishment party was able to get control again......nothing ever changes for the better regardless of whom is in. One side will be pissed and the other side has gloating rights while America continues the slide.....hell, even a stupid fuck like you should be able to see that. (snicker)

 

[Never3ndr]

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

Did you read your link? Your link provided no links to its source material (commonly known as citing). It simply points towards the Census, which, if you have actually tried to delve into the Census data, is basically a shitshow to try and work through. It's an empty quote without an actual citation linking towards where it got its data.

Now, if you found the actual sources where they got their data, and would care to link them, then I would be more than happy to digest your content rather than take your word that those numbers are accurate from a reliable source.

On the other hand, I provided you with the actual source data, broken down into graphical format and gave you the raw data on real median household income during his years. Remember that "real" is different from nominal (I'm pretty sure at this point that you have no background in economics and just google things that agree with you), so stable numbers are actually a good (although not as good as increasing) thing.

Edit: You also did nothing to counter the points I gave which directly countered your original argument. If you would at least try to build your argument from fact-based logic, rather than say "you lied" and then repeat what you posted without actually addressing any points that I brought up...that would be nice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

Did you read your link? Your link provided no links to its source material (commonly known as citing). It simply points towards the Census, which, if you have actually tried to delve into the Census data, is basically a shitshow to try and work through. It's an empty quote without an actual citation linking towards where it got its data.

Now, if you found the actual sources where they got their data, and would care to link them, then I would be more than happy to digest your content rather than take your word that those numbers are accurate from a reliable source.

On the other hand, I provided you with the actual source data, broken down into graphical format and gave you the raw data on real median household income during his years. Remember that "real" is different from nominal (I'm pretty sure at this point that you have no background in economics and just google things that agree with you), so stable numbers are actually a good (although not as good as increasing) thing.

Edit: You also did nothing to counter the points I gave which directly countered your original argument. If you would at least try to build your argument from fact-based logic, rather than say "you lied" and then repeat what you posted without actually addressing any points that I brought up...that would be nice.

What I posted was dispositive.

 

[Never3ndr]

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

Did you read your link? Your link provided no links to its source material (commonly known as citing). It simply points towards the Census, which, if you have actually tried to delve into the Census data, is basically a shitshow to try and work through. It's an empty quote without an actual citation linking towards where it got its data.

Now, if you found the actual sources where they got their data, and would care to link them, then I would be more than happy to digest your content rather than take your word that those numbers are accurate from a reliable source.

On the other hand, I provided you with the actual source data, broken down into graphical format and gave you the raw data on real median household income during his years. Remember that "real" is different from nominal (I'm pretty sure at this point that you have no background in economics and just google things that agree with you), so stable numbers are actually a good (although not as good as increasing) thing.

Edit: You also did nothing to counter the points I gave which directly countered your original argument. If you would at least try to build your argument from fact-based logic, rather than say "you lied" and then repeat what you posted without actually addressing any points that I brought up...that would be nice.

What I posted was dispositive.

Then please reconcile your numbers with what I've posted, which I directly linked to research done by the Federal Reserve branch at St. Louis. On the other hand, as stated, your source fails to link directly to where it attained its numbers. As our numbers indicate different things (yours show falling number mine shows stable) then the first issue would be to be assured that the source material is reliable.

Again, you have failed to provide a link to the actual source material, instead of an article just telling us some numbers. Please give us the original data. As it stands right now, I have been the only one to post directly sourced data, and, as such, the only one to provide a reliable data frame from which to build. With that understanding, my numbers, until you actually provide your original sources, stand. Thus the conclusions that can be drawn from those numbers are more reliable than you just posting an article that didn't cite its sources and you just copy paste as your own conclusions independent of actual thought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

Did you read your link? Your link provided no links to its source material (commonly known as citing). It simply points towards the Census, which, if you have actually tried to delve into the Census data, is basically a shitshow to try and work through. It's an empty quote without an actual citation linking towards where it got its data.

Now, if you found the actual sources where they got their data, and would care to link them, then I would be more than happy to digest your content rather than take your word that those numbers are accurate from a reliable source.

On the other hand, I provided you with the actual source data, broken down into graphical format and gave you the raw data on real median household income during his years. Remember that "real" is different from nominal (I'm pretty sure at this point that you have no background in economics and just google things that agree with you), so stable numbers are actually a good (although not as good as increasing) thing.

Edit: You also did nothing to counter the points I gave which directly countered your original argument. If you would at least try to build your argument from fact-based logic, rather than say "you lied" and then repeat what you posted without actually addressing any points that I brought up...that would be nice.

What I posted was dispositive.

Then please reconcile your numbers with what I've posted, which I directly linked to research done by the Federal Reserve branch at St. Louis. On the other hand, as stated, your source fails to link directly to where it attained its numbers. As our numbers indicate different things (yours show falling number mine shows stable) then the first issue would be to be assured that the source material is reliable.

Again, you have failed to provide a link to the actual source material, instead of an article just telling us some numbers. Please give us the original data. As it stands right now, I have been the only one to post directly sourced data, and, as such, the only one to provide a reliable data frame from which to build. With that understanding, my numbers, until you actually provide your original sources, stand. Thus the conclusions that can be drawn from those numbers are more reliable than you just posting an article that didn't cite its sources and you just copy paste as your own conclusions independent of actual thought.

Worst failure in economic policy that the nation has had.
Has Carter doing hand-springs.

 

[Dale Smith]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

The middle class reached it's apex in 1970 and it has been a slow, steady decline since then and this was a well thought out plan by the global elites. Do some research about the Club of Rome and their zero growth plan for the planet. This is not a left versus right issue and until we stop politicizing it and look at the root cause, nothing will change. I am fucking TIRED of clueless morons (I am not including you) that keep touting what a great job Barrypuppet did when nothing could be further from the truth. Not even Reagan was everything the neocons believed him to be.

 

[Never3ndr]

Worst failure in economic policy that the nation has had.
Has Carter doing hand-springs.

It is interesting that you have moved from trying to construct a factual counterargument to just telling us your subjective opinions without anything to provide substantial backing for those opinions.

I'm very willing to entertain factual, logic-based argument against Obama's economic standing during his time in office. In fact, I'd be the first to say that he has not been the best president in the world. However, I tend to like to investigate how things actually are, and make conclusions, rather than find things that agree with my pre-held conclusions and copy-paste that as evidence.

As such, if you have substantial evidence to the contrary from reliable sources I'm literally begging (for like the fourth or fifth time now) for you to provide them so that we may be able to digest and investigate the data. So far I've provided direct links to reliable sources on both Real GDP and Real Median Household income, and both seem to show that his presidential years have been beneficial for our economy.

 

[Never3ndr]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

The middle class reached it's apex in 1970 and it has been a slow, steady decline since then and this was a well thought out plan by the global elites. Do some research about the Club of Rome and their zero growth plan for the planet. This is not a left versus right issue and until we stop politicizing it and look at the root cause, nothing will change. I am fucking TIRED of clueless morons (I am not including you) that keep touting what a great job Barrypuppet did when nothing could be further from the truth. Not even Reagan was everything the neocons believed him to be.

I won't follow you on your conspiracy "plan by global elites", what I will say is that America has one of the worst income inequality differences in any first world nation (at least to my knowledge). I agree that this growing income difference is both worrying for us and, likely, detrimental to our growth prospects for the future. With that said, while I do have a basic understanding of economic theory and governmental structures, I certainly lack the knowledge and understanding to have a good clue on exactly how to best reverse this growing income inequality in America.

 

[daws101]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

I'm glad you googled numbers that show something to agree with you that didn't even cite its sources (lol). Now, to be sure, median household income has remain relatively stable during Obama's years...which is actually pretty awesome considering the recession that we suffered. As far as an actual breakdown of some numbers:

We will say that the recession started in 2007 and ended in 2010 (I'm using the full period of the recession to show just how drastic and devastating that it was). Using this we see that median household income went from $57,357 to $53,507 a drop of 6.71%. During the rest of his years that we have data for (2010 - 2014) the median household income went from $53,507 to $53,657. A slight increase, but pretty negligible.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

What we see here is that Obama first stabilized the economy and, then, at least according to median income, we can allow that it "stagnated". However, if you couple this knowledge with the knowledge that our real GDP has increased (in my previous link) you realize that the American economy, as a whole, has actually been increasing...so why have we seen the median household incomes "stagnate" during his later years? Simple, income inequality. We have people making more money, but we also have more people that are impoverished. There are a lot of people that are working low skilled jobs with either no opportunity for educating themselves, or an unwillingness to educate themselves. It actually makes a great case for increasing taxes to increase assistance to the impoverished to provide more schooling and / or support for them.

Back to topic, even if you allow that Obama's economy has "stagnated" in his later years (which I don't agree with, but, for simplicity I'll allow here since it ends up being irrelevant), you still see that he brought our economy out from a huge recession into a relatively stable following period, which we commonly refer to as "recovery".

So, outside of googling more unsourced numbers that you can find to agree with your opinion, exactly how do you honestly think that Obama, who brought us from recessions to recovery, has stagnated our economy...we literally went from falling economical numbers to stable or increasing numbers.

At this point I don't think you are maliciously lying...that would be too generous. You must simply be an idiot. Just because you read something that agrees with your opinion doesn't make it true.

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

2013?

 

[Never3ndr]

2013?

To be fair, at least from what I have seen, we only have data up through 2014. So, under the assumption that the data given is reliable, it wouldn't be outdated. However, I have brought up that we are given this data in a vacuum (an article that didn't link to the sources it used for the numbers), and, as such, may not be reliable. Furthermore, I provided a link to reliable data, and it seems to contradict the findings in the article. I'll repost my source data here:

Real Median Household Income in the United States

 

[daws101]

2013?

To be fair, at least from what I have seen, we only have data up through 2014. So, under the assumption that the data given is reliable, it wouldn't be outdated. However, I have brought up that we are given this data in a vacuum (an article that didn't link to the sources it used for the numbers), and, as such, may not be reliable. Furthermore, I provided a link to reliable data, and it seems to contradict the findings in the article. I'll repost my source data here:

Real Median Household Income in the United States

Almost none of PC's info is credible.

 

[Never3ndr]

2013?

To be fair, at least from what I have seen, we only have data up through 2014. So, under the assumption that the data given is reliable, it wouldn't be outdated. However, I have brought up that we are given this data in a vacuum (an article that didn't link to the sources it used for the numbers), and, as such, may not be reliable. Furthermore, I provided a link to reliable data, and it seems to contradict the findings in the article. I'll repost my source data here:

Real Median Household Income in the United States

Almost none of PC's info is credible.

The real question is whether or not PC posts things maliciously or out of ignorance for the logical and intellectual fallacies that they suffer by googling for things that agree with him/her and then taking that as gospel.

 

[daws101]

2013?

To be fair, at least from what I have seen, we only have data up through 2014. So, under the assumption that the data given is reliable, it wouldn't be outdated. However, I have brought up that we are given this data in a vacuum (an article that didn't link to the sources it used for the numbers), and, as such, may not be reliable. Furthermore, I provided a link to reliable data, and it seems to contradict the findings in the article. I'll repost my source data here:

Real Median Household Income in the United States

Almost none of PC's info is credible.

The real question is whether or not PC posts things maliciously or out of ignorance for the logical and intellectual fallacies that they suffer by googling for things that agree with him/her and then taking that as gospel.

Contrasting and comparing is a rarity on the right.

 

[Never3ndr]

2013?

To be fair, at least from what I have seen, we only have data up through 2014. So, under the assumption that the data given is reliable, it wouldn't be outdated. However, I have brought up that we are given this data in a vacuum (an article that didn't link to the sources it used for the numbers), and, as such, may not be reliable. Furthermore, I provided a link to reliable data, and it seems to contradict the findings in the article. I'll repost my source data here:

Real Median Household Income in the United States

Almost none of PC's info is credible.

The real question is whether or not PC posts things maliciously or out of ignorance for the logical and intellectual fallacies that they suffer by googling for things that agree with him/her and then taking that as gospel.

Contrasting and comparing is a rarity on the right.

I agree, although, to be fair, its also a rarity on the left...most people outside of academia, from what I've seen, just don't look for contradictory evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

I'm glad you googled numbers that show something to agree with you that didn't even cite its sources (lol). Now, to be sure, median household income has remain relatively stable during Obama's years...which is actually pretty awesome considering the recession that we suffered. As far as an actual breakdown of some numbers:

We will say that the recession started in 2007 and ended in 2010 (I'm using the full period of the recession to show just how drastic and devastating that it was). Using this we see that median household income went from $57,357 to $53,507 a drop of 6.71%. During the rest of his years that we have data for (2010 - 2014) the median household income went from $53,507 to $53,657. A slight increase, but pretty negligible.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

What we see here is that Obama first stabilized the economy and, then, at least according to median income, we can allow that it "stagnated". However, if you couple this knowledge with the knowledge that our real GDP has increased (in my previous link) you realize that the American economy, as a whole, has actually been increasing...so why have we seen the median household incomes "stagnate" during his later years? Simple, income inequality. We have people making more money, but we also have more people that are impoverished. There are a lot of people that are working low skilled jobs with either no opportunity for educating themselves, or an unwillingness to educate themselves. It actually makes a great case for increasing taxes to increase assistance to the impoverished to provide more schooling and / or support for them.

Back to topic, even if you allow that Obama's economy has "stagnated" in his later years (which I don't agree with, but, for simplicity I'll allow here since it ends up being irrelevant), you still see that he brought our economy out from a huge recession into a relatively stable following period, which we commonly refer to as "recovery".

So, outside of googling more unsourced numbers that you can find to agree with your opinion, exactly how do you honestly think that Obama, who brought us from recessions to recovery, has stagnated our economy...we literally went from falling economical numbers to stable or increasing numbers.

At this point I don't think you are maliciously lying...that would be too generous. You must simply be an idiot. Just because you read something that agrees with your opinion doesn't make it true.

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

2013?

Obama?

 

[PoliticalChic]

2013?

To be fair, at least from what I have seen, we only have data up through 2014. So, under the assumption that the data given is reliable, it wouldn't be outdated. However, I have brought up that we are given this data in a vacuum (an article that didn't link to the sources it used for the numbers), and, as such, may not be reliable. Furthermore, I provided a link to reliable data, and it seems to contradict the findings in the article. I'll repost my source data here:

Real Median Household Income in the United States

The Obama Economic Hit-Parade!


1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%


4. When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased $7,514,567,086,650.22--which is $65,443 per household, $70,985 per full-time worker and $84,266 per full-time private-sector worker. Under Obama: Federal Debt Up $84,266 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker

5. (CNSNews.com) - The federal government drove $789,473,350,613.20 deeper into debt in calendar year 2014, an increase that equaled $6,875 per household, $7,458 per full-time year-round worker, and $8,853 per full-time year-round private-sector worker. According tothe Treasury, the debt started calendar year 2014 at $17,351,970,784,950.10 and ended it at $18,141,444,135,563.30. Under Obama: Federal Debt Up $84,266 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%


7. Debt held by the public is up 89%


However, the Obama administrationrecently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.

As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.

The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.

The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures.


8. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.

Obama’s Numbers, October Update


9...in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery.Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama

Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


11. . ".... the... [dollar] has today a value of barely a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Mr. Obama took office...." Fiat Wages - The New York Sun



12. "CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made


Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”

CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made


13. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

14. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4%--In First 3 Years of Recovery


15. "US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year...to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That was the weakest pace since the end of 2012 and was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the previous quarter.... the anemic growth last quarter is surely a topic for discussion at the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting,..."

MyWay


16. "More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.

The bureau noted that the civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 last month, following an increase of 503,000 in March."

Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force

The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in thelabor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month.


17. "The U.S. economy contractedat a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the firstquarter, but there are indications that growth has sincerebounded strongly.

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domesticproduct fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worstperformance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace ithad reported last month." Shrink wrapped: US economy contracted sharply in Q1

18. (CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)..... the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force in June

19. (CNSNews.com)– The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that of white Americans, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).... In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

20. (CNSNews.com) - 11.4 million Americans age 16 and over have left the workforce since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to data released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In July 2014, there were 92,001,000 Americans, 16 and over, who were classified as “not in the labor force,” meaning they not only did not have a job, but they didn’t actively seek one in the last four weeks

11,472,000 Americans Have Left Workforce Since Obama Took Office

21. "The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare
109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012,according to data released Tuesdayby the Census Bureau. When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits."

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

22. "(CNSNews.com)-- In June 2014, there were 46,496,145 recipients of the food stamp program, which is enough to fill the Yankee Stadium 925 times, according todata fromthe Department of Agriculture " 46,496,145: Food Stamp Recipients Can Fill Yankee Stadium 925 Times

23. In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls“an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton." Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart

24. "Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama
Those of you paying attention have noticed that the Obama administration is actually doing what it promised: transforming America into a gigantic welfare state." Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama

25. Washington, D.C.- An unabated influx of illegal aliens along the southern border of the United States is causing a health crisis in the border region. Actions by the Obama Administration to disperse illegals across America while providing an incentive for more illegals to come could lead to a nationwide health crisis that is likely to manifest itself first within our public schools.....It has spread as far north as southern Mexico and south into Panama. Diseases such as this could be carried across our border by illegal immigrants and could create a nationwide health crisis. Chicken pox, measles, mumps and tuberculosis are already causing problems." — Project 21 member Michael Dozier, Ph.D., an expert in homeland security issues and talk radio host who has worked with humanitarian aid missions in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and the United States

Public Schools Face Health Threat from Illegal Aliens


26. "Despite the improving economy, most Americans continue to say that they are falling behind the cost of living. Overall, 55% said in theJan. 7-11 surveythat their family’s income is falling behind the cost of living,.... Views on this question have shown no improvement over the course of the last year..." Public opinion on the economy and Obama’s handling of it


27. "But with February’s slow down the 12-month wage growth rate ticked down to 2%....[Under Reagan: 'In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/ ] Totalemployment gains in December and January were therefore 18,000 lower than what BLS previously reported. The labor force participation rate ticked lower to 62.8% from 62.9%, ..." http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanth...00-jobs-in-february-unemployment-down-to-5-5/

a. "But wage gains continued to lag, rising only 0.1 percent in February for private-sector workers after a reported 0.5 increase in January.... .“We hear we’re on the road to recovery, but people aren’t convinced of that.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0

b. "White youths saw their rate decrease 1.4 percent to 15 percent, but young African-Americans saw theirs reach 30 percent, a 0.3 percent increase.... For the population as a whole, participation rates are still hovering around their 1978 lows at 62.8 percent,..." http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/06/unemployment-down-to-5-5-percent-in-february/

c. "92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force in February, according todatareleased from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday. ...The 157,002,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 249,899,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level since February 1978 (62.7 percent) in September and December of 2014. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...pation-has-hovered-near-37-year-low-11-months

(CNSNews.com) - A record 56,023,000 women, age 16 years and over, were not in the labor force in February.,,, According to the BLS, 56.7 percent of women were participating in the labor force in February, a drop from 56.8 percent in January. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/56023000-record-number-women-not-labor-force

28. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...economic-data-most-disappointing-in-the-world

29. "More Businesses Shutting Down than Starting Up
'Business deaths now exceed business births for the first time' in decades.
The American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last three decades. That's the conclusion of anew study out from the Brookings Institution, which looks at the rates of new business creation and destruction since 1978.

Not only that, but during the most recent three years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-businesses-shutting-down-starting_791127.html

30. Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force

31. Except for rich, Americans' incomes fell last year
In fresh data that adds fire to a growing debate over income inequality, the department said that Americans on average saw income decline for the second straight year in the 12 months to June 2014.

The average pre-tax income fell 0.9 percent from the same period a year earlier, to $64,432. http://news.yahoo.com/except-rich-americans-incomes-fell-last-220335392.html

32. "The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you arenotcounted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringlylow rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population,..." http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

a. "....the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977, will merely catalyze even more upside to the so called "market" which continues to reflect nothing but central bank liquidity, and thus - the accelerating deterioration of the broader economy." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-93194000

33. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any

34. After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20150527a.htm


35. "The share of North America in the global high-income population decreased from 54% in 2001 to 46% in 2011,.... several countries in Western Europe had higher shares of high-income populations than the U.S. in 2011...the U.S. had the unfortunate distinction of slipping backwards as the share of its high-income population decreased from 58% in 2001 to 56% in 2011....The proportion of Americans who are upper-middle income barely moved from 31% in 2001 to 32% in 2011, and the share that is high income actually fell, as noted, from 58% to 56%....The median annual household income in the U.S. fell from $53,646 in 2001 to $50,054 in 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau)..... Unlike in the U.S., Canadian residents progressed from upper-middle income to the high-income standard of living...."http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08...e-class-status-remains-out-of-reach-for-many/

36. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush.And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/red-tape-rising-five-years-of-regulatory-expansion

37. The number of people not in the labor force reached another record high in July, according to new jobs data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
TheBLS reportsthat 93,770,000 people (16 and older) were neither employed last month nor had made specific efforts to find work in the prior four weeks.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/07/record-93770000-americans-not-in-labor-force/

.... a 38-year low, the Labor Department reported on Friday.... -- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2,180,000 in July (up from 2,121,000 in June). These individuals accounted for 26.9 percent of the unemployed. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sus...not-labor-force-participation-rate-matches-38

According to the BLS,56,209,000 women aged 16 and older were not participating in the workforce in July, besting April’srecordof 56,167,000 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/07/record-56209000-women-not-in-labor-force/


38. Average unemployment rate under Bush: 5.31

Average unemployment rate under Obama: 8.46 http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-unemployment-rates-president (thru 2014)

39. "(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July ---- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) held at 2.2 million in August and accounted for 27.7 percent of the unemployed..." http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sus...-labor-force-participation-rate-stuck-38-year

40. "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0

41. "....US hourly wages have not only not increased for the past 7 years, but for thevast majority of the labor force continue to decline,....just the month of August will be enough to provide the Trump - and every other - campaign with enough soundbites and pivot points to last it for weeks on end: namely, that in August a whopping 698,000 native-born Americans lost their job. This drop was offset by 204,000 foreign-born Americans, who got a job in the month of August. .... since December 2007, according to the Household Survey,only 790,000 native born Americanjobs have been added. Contrast that withthe 2.1 million foreign-born Americanswho have found a job over the same time period..." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...ob-august-why-suddenly-most-important-jobs-ch

42. October 2015: "Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...september-zero-wage-growth-august-revised-muc

43. "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of theoriginal $2 billion appropriated in 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.

...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/04/obamacare-co-op-mess-causes-1-3-billion-in-losses/#ixzz3qilfNWEW

44. "Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving
This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring."
Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving


45. "...ObamaCare experiment costing taxpayers $2.4 billionis failing. The co-ops were founded on the idealistic belief that community members could band together to create health insurance companies that would be member-driven, service-oriented, and would not have to answer to shareholders or turn a profit."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracema...ce-again-because-of-obamacare-co-op-failures/


46. "The U.S. expanded at a 2.2% rate through the first nine months of the year, and the economy is projected to grow at a similar pace in the fourth quarter that ends on Dec. 31. If so, the economy will have failed to reach 3% growth for the 10th straight year, marking the slowest stretch since the end of World War II.

Historically the economy has expanded at a 3.3% rate." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/third-quarter-gdp-growth-trimmed-to-2-2015-12-22

47. "Congress has now cleared the way for federal debt to pass$20 trillionby the end of the president’s second term. President Obama said the new budget deal will be paid for in a “balanced” and “responsible” way, but on the day the deal was signed, the federal debt jumped $339 billion—a third of a trillion dollars in one day." https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13317.24.180.0/economy/societywatch?preview

48. The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2015 is 0.8 percent on January 8, down from 1.0 percent on January 6. The forecast for the contribution of inventory investment to fourth-quarter real GDP growth declined 0.2 percentage points to -0.8 percentage points after this morning's wholesale trade report from the U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx?panel=1

49. "Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009 Sales at U.S. retailers declined in December to wrap the weakest year since 2009, raising concern about the momentum in consumer spending heading into 2016. The 0.1 percent drop matched the median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg and followed a 0.4 percent gain in November, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. For all of 2015, purchases climbed 2.1 percent, the smallest advance of the current economic expansion." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-u-s-decrease-to-end-weakest-year-since-2009

50. " The federal government heavily subsidizes higher education through a complex system of grants and loans. While the programs are great for colleges — they haveenabledan astronomical increase in tuition — they contain few measures holding the institutions accountable to their students. As a result, only59 percentof students graduate from four-year colleges and universities within six years. Those lucky enough to graduate face another hurdle:44 percentof recent college graduates occupy jobs which do not require a college degree. Taken together, these numbers suggest that only one-third of college enrollees emerge from the system with both a degree and a relevant job." http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/wha...rPUfGjI4ARcNkI+SLDwEYGJlv6SgFQ7HBMbhr1rgPWhk=

51."U.S. Economy Grew Anemic 0.7% in Fourth Quarter
Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output,expanded at a 0.7% seasonally adjusted annualized ratein the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday. The economy had advanced 2% in the third quarter and 3.9% in the second quarter."
U.S. Economy Grew Anemic 0.7% in Fourth Quarter

52. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/with-gdp-downgrade-obama-growth-gap-expands/

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/obama-always-wrong-never-in-doubt.php

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/09/investing/hedge-fund-billionaire-defends-obama-chanos/


53. According to the2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress. Since early2009:

· Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.

· The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.

· The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.

· Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation. http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/31/a...rPUfGjI4ASMpgMa+TFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

54. "Despite the unemployment rate being at an eight-year low (4.9 percent as of January 2016), the number of people on food stampsremains near an all-time highwhich was 47,636,000 in 2013.

Why the disparity in the numbers? Well, the unemployment rate does not take into account people who are not in, or have dropped out of, the workforce altogether.

The Bureau of Labor Statisticsreportedin January of this year that approximately 94 million Americans are not participating in the workforce.

We now have a country based on government dependence." http://www.mrctv.org/blog/despite-low-unemployment-rate-food-stamp-users-remains-near-all-time-high

55. "CHICAGO (Reuters) - Predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Chicago have seen poverty rise and services diminish even as the nation's third largest city has become less racially segregated,.... black areas are seeing economic stagnation or decline,.... mostly black areas have lost health clinics, social service agencies and other areas of support..." https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive...-neighborhoods-study-130930393--business.html


56. "Employers added more workers in February than projected but wages unexpectedly declined, dashing hopes that reduced slack in the labor market was starting to benefit all Americans..... Average hourly earnings dropped by 0.1 percent from the prior month, the first decline since December 2014 the Labor Department’s figures showed. Worker pay increased 2.2 percent over the 12 months ended in February, less than the 2.5 percent forecast in the Bloomberg survey. Wage growth has been hovering just above 2 percent year-over-year on average since the current expansion began in mid-2009." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-surge-while-wages-drop-in-mixed-jobs-report

57. New Obama regulation will deprive middle class investors of access to financial information. "...the controversial pending Department of Labor regulation that would impose new restrictions on a vast swath of financial professionals... a newreportfor the Competitive Enterprise Institute, similar restrictions in Great Britain have caused a “guidance gap” in which brokers have largely stopped serving customers with assets less than £150,000 ($240,000).... Such limits on financial discussion may seem to violate the First Amendment..." http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnber...l-broadcasters-like-dave-ramsey/#2962753ee696


Excellent link showing the economy http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/us/

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

My contention is that Nazis and Fascists are just as much Leftists as Communists and Socialists.

The aims and methods are consubstantial.....and differ only in degree.

By equating far disparate political and economic philosophies, which may share only limited commonalities, into a single group and characterizing them as, what was the word you used in your post to which I'm responding, consubstantial - meaning of the same substance or essence, is blatantly ABSURD. You just love to remove context from the scene to make the canvas over after your own distorted image of the World, HUH Chica!

Let's examine two of your abysmal six, fascism and liberalism and see if their widely accepted definitions in the Oxford (US) dictionary verify your assertion of consubstantiality.

fascist
practicing or supporting fascism

fascism
1 An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
1.1 (In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

liberal
1 Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
1.1 Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
1.2 (In a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
1.3 (Liberal) Of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
1.4 (Liberal) (In the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat Party
1.5 Theology Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

liberalism
The holding of liberal views

The definitions above from < Oxford Dictionaries definitions (american_english) (US) >

I don't see any match or commonality in essence or substance, any consubstantiality between the definitions of liberal or liberalism and fascist or fascism, one to the other. As a matter of fact, there is a very wide disparity, certainly and absolutely no match in substance or essence, so at least two conclusions can be derived from the above logical argument.

First, your long held assertion that, "Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, and Fascism are all Leftists political doctrines....." you posted and so many times prior is FALSE. Second, that you don't understand/comprehend the meaning of the $20 word "consubstantial", and which leads me to believe you're Catholic, Chica. Perhaps we have at least that in common!

Have a nice Day, Chica!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You can object all you like...but you would be wrong.

I will not allow the slander that Nazis and Fascists are rightwing.

1. Hey Chica, just who the Hell are you to disallow any damn thing on this message board. You have no authority over anyone using this forum!

2. Chica, you ignorant twit, slander is a SPOKEN defamatory remark and libel is a WRITTEN defamatory remark! EVERYTHING is WRITTEN on this board. Learn the difference between the two when WRITING in English. When do you get out of Jr. High Chica?

3. Chica, in spite of your revisionist history, Nazis were fascists, Nazis were rightwing and fascists were right-wing. Who would be a better source to judge that than those who suffered so much at their hands:

"The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism’s ideology included a racial theory which denigrated “non-Aryans,” extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader."
< Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State | >

That's three strikes, Chica! Have a Nice Day!

 

[daws101]

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

I'm glad you googled numbers that show something to agree with you that didn't even cite its sources (lol). Now, to be sure, median household income has remain relatively stable during Obama's years...which is actually pretty awesome considering the recession that we suffered. As far as an actual breakdown of some numbers:

We will say that the recession started in 2007 and ended in 2010 (I'm using the full period of the recession to show just how drastic and devastating that it was). Using this we see that median household income went from $57,357 to $53,507 a drop of 6.71%. During the rest of his years that we have data for (2010 - 2014) the median household income went from $53,507 to $53,657. A slight increase, but pretty negligible.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

What we see here is that Obama first stabilized the economy and, then, at least according to median income, we can allow that it "stagnated". However, if you couple this knowledge with the knowledge that our real GDP has increased (in my previous link) you realize that the American economy, as a whole, has actually been increasing...so why have we seen the median household incomes "stagnate" during his later years? Simple, income inequality. We have people making more money, but we also have more people that are impoverished. There are a lot of people that are working low skilled jobs with either no opportunity for educating themselves, or an unwillingness to educate themselves. It actually makes a great case for increasing taxes to increase assistance to the impoverished to provide more schooling and / or support for them.

Back to topic, even if you allow that Obama's economy has "stagnated" in his later years (which I don't agree with, but, for simplicity I'll allow here since it ends up being irrelevant), you still see that he brought our economy out from a huge recession into a relatively stable following period, which we commonly refer to as "recovery".

So, outside of googling more unsourced numbers that you can find to agree with your opinion, exactly how do you honestly think that Obama, who brought us from recessions to recovery, has stagnated our economy...we literally went from falling economical numbers to stable or increasing numbers.

At this point I don't think you are maliciously lying...that would be too generous. You must simply be an idiot. Just because you read something that agrees with your opinion doesn't make it true.

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

2013?

Obama?

Non sequitur.

 

[Dale Smith]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

The middle class reached it's apex in 1970 and it has been a slow, steady decline since then and this was a well thought out plan by the global elites. Do some research about the Club of Rome and their zero growth plan for the planet. This is not a left versus right issue and until we stop politicizing it and look at the root cause, nothing will change. I am fucking TIRED of clueless morons (I am not including you) that keep touting what a great job Barrypuppet did when nothing could be further from the truth. Not even Reagan was everything the neocons believed him to be.

I won't follow you on your conspiracy "plan by global elites", what I will say is that America has one of the worst income inequality differences in any first world nation (at least to my knowledge). I agree that this growing income difference is both worrying for us and, likely, detrimental to our growth prospects for the future. With that said, while I do have a basic understanding of economic theory and governmental structures, I certainly lack the knowledge and understanding to have a good clue on exactly how to best reverse this growing income inequality in America.

Unless you have put in the time to learn how this all came about like I have, you wouldn't be able to offer an intelligent rebuttal when it comes to what is or is not a conspiracy or what has been a full blown attack on the middle class. What I have used is their own words against them like Maurice Strong and others when they claim that a healthy middle class is not "sustainable". thus the unfair trade agreements that have whittled away at decent paying blue collar jobs. They went after the steel mills, farming, textiles and the car industry and since then they have continued to attack what little remains of manufacturing. The rabbit hole goes deep and I could give a five hour seminar just on that alone and how legal and illegal immigration has been used to drive down wages for those at the bottom. Like I said, unless you understand the root cause, voting "demcrat" or "repub" will simply get you more of the same ol shit.