Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Census on Obama’s 1st Term: Real Median Income Down $2,627; People in Poverty Up 6,667,000; Record 46,496,000 Now Poor -
Which has me wondering what the hell you're smoking because for median incomes to fall, lower than what they were at the bottom of the recession, is one hell of an accomplishment.
Which, again, has little to do with Obama. Though he did sign a bill relaxing food stamp requirements in 2009, the requirements were eased in 2002 and 2008 and have been trending upward since 2000. Likewise, median income has been declining since 1999 and probably has more to do with education levels and offshoring than the president. It would be interesting to find sub-group details for the median income, but I don't think that has been released yet.
Which, again, has little to do with Obama. Though he did sign a bill relaxing food stamp requirements in 2009, the requirements were eased in 2002 and 2008 and have been trending upward since 2000. Likewise, median income has been declining since 1999 and probably has more to do with education levels and offshoring than the president. It would be interesting to find sub-group details for the median income, but I don't think that has been released yet.
What article, because the one I posted right before your posting, doesnt mention the stimulus, nor unfunded liabilities (which are in no way state liabilities, where the hell did you get that crackpot theory)
How do you dispute the facts that once again
Census on Obama’s 1st Term: Real Median Income Down $2,627; People in Poverty Up 6,667,000; Record 46,496,000 Now Poor - Census on Obama
One of the first measures Obama undertook was passing an ultimately $812 billion “stimulus” program.
That article is nothing but hashed over and discredited memes collected through the years.
The article repeats the meme that the President promised unemployment would drop to 5% if the stimulus was passed. It's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.
yes yes yes, Obama became president and everyones education levels went out the door..
They all had to start over
And Obama, the results of his policies, have absolutely nothing to do with his policies.. nope, that cant be true.
What a tool.. tell me then lycos, what exactly does have to do with Obama?
Again, median income peaked in 1999 and foods stamps usage has been increasing since 2000. Obama played a role in easing requirements in 2009, but to blame him for things that occurred before he was a senator is pure partisan drivel. I don't have drill down data for median income, but it would be interesting to see. The median income for Univ. of Chicago grads is about $115,000 and my field is about $150,000, so education does indeed play a role.
Now, the reason I would like to see the drill down data for incomes is because Pew Research published a report some time ago that basically said as Hispanics become a majority the median income will decline due to low education achievements. I think it is a bit early for demographics to put any downward pressure on median incomes, but without detailed data I can't say that it isn't.
Someone who just posted this ^^ says they're not deflecting?
Yes, not deflecting. It is part of the statement I've been making. You refuse to acknowledge the entirety of what anyone is saying to you, because you know that you cannot defend the perspectives you support in the context of a comprehensive view, espoused by someone just as reasonable as you, who disagrees with you 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma
The topic is Obama's economic policies
No it isn't. The topic is the US economy. There is no way to say anything about "Obama's economic policies" because they were never adopted, but rather instead they were injected into a political process. Furthermore, you refuse to allow yourself to admit comparisons to the economy that Obama started with, at the time his Congress-watered-down economic policies started going into effect Your continual refusal to acknowledge these realities makes clear that you have no intention of admitting the truth about this, no matter how silly the evasions you craft are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Which, again, has little to do with Obama.
These are the kinds of realities that right-wing extremists cannot admit, not even to themselves.
bUU is correct, Obama's legislative detractors have continuously either denied President Obama his requested policies or reduced in scope what he requested. Then, when the gains are not achieved, blame Obama.
It's like kicking a runner in the knees and then 8itching that he is too slow.
bUU is correct, Obama's legislative detractors have continuously either denied President Obama his requested policies or reduced in scope what he requested. Then, when the gains are not achieved, blame Obama.
It's like kicking a runner in the knees and then 8itching that he is too slow.
Of COURSE!
Obama is the ONLY President to meet resistance in Congress!
The man can't LEAD. That much is abundantly obvious. He can't even get Democrats to pass his budgets or jobs bills. Wake up!
Someone who says that Obamacare is a job creator has no business making comments regarding rational thinking.
So you are so blind in your hate that you do not admit that more people would have to be hired to monitor and enforce Obamacare. Do not attempt to speak of rational thinking whole posting nonsense, Rick.
Someone who says others are more to blame than the President and then says they're not defending the President really has credibility issues.
Amazing that someone can reply to two of my posts in Quotes and then not be able to comprehend the words I actually used and you repeated. Your reply is a total LIE, since I never said others were More responsible and I even stated that I include the President in those to blame. You should either read slower and try thinking more before replying to posts, or save you comments on credibility to yourself since you seem to not understand what the word means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
