Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2013, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,292 posts, read 20,749,540 times
Reputation: 9330

Advertisements

Pathetic.

"President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

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."

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2013, 07:58 AM
 
45,233 posts, read 26,457,645 times
Reputation: 24993
why talk about the money printing, the debt, the regulatory stifiling of business ,etc.when you can distract through divisiveness? i.e. the ole rich vs. poor game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,758,281 times
Reputation: 20674
I am unaware that any POTUS has the ability to single-handedly turn things around.

Competition and technology have hammered away at middle class jobs for the past almost 50 years. No one is willing to pay a premium for made in the U.S.A., just so U.S. people can have a better standard of living.

Bubble economies and wars created artificial and temporary boosts to the economy.

The public sector, federal, state, county and municipalities have shed more jobs than any other sector and will likely continue to do so going forward. Continued cuts will impact recovery and continue to put increased downward pressure on wages because the demand for jobs far exceeds the supply of jobs.

Food services and retail have been the nation's largest employers for a long, long time. These sectors are historically known for part time , low wage work.

Large corporations have had record profits and clearly do not need to hire or pay more to sustain those profits.

Regardless of how one feels about welfare benefits, one cannot deny that it puts a substantial amount of money into the economy and employs people.

Regardless of how one feels about foreign aid, offshore military bases and defense spending, it puts a lot of money into the economy and employs people.

Average individual, household and corporate tax rates are lower than at any time in modern history. How's that " trickle down" working?

Right now is an accumulation of all that came before. There has been only one year in this nation's history that it did not have debt and that was about 140 years ago.

Congress is not interested in Jobs Bills. Congress has no interest in increasing the federal minimum wage. Congress seems not to have any interest in much of anything that does not protect special interests. Killing the ACA means the loss of more public and private sector jobs.

The population is aging.

Several economists predicted all along that the U.S. would enter another recession before recovering from the prior recession and that back to back recessions would likely occur going forward, regardless of who is in the white house.

What would you do, under these circumstances, to "recover"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,550,307 times
Reputation: 24780
Default Obama's "recovery" from the recession

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Pathetic.

"President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

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."

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard
Yep...

99% of America would be SO much better off today if Clinton would have vetoed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act back in 2000.

Would have prevented the Bush near depression of 2008.

Whiny Pubs still blame Obama. They don't grasp politics or economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,758,281 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
why talk about the money printing, the debt, the regulatory stifiling of business ,etc.when you can distract through divisiveness? i.e. the ole rich vs. poor game.
I missed something .What new federal regulations stifle business?

The U.S. could eliminate all labor and wage laws. How would this increase employment and pay people more?

The U.S. could eliminate all environmental and employee safety laws. How would this increase employment and pay people more?

It sounds like an Express Train towards third world status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 08:59 AM
 
1,963 posts, read 1,823,482 times
Reputation: 844
The only people recovering are the plutocrats who are glad we're finally returning to the Gilded Age. Soon there wont be any pesky middle class or unions to stir up trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 09:01 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,444 posts, read 7,019,847 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Pathetic.

"President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

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."

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard
This is what you get when you elect democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Tejas
7,599 posts, read 18,412,329 times
Reputation: 5251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Yep...

99% of America would be SO much better off today if Clinton would have vetoed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act back in 2000.

Would have prevented the Bush near depression of 2008.

Whiny Pubs still blame Obama. They don't grasp politics or economics.
Is everything that's bad or not improved or plain failed that the potus has tried still Bushs fault ? Thats all I still here and its old.

When Hilary is the next president eill it still be Bushs fault?

Its party politics that's killing america, not one individual person.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 09:13 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,128,317 times
Reputation: 9383
no irony in the very folks who run around crediting Obama for a "recovery", and "millions of jobs created", now saying Obama cant do a dam thing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,175,972 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
I am unaware that any POTUS has the ability to single-handedly turn things around.

Competition and technology have hammered away at middle class jobs for the past almost 50 years. No one is willing to pay a premium for made in the U.S.A., just so U.S. people can have a better standard of living.

Bubble economies and wars created artificial and temporary boosts to the economy.

The public sector, federal, state, county and municipalities have shed more jobs than any other sector and will likely continue to do so going forward. Continued cuts will impact recovery and continue to put increased downward pressure on wages because the demand for jobs far exceeds the supply of jobs.

Food services and retail have been the nation's largest employers for a long, long time. These sectors are historically known for part time , low wage work.

Large corporations have had record profits and clearly do not need to hire or pay more to sustain those profits.

Regardless of how one feels about welfare benefits, one cannot deny that it puts a substantial amount of money into the economy and employs people.

Regardless of how one feels about foreign aid, offshore military bases and defense spending, it puts a lot of money into the economy and employs people.

Average individual, household and corporate tax rates are lower than at any time in modern history. How's that " trickle down" working?

Right now is an accumulation of all that came before. There has been only one year in this nation's history that it did not have debt and that was about 140 years ago.

Congress is not interested in Jobs Bills. Congress has no interest in increasing the federal minimum wage. Congress seems not to have any interest in much of anything that does not protect special interests. Killing the ACA means the loss of more public and private sector jobs.

The population is aging.

Several economists predicted all along that the U.S. would enter another recession before recovering from the prior recession and that back to back recessions would likely occur going forward, regardless of who is in the white house.

What would you do, under these circumstances, to "recover"?

Barry ran for office claiming that HE had the ability to get things done. WE knew better when we saw his non-existent resume of past experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top