"Ignore the Haters: Obama Helped Save the U.S. Economy"

Except income for most, in real wages, wasn't going up for most people under Reagan or Clinton.

 

I disagree. There are plenty of things the President could be touting:

o Economy that was tanking at a -9% rate and shedding 700,000+ jobs a month turned around
o 53 straight months of private sector employment growth.
o 115% increase in the stock markets since taking office
o Halved the deficit in 4 years.
o Got Osama bin Laden.
o Saved 2-3 million jobs with stimulus package
o First decrease in spending in a year in decades - 3 times.
o Stock markets up 160% since bottom of the recession in 2009
o Over 9.7 million additional private sector jobs created since Jan 2010
o Oil production increasing for the first time in decades.
o Ousted Muamar Kadaffi at 1/1000 the cost of the Iraq war
o Deficit reduced by a then record $212 billion, down 16%, in 2012.
o Deficit reduced by a new record $408 billion, down 37%, in 2013
o Record corporate profits
o Passed health care reform that will provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans
o 4 straight years of GDP growth
o Unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 6.1%
o U.S. becomes world's top petroleum and energy producer
o Passed financial regulation reform to prevent another housing bubble fiasco.
o Diplomatically coerced Syria to give up WMD without war or loss of single American life.
o Recovered all jobs lost in the worst recession in 80 years
o Lowest rate of spending increases of any president in modern history
o On-budget deficit has decreased every full fiscal year he's been in office.
o US domestic oil use decreasing
o Net creation of millions of people employed despite inheriting a economy losing 700,000+ jobs a month.

If Obama were a white Republican, conservatives have been hailing him as a savior.

Obama could also be doing a better job emphasizing out the austerity we've gone through because of the Republicans, including things like unprecedented cuts in spending and unprecedented layoffs of hundreds of thousands of government workers that have harmed this country has it has tried to grow out of the worst recession in 80 years.

He's allowed the discourse to be controlled by the RW media, and just is not a great communicator, IMO.

 

Yes it was. Median household income went up under both Presidents. Not average income being brought up by a select few at the top. Median is a reflection of all working Americans.

 

Not true.

Real median family income went up from $57,831 in 1993 to $67,643 in 2000, a 17% increase. That is historically good growth.

It went from $54,233 in 1981 to $60,083 in 1988, a 10.7% increase. It dropped from their to $57,831 during Bush2's term. It suffered another big drop under his son and the Great Recession.

- - - Updated - - -

But even under Reagan and Clinton, median incomes were not increasing nearly as fast as the incomes of the richest.

 

I'm not even hear to dispute those things right now, but you know as well as I do that the average Joe cares first and foremost about how many green backs he sees in his check and how much is in his pocket. Most people have no idea what a deficit is unless it's them coming up short and pulling out the visa and could not care less that we are producing more energy than everyone else. Barack could be the best communicator and salesman in history, if Joe has less dough he's not interested in what you have to say.

 

No argument but you say it as if its a bad thing. Rich getting richer does not affect the upward mobility of someone else. We can create unlimitted wealth. But also it's totally normal for the people on the top to be able to increase their earnings at a higer rate than someone at the bottom. What we need to be careful of is the richest and most connected manipulating out Gov't in an attempt to stifel the upward mobility of another to protect their position.

 

You really have comprehension issues. I was speaking of MY FAMILY explicitly, you tell me that I am wrong because of some charts and graphs that do not apply to MY FAMILY and then say "Well there are of course some....". You are simply wrong.

 

What it really comes down to is that the average idiot in the street will just blame whoever is president for any real or perceived problems.

It's part of the Republican plan, IMO.

Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to shut down the government, default on its obligations, and wreck the economy. Add 700,000+ people to the unemployment lines by eliminating government jobs. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force austerity cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth.


Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and count on the sheeple being ignorant and misinformed or simply blaming whoever is president.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever you claim is your personal situation is irrelevant. That's not reflective of what has happened in this country where the middle class has basically stagnated over the past 30 years since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution and virtually all the growth and prosperity has gone to the richer. That is what I'm showing. I couldn't care less what you claim about your family. Anyone can say anything on the internet.

- - - Updated - - -

It does when the rich getting richer are a result not of economic expansion but policies like the Reagan "trickle down" revolution that resulted in so much more of the nation's income and wealth going to the richest instead of the middle classes.

 

I'm gonna leave most of what you replied to me with alone, you and I will get no where on that stuff and that's fine. We see things a little different.

I am curious about your opinion on this though. You have consistently referred to Republican austerity and extremely harmful to the economy. But, you also constantly point to the lowering of the deficit as one of Obama's greatest achievments. I'm having trouble getting my arms around how someone could believe both of those things are true.

 

Originally Posted by smevins
Perhaps, but on balance, every generation of my family has come down better than the generations before it for more than 100 years.
Originally Posted by Iriemon
Not the generation since 1981 -- excepting for the wealthy. While real incomes of the wealthiest skyrocketed, middle class incomes have basically stagnated, and are not much better off, if at all, than in 1981.
Including the generation since 1981.
Not it has not.

You very clearly cared enough to tell me I was wrong. Of course anyone can claim anything on the internet, and when you get called on it, you pretend that you were not talking about that which you were wrong about. You are quite wrong about everything. American workers are not the only workers in the world. The rate of extreme poverty in Asia is at its lowest level since 1981 as well. See a pattern? Of course you don't. Your entire worldview is that American workers deserve to reap the benefits of the profits generated by not American workers and blame the evil tax code and GOP and Wall Street and anybody else you can to justify your thievery logic because people like you feel entitled to big screen TV's but don't want to invest in companies that make big screen TV's.

 

Trickle down is a marketing phrase meant to convince poor people that they are poor because a rich guy got a tax break, eventhough that tax break did not effect them in the least.

One of the greatest evils is the democrat lie that your neighbor getting a raise, a tax break, or a "loophole" somehow negatively effects their ability to get ahead. I wonder how many millions never even tried, simply because some politician lied to them and not to bother, "the rich rigged the system against you?"

 

I haven't said that reducing the deficit is one of Obama's greatest achievements. I've pointed out the huge reduction in the deficit in the list of things that, IMO, if it had occurred with a white Republican in the WH, conservatives would be hailing him as a savior.

Having said that I do believe Obama should get some of the credit for it. Many conservatives told us we'd have unending trillion dollar deficits with Obama, and they've been proved wrong. And the 2013 tax increase that was a result of Obama was an important factor in the reduction of the deficits, if not the important factor.

However, I also acknowledge that the deficit has come down because spending has been dramatically reduced. Let's put aside the many conservatives who have blamed Obama for the sequester, and put the credit -- or blame -- squarely where it belong: With the conservatives. It wasn't Obama who took office promoting Govt spending cuts.

So yes, in that regard, the Republicans deserve some of the credit for the reduced deficit. However, if you are going to credit them with that, then you must also to be fair recognize that they are the ones who have been pushing the austerity that has been a part of why this recovery has been anemic.

 

I give him high marks for that, too. The idea that he'd try to unite with implacable rightwing enemies and detractors is preposterous. They'd never try to unite with him, would they?

 

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said of the New Deal that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. ...

Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as "Reaganomics" or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

It was repackaged by Reagan under the label "supply side" theory. But it is the same concept. If we make the richest richer, the benefits will "trickle down" to the middle classes.

Since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, they've succeeded fabulously in making the richest richer.

It just didn't trickle down.

One of the greatest evils is the republic lie that the huge increase in wealth disparity, since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution where the top 1% now get double the share of the nation's income (now 20+%) and wealth (now about 40%), came about because the middle class just stopped trying to get ahead in 1981.

I wonder how many millions of them have tried and tried and not realized their incomes have stagnated because of the way the system was rigged against them?

 

Median household income includes all income for every member of the household over the age of 15, including unemployment, disability, child support, etc and without taking into account size of household. It's completely useless by itself for determine whether or not wages improved or the economy was better. However, if that's the measure you want to use, when broken down by percentile the median household income for most of the population was still stagnant.

 

Fascinating. I couldn't care less. Anyone can claim anything on the internet. To try to suggest that what you claim happened in your family as anything to do with what has happened in this country is preposterous.

Your entire worldview is that by massive coincidence starting at the exact same time as the Reagan "trickle down" revolution the middle class just got lazy and stopped working hard is nothing more that 1% apologist bull(*)(*)(*)(*) designed to justify the thievery of taking more and more of the nation's income and wealth.

Because for heaven's sake, the 1% getting 20+% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from before "trickle down", just isn't enough for you, is it?

For some, more is never enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to post your data and sources showing us how median income has kept up with the incomes of the richest.

 

Why would I do that when I never made any such claim?

Do you deny that real wages for the majority of the population have been stagnant for 30+ years despite increases in productivity and income at the top? I'm not sure why you are challenging me to prove something I never claimed.

 

Nor should you. It would be completely contrary to the evidence.

Not at all.

You seemed to be challenging the claim that median incomes have not shared in the growth since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

It's not empty if you can buy stuff with it. Which confuses me because most people aren't buying, although the rich are buying islands and governments and oil tankers with it.

 

And sticking it in banks that aren't lending and offshore accounts and the stock market.

 

You would have thought there'd be some oppressively regulatory strings attached, but no-o-o-o.

But 'splain something to me, would ya? All that money being printed goes on my tab one way or another, does it not? And then big business and the banks takes those fresh bills and buys treasuries with them and lives off the spread (rather than investing in or building a plant or something). So I, as a man of moderate means, am on the hook for the fresh bills AND the good faith and credit of the government when it comes to paying off those treasuries. Am I missing something here?

 

Nope. The Fed creates and destroys money through its own power. In fact since it buys Govt bonds, it saves you some money because it pays interest to the Govt.

Now, if the Fed prints up a ton of money and doesn't draw back on it when the economy heats up and we get high inflation, that could affect you. Which is why we can't just have the Govt print up as much money as it wants.

It's the other way around. The Fed takes those fresh bills, and buys treasuries from brokers who in turn buy them from whoever is holding them, which can be banks, individuals, or other governments. Those are the entities that get the new money. This is the way new (base) money is put into the system. The theory is that these folks who sold their treasuries will deposit the money, the banks will lend the money out and expand the money supply, and hopefully some of it will get spent, stimulating the economy.

But it is not a very effective stimulus, especially if the banks aren't lending, and the folks take the money and stick them in offshore accounts or even the stock market, not much is actually getting spent into the economy.

However, because of our dysfunction government where austerity is being forced, it's the only game in town. A riskier one at that, because we have to hope the Fed can pull the money supply in when the economy finally heats up.

We are all on the hook for what the Govt borrows. The interest on that debt has to be paid with tax dollars, eventually. But you are not on the the hook for money the Fed creates.

 

The FEDS are the ones holding up this house of cards. Obama did nothing. All he did was raise taxes on the poor and middle class.

 

Write your Republican Tea Party members and tell them to support Obama creating jobs. Then we won't have to rely on the Fed to do it because our obstructionist friends are forcing austerity on us.

 

Dumb article, it complained of GOP opposition, for pete's sake, the first two years of the Obama nightmare he had a complete majority in Congress. This article is nothing but pre-electio propaganda, for the truth see http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703989304575504053230524906