Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

...and the White House has no comment.

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-obamas-15-months/]Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term - Washington Times[/url]

(On a side note, [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100412/480/urn_publicid_ap_org52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a/"]he's bowing his head to communists [/URL]now)

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

That was to be expected well before, no matter who took office.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

To be fair when interpreting this, it's important to note that the biggest driver of per-capita income is the number of paying jobs there are out there. As companies have been laying people off, obviously that takes a toll on income earned.

So this is [B]not[/B] to say that pay is going down 3.2% [U]among those who have jobs[/U]. This is to say income is staying flat for those who have jobs, but because we've shed so many jobs, the overall per-capita income has taken a hit.

One could then pick at the jobs issue and take aim at Obama's policies on jobs. But the reality is the economy was going in the crapper regardless of his policies.

The federal government, simply put, has very little control over the course of the nation's economy. Even the Federal Reserve has limited impact.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=tryfuhl;687295]That was to be expected well before, no matter who took office.[/quote]

I don't deny that it's going to take some time before we can accurately judge the affects of the Obama administration's drastic fiscal measures, but they sure aren't moving in the right direction as of yet.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687306][B]To be fair when interpreting this, it's important to note that the biggest driver of per-capita income is the number of paying jobs there are out there.[/B] As companies have been laying people off, obviously that takes a toll on income earned.

So this is [B]not[/B] to say that pay is going down 3.2% [U]among those who have jobs[/U]. This is to say income is staying flat for those who have jobs, but because we've shed so many jobs, the overall per-capita income has taken a hit.

One could then pick at the jobs issue and take aim at Obama's policies on jobs. But the reality is the economy was going in the crapper regardless of his policies.

The federal government, simply put, has very little control over the course of the nation's economy. Even the Federal Reserve has limited impact.[/quote]

Correct. I'm no economist. Far from it. However government payouts are way up (SS, unemployment benefits, medicare, foodstamps, etc), and despite a $900B stimulus plan, numbers continue to move further into the red. No bueno.

You can easily say Obama inherited this issue. You can also easily say at this point his measures to correct said issue have been ineffective thus far, and have pushed our debt/deficit to record levels.

All in all government is total shit show right now, on both sides of the aisle.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=GMScud;687308]I don't deny that it's going to take some time before we can accurately judge the affects of the Obama administrations drastic fiscal measures, but they sure aren't moving in the right direction as of yet.[/quote]

Just wait until he unfairly has to take the heat for the double-dip recession that's coming in the next 12-18 months thanks to a second wave of bad mortgages and lending practices.

That will be the thing that forces him out of office, when the country (and the GOP) blames his policies for a double dip recession (assuming the GOP doesn't nominate Palin, Obama could defeat Palin in a 1934 economy).

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=GMScud;687314]
You can easily say Obama inherited this issue. You can also easily say at this point his measures to correct said issue have been ineffective thus far, and have pushed our debt/deficit to record levels.

All in all government is total shit show right now, on both sides of the aisle.[/quote]

I would say that he inherited the problem 100% (can't blame him), that he has indeed pushed our deficit to record levels (can blame him), but the jury is still way out on his policies.

Judging his policies now would be akin to judging a rookie QB on his preseason performance, before he ever makes his regular season debut. You just need to give it enough time to pass meaningful judgment.

But as for our government's shit show, I'm right there with you on that. The whole thing stinks.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

firstdown just got some movement.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=GMScud;687308]I don't deny that it's going to take some time before we can accurately judge the affects of the Obama administration's drastic fiscal measures, but they sure aren't moving in the right direction as of yet.[/quote]
Hell we can't really even judge Reagan's policies. There's still great debate on that. Either way, it's been trending this way for awhile. Loss of jobs, etc doesn't change overnight, within a year, etc after so long of fiscal irresponsibility.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

LOL...Viceroy Drudge strikes again. A near depression and people are worried about 3.2% drop in income? Unfuckingbelievable. You should be thanking your lucky stars the stimulus passed and it's only a 3.2% dip.

I suppose birds of a feather flock together...flap flap.

[yt]TzW8OQeVx4I[/yt]

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687315]Just wait until he unfairly has to take the heat for the double-dip recession that's coming in the next 12-18 months thanks to a second wave of bad mortgages and lending practices.

That will be the thing that forces him out of office, when the country (and the GOP) blames his policies for a double dip recession (assuming the GOP doesn't nominate Palin, Obama could defeat Palin in a 1934 economy).[/quote]
It is not Obama's fault we have the problems that were in place when he got elected , but the Clinton Admin. policies < his cabinent members ran , Fannie/ Aig / Citigroup / GS. ect. caused < in part > the problems ... [url=http://biggovernment.com/cgasparino/2009/11/11/robert-rubin-the-nexus-of-big-government-and-wall-street/]» Robert Rubin: The Nexus Of Big Government and Wall Street - Big Government[/url]. [url=http://www.articlesbase.com/real-estate-articles/the-glasssteagall-acts-loss-is-the-community-reinvestment-acts-gain-731738.html]The Glass-steagall Act’s Loss is the Community Reinvestment Act’s Gain[/url] . [url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/financial-crisis-blame-continues-end-sight/]Financial Crisis: The Blame Continues, with No End in Sight - FOXBusiness.com[/url]

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

thank god for Fox. if they weren't around, who would we have to blame all ill will on the Dem's?

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/ilg4le.png[/IMG]
you have to start somewhere

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=dmek25;687376][IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/ilg4le.png[/IMG]
you have to start somewhere[/quote]

That's nice, but the performance of the stock market has [B]ZERO[/B] to do with the administration in place.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=budw38;687371]It is not Obama's fault we have the problems that were in place when he got elected , but the Clinton Admin. policies < his cabinent members ran , Fannie/ Aig / Citigroup / GS. ect. caused < in part > the problems ... [URL="http://biggovernment.com/cgasparino/2009/11/11/robert-rubin-the-nexus-of-big-government-and-wall-street/"]» Robert Rubin: The Nexus Of Big Government and Wall Street - Big Government[/URL]. [URL="http://www.articlesbase.com/real-estate-articles/the-glasssteagall-acts-loss-is-the-community-reinvestment-acts-gain-731738.html"]The Glass-steagall Act’s Loss is the Community Reinvestment Act’s Gain[/URL] . [URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/financial-crisis-blame-continues-end-sight/"]Financial Crisis: The Blame Continues, with No End in Sight - FOXBusiness.com[/URL][/quote]

Agreed, we had years and years of various factors leading up to this.

I blame the lack of savings and growing consumerism amongst the general populace, more than anything. In the 90s and 00s, Americans just decided they didn't need to save money anymore.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

i agree. jobs being created are the biggest driver of an economy. that's almost like people blaming Bush for the high gas prices. almost as ridiculous

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687378]Agreed, we had years and years of various factors leading up to this.

I blame the lack of savings and growing consumerism amongst the general populace, more than anything. In the 90s and 00s, Americans just decided they didn't need to save money anymore.[/quote] Agree with the lack of saving's / use of credit cards , ect. Also , Goldman Sacks , Washington Mutual selling assets , then driving up the " value " , only to short them ... some of these bums should be in jail .

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687377]That's nice, but the performance of the stock market has [B]ZERO[/B] to do with the administration in place.[/quote]

Sneed your better the that. The stock market goes up and down all the time based of goverment policies. Thats also a nice graph but I notice they left off 7 yrs of Bush's time in office and why does it cut off 6 months of Obama's.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

This is the best comment from the article.

"Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity."

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=firstdown;687404]Sneed your better the that. The stock market goes up and down all the time based of goverment policies. Thats also a nice graph but I notice they left off 7 yrs of Bush's time in office and why does it cut off 6 months of Obama's.[/quote]

The stock market is irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. But over the course of multiple years, no government policy can have any kind of prevailing effect. The data shows what the data shows my friend.

As for your note on the selective sampling used in those graphs you're right, any time you're looking at a 1-2 year period of stock market returns, you're not getting a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningful.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=firstdown;687407]This is the best comment from the article.

"Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity."[/quote]

No, that quote is misleading. Jobs are indeed down under Obama, but that's not his fault. The decline in jobs is the reason incomes are down. Otherwise, incomes are stable.

But I do agree that spending more does not equal prosperity.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687377]That's nice, but the performance of the stock market has [B]ZERO[/B] to do with the administration in place.[/quote]

Nice, a dual-color chart of natural behaviors of the stock market.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=dmek25;687379]i agree. jobs being created are the biggest driver of an economy. [/quote]Not when they're Government jobs.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687415]The stock market is irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. But over the course of multiple years, no government policy can have any kind of prevailing effect. The data shows what the data shows my friend.

As for your note on the selective sampling used in those graphs you're right, any time you're looking at a 1-2 year period of stock market returns, you're not getting a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningful.[/quote]
We do agree that the stock market can be irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. You don't think that the decisions over the past year or more to bail out the banks, car companies, etc... did not have a long term affect on the stock market?

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=firstdown;687426]We do agree that the stock market can be irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. You don't think that the decisions over the past year or more to bail out the banks, car companies, etc... did not have a long term affect on the stock market?[/quote]

First, on auto bail-outs, no I don't think that has any meaningful long-term impact on the performance of American companies. In the end that only affected a few companies, a drop in the bucket compared to the stock market overall.

One could make the argument that without bailing out the banks, we would have entered a gigantic depression due to frozen lending. That particular bailout action had to be taken, or businesses nationwide would have lost the access to capital and hence lost the ability to invest and grow their businesses. Our whole economy could have ground to a halt.

Now, one could also say that the bank bailout caused us to drive up our national debt, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which makes our imports more expensive, which costs American companies over the long run. So maybe the bank bailout affected the stock market outlook, taking it from a 6.75% expected return to a 6.5%. That would be a reasonable assertion.

But nothing an administration does can cause stocks to gain ground during one period of time vs lose ground during another. Policies, especially those of the Fed, can swing stocks maybe 1% up or down, but as you know the stock market makes much larger swings from week to week and year to year than just 1% here and there. Economic conditions are what drive the ups and downs of the stock market.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[B]Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far [/B]

They can cook the books anyway they want. It's probably worse than that. I say get off the books. Even during a depression booze still sells. Come up with a good blend and watch out for the revenue man.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Buster;687424]Not when they're Government jobs.[/quote]

Government jobs still stimulate economic growth, just not in a sustainable way.

The theory is that while people are unemployed, you might as well put them to work doing [B]something[/B] productive. It doesn't do the nation any good to have people sitting on their duff when they could be building better roads or fixing things.

So the government pays them, they take that money and spend it, which helps businesses. Businesses then have more money to invest, they begin to grow, and they start adding jobs.

The key is to make sure the government jobs, which act as the catalyst for growth, are cut back once the economy starts adding jobs. If this isn't managed well (which often it is not), then you get overspending and severe deficit problems.

If Obama can successfully cut spending once the economy is running well, then he will have succeeded. Problem for him is that a second wave of economic recession is coming, due to no fault of his own, which will derail his ability to cut the deficit. He'll get voted out in 2012 if the GOP plays its cards right.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687435]First, on auto bail-outs, no I don't think that has any meaningful long-term impact on the performance of American companies. In the end that only affected a few companies, a drop in the bucket compared to the stock market overall.

One could make the argument that without bailing out the banks, we would have entered a gigantic depression due to frozen lending. That particular bailout action had to be taken, or businesses nationwide would have lost the access to capital and hence lost the ability to invest and grow their businesses. Our whole economy could have ground to a halt.

Now, one could also say that the bank bailout caused us to drive up our national debt, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which makes our imports more expensive, which costs American companies over the long run. So maybe the bank bailout affected the stock market outlook, taking it from a 6.75% expected return to a 6.5%. That would be a reasonable assertion.

But nothing an administration does can cause stocks to gain ground during one period of time vs lose ground during another. Policies, especially those of the Fed, can swing stocks maybe 1% up or down, but as you know the stock market makes much larger swings from week to week and year to year than just 1% here and there. Economic conditions are what drive the ups and downs of the stock market.[/quote]

We pretty much agree on this I was just syaing goverment policy does impact the stock market but should have been clear on how much impact.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;687442][B]Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far [/B]

They can cook the books anyway they want. It's probably worse than that. I say get off the books. Even during a depression booze still sells. Come up with a good blend and watch out for the revenue man.[/quote]

Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=firstdown;687446]We pretty much agree on this I was just syaing goverment policy does impact the stock market but should have been clear on how much impact.[/quote]

Fair enough. I definitely shouldn't be absolute in my statements. It can have some effect for sure, just not nearly enough to justify drawing conclusions from those ridiculous graphs posted earlier in the thread.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687445]Government jobs still stimulate economic growth, just not in a sustainable way.

The theory is that while people are unemployed, you might as well put them to work doing [B]something[/B] productive. It doesn't do the nation any good to have people sitting on their duff when they could be building better roads or fixing things.

So the government pays them, they take that money and spend it, which helps businesses. Businesses then have more money to invest, they begin to grow, and they start adding jobs.

The key is to make sure the government jobs, which act as the catalyst for growth, are cut back once the economy starts adding jobs. If this isn't managed well (which often it is not), then you get overspending and severe deficit problems.

If Obama can successfully cut spending once the economy is running well, then he will have succeeded. Problem for him is that a second wave of economic recession is coming, due to no fault of his own, which will derail his ability to cut the deficit. He'll get voted out in 2012 if the GOP plays its cards right.[/quote]

Thats one of the things Obama said his spending would creat jobs but I don't see that happening. The ones they posted on their site we find out that most of them are false. I actually don't think they are trying to creat goverment jobs to help build roads its the contractors that will get the contracts and hire.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687447]Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.[/quote]
That's a little strong , no ? Acounting fraud , cooking the books did happen at Fannie Mae , [url=http://www.slate.com/id/2200160/]The Fannie Mae debacle was brought to you by the vast bipartisan conspiracy. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine[/url] .[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse]New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com[/url] . We need football soon , the sooner we spank Philly/cowturds and the g-strings ... the better !

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

i cant speak for everyone, but we just hired 55 people. the jump in production is back to " normal" levels for us. it seems like its starting to turn( for the better) how long it lasts is yet to be seen

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=dmek25;687479]i cant speak for everyone, but we just hired 55 people. the jump in production is back to " normal" levels for us. it seems like its starting to turn( for the better) how long it lasts is yet to be seen[/quote]
Congrads , that is great news ! Now if Allen/Shanny can hire a few O-Linemen .... we really are moving it the right direction .

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=firstdown;687464]Thats one of the things Obama said his spending would creat jobs but I don't see that happening. The ones they posted on their site we find out that most of them are false. I actually don't think they are trying to creat goverment jobs to help build roads its the contractors that will get the contracts and hire.[/quote]

Well, whether it's an actual government job, or a government-funded job that contractors actually hire, it's six to one half dozen or the other. Either way, the point is that the government is supporting those employees, and it can't afford to do it forever. It must cut the government funding for the job once the economy is rolling along at a level that can sustain the job on its own.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=dmek25;687479]i cant speak for everyone, but we just hired 55 people. the jump in production is back to " normal" levels for us. it seems like its starting to turn( for the better) how long it lasts is yet to be seen[/quote]

Back to normal...saying the 55 hires are previously-eliminated jobs? That's 0 net jobs.


GREAT NEWS THOUGH for the company, workers and families.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=firstdown;687464]Thats one of the things Obama said his spending would creat jobs but I don't see that happening. The ones they posted on their site we find out that most of them are false. I actually don't think they are trying to creat goverment jobs to help build roads its the contractors that will get the contracts and hire.[/quote]

Plus, temporary Census positions are usually being counted and applauded as new jobs.

The ACTUAL unemployment # is being estimated just under 20%.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Schneed10;687447]Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.[/quote]

What's productive about discussing an unemployment rate? Posting opinions about who's at fault doesn't change the fact that they're still unemployed.

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Buster;687577]Back to normal...[B]saying the 55 hires are[/B] [B]previously-eliminated jobs? That's 0 net jobs[/B].


GREAT NEWS THOUGH for the company, workers and families.[/quote]
around January of last year around 75 people were laid off. another 35 or so retired. since then, all 75 have been called back. plus the 55 new hires. that equals 55 net jobs. or 130 if you count the call backs. my point was i usually see the mood of the economy in my job. right now things are moving upward. my statement really wasn't meant to be political. just trying to relay a trend

Re: Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;687614]What's productive about discussing an unemployment rate? Posting opinions about who's at fault doesn't change the fact that they're still unemployed.[/quote]

I think what he's trying to say is that you're not a product of intelligent design.