GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

EXPECTEDLY! Obama Recovery WORSE
Than Recession For Americans’ Income

by

When our President is beholden to union special interests and a failed Keynesian economic dogma, most of us could have  did predict his “recovery” plans would have been a complete FAIL.

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com:

When running for President, Barack Obama decried the decline of American household income, which certainly dropped during the 2007-2009 Great Recession.  Since the recovery began in June 2009 — a recovery for which Obama has repeatedly claimed credit — that trend has gotten worse, not better.  A new report shows that the percentage of decline in household income during the so-called recovery actually doubled that of the recession:

During the recession, which economists say lasted from Dec. 2007 to June 2009, the median annual household income fell by 3.2 percent, from $55,309 to $53,518, according to a report authored by two former U.S. Census Bureau officials. But in the post-recession period from June 2009 to June 2011, the figure fell by 6.7 percent, from $53,518 in June 2009 to $49,909 in June 2011. …

The study found that during the post-recessionary period, families with just a male or female head with no spouse present saw a 7.3 percent decline in income compared to the 4.5 percent drop for married-couple households. Income for households with a head under the age of 25 fell by 9.5 percent, significantly more than the 5.5 percent decline for households with a head who is 45 to 54 years old.

Again, I repeat: Our President Spent $787 Billion Dollars Of Our Money And We Got Was This Lousy 9.1% Unemployment Rate (Forever…)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  3. ILC,

    Unfortunately, Obama knows exactly what he is doing. The “fundamentally transformed America” will be dull citizens being indifferent to one another as they while away their government job and settle for social justice, social security and decaying infrastructure.

    The captains of government will replace the captains of industry. The people will give up hope and turn to vodka and black market income padding.

    When you do the math of “equalizing” the masses, the low man on the totem pole gets a fair amount more, the upper limit poverty man stays marginally the same and everyone else gets burned.

    The reeducation camp will teach you to swim with the polit-buro sharks and the secret knowledge you will learn is to bite first and, if bitten, don’t bleed.

    Obama is a psychopath. To normal people, psychopaths are extremely disturbed people. To the psychopath, when he disturbs normal people, he is being satisfyingly successful and he is gratified by his actions. Obama is a serial free market, democracy rapist and killer. And he is strictly amoral.

  5. And yet he’s still gonna get reelected because he’s good at reading speeches off a teleprompter. I love this country but sometimes I just wanna smack the crap out of the people living in it.

  9. This election-cycle the GOP needs to forcibly insist that Pres. Obama “owns” these results…not get away with pleading he was left with the mess, and it’s all Bush’s fault.

    And no, I don’t want a t-shirt.

  10. A link that was just dropped at Ace’s: Thomas Sargent, the new Nobel prize winner in economics, was/is against Obanomics, Krugman and teh “stimulus”.

    Does it matter? Economists (including Krugman) are still ignorant jackasses after all, and the Nobel prize still doesn’t mean much. It matters only in refuting a specific lefty talking point that runs like this: “All mainstream economists favored Obama’s stimulus in 2009 / favor Obama’s new stimulus.” No, they didn’t/don’t. The TP has always been untrue. Sargent’s win allows for a pithier retort, though: “Like that guy who just won the Nobel Prize? Riiiiiight.”

    The article gives some interesting color on Sargent’s views:

    …An interview of Professor Sargent by the Minneapolis Fed in August 2010 summed up some of his contributions succinctly: “policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically ‘tricking’ people with policy surprises. Central banks, for example, can’t permanently lower unemployment by easing monetary policy, as Sargent demonstrated with Neil Wallace, because people will (rationally) anticipate higher future inflation…

    In the same interview, Professor Sargent was also skeptical of President Obama’s stimulus:

    Interviewer: A January 2009 article quotes you as saying, “The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research.” What calculations had you seen?

    Sargent: I said something like that to a reporter. I had just read an Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers document e-mailed to me by my friend John Taylor. I agreed with John that the CEA calculations were surprisingly naive for 2009. They were not informed by what we learned after 1945 [ed: Zing!]….In early 2009, President Obama’s economic advisers seem to have understated the substantial professional uncertainty and disagreement about the wisdom of implementing a large fiscal stimulus. In early 2009, I recall President Obama as having said that while there was ample disagreement among economists about the appropriate monetary policy and regulatory responses to the financial crisis, there was widespread agreement in favor of a big fiscal stimulus among the vast majority of informed economists. His advisers surely knew that was not an accurate description of the full range of professional opinion… there are serious economic researchers who remain unconvinced.

    So, they lied.

    In the same interview, Professor Sargent says, “Europe’s generous unemployment compensation system has made an important contribution to sustained high European unemployment….Our models imply that people in Europe, especially older workers, are suffering from long-term unemployment because of the adverse incentives brought about by a generous social safety net when it interacts with these human capital dynamics….if, in the United States, we create a system where unemployment and disability benefits are permanently extended in their generosity and their duration, we will inadvertently put ourselves into the situation that much of Europe has suffered for three decades.”

    Alarm bells should be going off in your head, right there.

    Sargent sounds like my kinda guy overall; he says some things I’ve been saying:

    And in the same interview, Professor Sargent speaks of how a gold standard for monetary policy imposed fiscal discipline: “what induced one major Western country after another to run a more-or-less balanced budget in the 19th century and early 20th century before World War I was their decision to adhere to the gold standard.”

    In a 2007 graduation speech to economics undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley, Professor Sargent offered “a short list of valuable lessons that our beautiful subject teaches,” among them, “Many things that are desirable are not feasible,” and “Everyone responds to incentives, including people you want to help. That is why social safety nets don’t always end up working as intended.”

    In both the Minneapolis Fed interview and his February 2010 Phillips Lecture at the London School of Economics, Professor Sargent gave a respectful summary of a criticism of federal bank deposit insurance: “The deposit insurance allows shareholders to gamble on favorable terms with other peoples’ money (the tax payers’), and shareholders want to do this as much as possible. The bank is bound to fail sooner or later, and then the government will have to pay the depositors.”

    Toward the end of the Phillips Lecture, Professor Sargent also cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’”

  11. And now for some AP headline bias: Senate Republicans likely to kill Obama jobs bill

    Why bias? Because Senate Democrats are about to kill Obama’s jobs bill. They have a majority. They could pass the bill, if they wanted it. They don’t want it. If a filibuster is a real issue, they could appeal to the RINOs the Snowe-type “moderates”. They don’t care to.

    The lede is as biased as the headline:

    Obama’s jobs bill, facing a critical test in the Senate, appears likely to die at the hands of Republicans opposed to stimulus spending and a tax surcharge on millionaires.

    Should read:

    Obama’s jobs bill, facing a critical test in the Senate, appears likely to die at the hands of a coalition of Democrats and Republicans in favor of fiscal responsibility and small business.

    Is there anything the AP can’t distort? They’re so good at it! Near the bottom of the article, though, they need more material and turn to the facts, as a kind of filler:

    Republicans say the 2009 stimulus measure was an expensive failure and that the current plan is just like it…. Republicans backed the payroll tax cut last year… [but are] opposed to further spending and say the tax surcharge would strike at small businesses…

    …Democratic unanimity is not assured. Moderates like Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. — both are up for re-election next year in states where Obama figures to lose — may abandon the party… Top Democratic vote counter Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in an interview Monday on the Chicago television station WTTW that the party could lose up to four Democrats on the vote. That would leave the measure short of a simple majority…