Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term

[Glaber]

[quote=Washington Times]Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush's eight years in office.

"This is hardly surprising," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. "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."

According to the bureau's statistics, per capita income dropped during 2009 in 47 states, with only modest gains in the other states, West Virginia, Maine and Maryland. But most of those increases were attributed to rising income from the government, such as Medicare and unemployment benefits.

Two of the most populous states in the country reported dramatic declines: Per capita income in California dropped 3.5 percent to $42,325; in New York, the drop was 3.8 percent to $46,957.

"The evidence from New York and California reinforces a basic lesson: Where government gets too large, prosperity suffers. Let's hope that the Congress learns this lesson before it is too late for the country as a whole," said Mr. Holtz-Eakin, who also served as chief economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama often derided Mr. Bush for what he said were dramatically falling incomes for workers.

"American families, since George Bush has been in office, have seen average family incomes go down $2,000," Mr. Obama said in a September 2008 speech on the economy in Green Bay, Wis.

The bureau, which doesn't compile statistics on "family" income, reported that per capita income rose during Mr. Bush's two terms, from $29,159 to $32,632 (using 2005 dollar values as a base). During Mr. Obama's 15 months in office, per capita income has dropped nearly 1 percent to $32,343.

Economists agree that Mr. Obama inherited a severe recession, although some dispute that it is the "worst since the Great Depression," as Mr. Obama often asserts. Still, the dropping numbers show that the $862 billion stimulus package has not turned the tide on dropping incomes.

"All in all I think the [bureau's] data are just another confirmation of what we all know - the recession has been just brutal, and while we may in the past couple of months have stopped the downward slide in jobs and incomes, we'll be digging out of a big hole for a long time," said Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute.

Carol Moylan, chief of national income and wealth division at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, said comparing real personal incomes while excluding government payments is a good barometer. "A lot of people like that number," she said.

The White House did not respond to requests for comments on the numbers.

Personal income with government "transfers" - which include such federal money as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and food stamps - has grown during Mr. Obama's time in office, up 1.2 percent from January 2009 to February 2010. During that period, government unemployment insurance benefits rose from $88 billion to $143 billion.

Despite a near doubling in unemployment payouts, Mr. Obama in February announced a multitrillion-dollar spending plan that boosted the federal deficit to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion.

"While the market income of Americans has fallen since early 2008, government assistance has offset this somewhat through greater transfer spending such as unemployment benefits and new tax credits such as the 'making work pay credit,' albeit at the expense of higher deficits," said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation organization.

Mr. Obama, who just finished pushing a $1 trillion health care reform bill through Congress, is falling behind on his predictions. In a September speech, he said: "All in all, many middle-class families will see their incomes go up by about $3,000 because of the Recovery Act."

[b]Other numbers show dramatic differences between the state of the economy in the opening months of Mr. Bush's first term versus that of Mr. Obama. While disposal income during Mr. Obama's term has risen $2.5 billion, extra cash for Americans rose $113 billion over Mr. Bush's first 15 months in office.[/b]

Meanwhile, the findings of a new survey of leading economists by the Associated Press found widespread pessimism over a quick recovery.

The finding included ominous news:

c The unemployment rate will stay high for the next two years and still be at 8.4 percent by the end of 2011.

c Home prices will remain almost flat for the next two years, even after dropping an average 32 percent nationwide since peaking in 2006.

c The economy will grow about 3 percent this year, less than usual during the early phase of a recovery, but few jobs will be added.[/quote]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-obamas-15-[/url]

VGPU News Comment: [quote]The unemployment rate will stay high for the next two years and still be at 8.4 percent by the end of 2011.[/quote] That's not good.
Boldness was my doing.

[Nilus]

Haters gonna be hating, supporters gonna be blindly defending

[PrismatexV8]

Bush came into office during heady economic times. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a Democrat.
Obama came into office during pretty shitty economic times. His predecessor, George W. Bush, was a Republican.

Really, this only hurts your "HURR DURR OBAMA SUCKS" arguments.

[editline]1:11AM[/editline]
Oh, and your source is pretty biased.
According to Wikipedia:
[quote][highlight]The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon[1], who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission.[/highlight][2][3] Bo Hi Pak, Moon's chief aide, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.[4] In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda."[5] In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."[6][/quote]
So yeah, pretty batshit.

[lulzbocks]

Must be Obama's fault.

:downs:

[GunsNRoses]

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21320932]Bush came into office during heady economic times. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a Democrat.
Obama came into office during pretty shitty economic times. His predecessor, George W. Bush, was a Republican.

Really, this post only hurts your "HURR DURR OBAMA SUCKS" arguments.

[editline]01:10AM[/editline]

Bush came into office during heady economic times. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a Democrat.
Obama came into office during pretty shitty economic times. His predecessor, George W. Bush, was a Republican.

Really, this post only hurts your "HURR DURR OBAMA SUCKS" arguments.[/QUOTE]

Repeated for added effect

[PrismatexV8]

[QUOTE=GunsNRoses;21320948]Repeated for added effect[/QUOTE]

Naw, just a shitty connection and smashing the "Post New Reply" button too many times.

[Glaber]

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21320932]Bush came into office during heady economic times. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a Democrat. [b](with a Republican majority in congress)[/b]
Obama came into office during pretty shitty economic times. His predecessor, George W. Bush, was a Republican.[b](with a Democrat majority in congress)[/b]

Really, this only hurts your "HURR DURR OBAMA SUCKS" arguments.[/QUOTE]

I think you left out some info. See bold.

Remember 94?

EDIT:
Wiki source 2 is also biased, point?

[Luke510]

It's a conspiracy to turn us into a SOCIALIST MARXIST DICTATORSHIP!

[PrismatexV8]

[QUOTE=Glaber;21320993]I think you left out some info. See bold.

Remember 94?[/QUOTE]

I like how you said "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".
I've noticed a lot of Republicans and conservatives in general saying this; is it a convenient way to disrespect the Democrats, just like saying "Teabagger" instead of "Tea Partier"?

[Glaber]

Is it really that much a deal that I said Democrat instead of Democratic?

[Melkor]

Obama does not control the economy.

[DamagePoint]

[QUOTE=Nilus;21320930]Haters gonna be hating, supporters gonna be blindly defending[/QUOTE]

Pretty much this. As much as Bush may have contributed to the fall Obama didn't stop it so the blame really goes both ways.

[PrismatexV8]

[QUOTE=Glaber;21321120]Is it really that much a deal that I said Democrat instead of Democratic?[/QUOTE]

Actually, yes.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase[/url])
[quote]"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party. The term has been principally used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since the 1930s. The explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy.
The word "Democrat" is not at all controversial, except when it is used as an adjective (as in "Democrat Party" or "Democrat Senator" or "Democrat idea"). In that case some Democratic Party leaders and non-partisan commentators have objected to the use as adjective.[1] New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote:
[INDENT]There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat."[2][/INDENT]
[/quote]

[zombiefreak]

Clinton was a good president what are you talking about.

Cept on the issue of gun laws fuck his AW ban.

[Zeke129]

Income has also fallen since glaber started posting news articles
fuck you glaber, stop posting! you're destroying the economy

[DamagePoint]

The number of jobs has gone up so I think he deserves some credit for that.

[Nyaos]

I can see it now, Obama looking at the button saying "raise income" and not pressing it because he hates America. Clearly this must be the case since the President does everything right Glaber?

[Glaber]

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21321134]Actually, yes.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase[/url])[/QUOTE]

Nice, both Wiki Sources in your quote are biased.

[QUOTE=Nyaos;21321159]I can see it now, Obama looking at the button saying "raise income" and not pressing it because he hates America. Clearly this must be the case since the President does everything right Glaber?[/QUOTE]

Please, It's the Raise Taxes button he'd be looking at and pressing.

[PrismatexV8]

[QUOTE=Glaber;21321177]Nice, both Wiki Sources in your quote are biased.

Please, It's the Raise Taxes button he'd be looking at and pressing.[/QUOTE]

Hey look, Obama actually cut taxes for 95% of 'Murkans.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/[/url]

[Glaber]

[quote=Wikipeida on St. Petersburg Times][b]Political slant[/b]

A study by Media Matters for America showed that the St. Petersburg Times was one of only four newspapers in Florida that featured more progressive opinions than conservative, with 43 percent of columnists considered progressive and 29 percent considered conservative.[5][/quote]

So, do we want to keep using Wikipedia for our arguments still?

*Heads to bed*
*7 hours later*
Returns

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21321134]Actually, yes.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase[/url])[/QUOTE]

man that is the laziest slur

[Nyaos]

Seeing as more often than not Wikipedia claims are connected to references by academic journals and reports, I'd trust those claims more than an editorial.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Glaber;21321177]Nice, both Wiki Sources in your quote are biased.[/QUOTE]

Well then why don't you try conservapedia

[PrismatexV8]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;21321321]Well then why don't you try conservapedia[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party[/url]
[quote=Conservapedia]Democrat Party is a phrase used in the U.S. by Republicans to refer to the opposition Democratic Party. Many Democrats strongly dislike the term and believe Republicans use it to ridicule them as not true practitioners of democracy inside the party.
The debate is the use of the proper noun "Democrat" as an adjective, in place of the established adjective for the party, "Democratic." Thus "Kerry is a Democratic Senator" or "Senator Kerry is a Democrat," is standard American usage, while "Kerry is a Democrat Senator" is controversial.
Some believe that the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective is ungrammatical.[25] Using a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, i.e. "shoe store," "school bus," "peace movement," "Senate election," etc. Americans commonly speak of "the Iraq war" rather than "the Iraqi war."[26]
In American history many parties were named by their opponents (Federalists, Loco-Focos, Know Nothings, Populists, Dixiecrats), including the Democrats themselves, as the Federalists in the 1790s used "Democratic Party" as a term of ridicule.[27].
The use of "Democrat Party" could be part of a broader linguistic trend. As one linguist explained, "We're losing our inflections – the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There's a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of "the Ukraine election" rather than 'the Ukrainian election' or 'the election in Ukraine,' for instance. It's 'the Iraq war' rather than 'the Iraqi war,' to give another example."[28]
[/quote]

Even Conservapedia knows it's a stupid thing to say.

[JDK721]

[QUOTE=Glaber;21321281]So, do we want to keep using Wikipedia for our arguments still?

*Heads to bed*[/QUOTE]

[img]http://captionsearch.com/pix/thumb/pijobf4e8h-t.jpg[/img]

[Hail Satan]

Glaber, Correlation does not imply causation.

[editline]10:58PM[/editline]

I am gonna drill that phrase into your fucking skull.

[Zeke129]

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21321360][url]http://www.conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party[/url]

Even Conservapedia knows it's a stupid thing to say.[/QUOTE]

Glaber when Conservapedia can make a more balanced statement then you, you know something is wrong

[PrismatexV8]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;21321450]Glaber, Correlation does not imply causation.

[editline]10:58PM[/editline]

I am gonna drill that phrase into your fucking skull.[/QUOTE]

[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png[/img]
Read, learn, love.

[Madman_Andre]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;21321450]Glaber, Correlation does not imply causation.

[editline]10:58PM[/editline]

I am gonna drill that phrase into your fucking skull.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

[Zemog]

Anybody heard of "The price of peace"?

It's not much, only about 3,2% of what you normally earn.