• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Every age group except 65-74 worse odd under Obama

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
81,900
Reaction score
45,022
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
....measured, as it should be, after the end of the recession, which happened in the summer of 2009.





 
Thank you, G.W.Bush.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
shrubnose said:
Thank you, G.W.Bush.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

And this is average... which means the actual wage decrease for most Americans is much bigger because the massive wealth gain by the 1% during the period pulls up the number. Take out the top 5% and the average wage collapses pretty much.
 
I wasn't aware that the recession ended in June 2009. I'd like to understand, did Obama end the recession in 5 months or did Bush's policies bring the recession to an end, or none of the above?
 
shrubnose said:
Thank you, G.W.Bush.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

When do Obama and the Democrats start taking personal responsibility for the lack of recovery?

The market is being propped up by Bernanke and QE.

There has been no real recovery. Why? Because of the feckless economic policies on the left. How in Sam Hill do you expect jobs creation to occur when you folks keep piling on the regulations/taxes on business? Between the EPA and Obamacare, and increased taxation, these polices have caused the layoffs and wages to drop. A company is in business to make money and provide returns for their investors. The more you take from them, the more you force them to spend millions re-tooling to comply with your rules, causes them to trim more and more. Your stupid policies like Obamacare are causing more folks to do with less due to increases in insurance premiums. Your policies are keeping gas prices high causing another burden on the average Joe and leaving less money in his pockets to stimulate the economy. Your feckless stimulus of over 800 billion sure didn't work only to leave my grandchildren paying the tab for that boondoggle. IF we can survive the next 3 years, it is going to take an administration that is willing to push government out of the way with business friendly legislation and allow the private sector to do what it does best before there will be a true recovery. Until then get use to having less.
 
Last edited:
I admit that I'm a little more odd than I used to be. Looks like I'm a trend setter!
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I wasn't aware that the recession ended in June 2009. I'd like to understand, did Obama end the recession in 5 months or did Bush's policies bring the recession to an end, or none of the above?
Click to expand...

None of the above. The Bush recession is ongoing. Obama has only been able to mitigate it somewhat.
 
Guy Incognito said:
None of the above. The Bush recession is ongoing. Obama has only been able to mitigate it somewhat.
Click to expand...

The article disagrees with you: "That's down from $54,478 in June 2009, when the recession officially ended."
 
cpwill said:
....measured, as it should be, after the end of the recession, which happened in the summer of 2009. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I wonder why the senior age group is thought not to be worse. ?? Those people retired when interest rates were such that they added to their retirement income . . . they, of all people, lost a tremendous amount of home equity when real estate values tanked . . . their Social Security has seen very little COLA since that time . . . many of them have had to go back to work to make ends meet . . .

What? Have the icebergs we want to float them out on become cheaper or something?
 
These are problems that have been developing for decades, but sure, pin them all on Obama if it makes you feel better.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The article disagrees with you: "That's
down from $54,478 in June 2009, when the recession officially ended."
Click to expand...

The collapse in 2008 was essentially the collapse of the GSEs, namely Fannie and Freddie who held close to 70% of all sub-prime backed securities AND actual sub-prime loans.

Fannie and freddie were given a warning in 2004 by their regulator, right around the time Bush and the Republicans started pushing for strict new regulatory actions.

The Democrats protected the corrupt Democrat run GSEs until they were taken into Conservatorship in 2008.

Anyone who still believes that this is a continuation of "Bush's recession " is extremely misinformed.
 

more of their wealth is in stocks, which have zoomed back upwards even as the rest of the country puttered.
 
cpwill said:
....measured, as it should be, after the end of the recession, which happened in the summer of 2009.
Click to expand...

C'mon. You know full well that the President has very little actual impact on the economy.

The executive branch's power lies in foreign policy. Congress has always been the real driver opposed to the President.
 
cpwill said:
....measured, as it should be, after the end of the recession, which happened in the summer of 2009.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The end of the recession? What has the rich people and stock market making enormous profits and paying low taxes got to do with low wages due to lost jobs?

It took FDR eight years and a world war to smooth out the mess left by Hoover and the banks in the early thirties. This Republican house has pledged to stop anything the president wants to do. If he had been able to put his proposals for jobs into effect everybody would be working. Also as a bonus our infrastructure would be getting needed repairs because none were implemented while Bush was invading countries which had not harmed the United States. Let's not forget where this bull**** started:

 
I don't think people immediately recover after a big recession. People age 50 and over who lost their jobs...most probably never found other jobs, lost their homes, maybe their life savings. They will never recover. Others got laid off and had to take jobs at much less pay. It will take years to get back to where they were before the recession.

That's the way it is after a recession, I think. But I do wish someone would do something to hurry the economy along. Giving rich people tax cuts didn't do it (it just made them richer...their share of the wealth is at a startlingly high percentage, more than the Roaring 20's, even). A bigger stimulus would've helped. Raising the min. wage might help (min wage earners don't have expendable income, so they would SPEND their wage increases). Corporations are sitting on massive piles of cash.

Maybe once the ACA becomes fully implemented next year, corporations will feel freer to start using their cash again.
 
In other news, the New York Giants have started off the season 0-3 because Eli Manning is a horrible quarterback and Tom Coughlin is a horrible coach.

/sarcasm.
 

That's not true. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It was the DEregulation by the Bush administration that caused the crash that started the recession. It started with Bear Stearns, then Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America, then we all remember the collaps of the 125 year old firm Lehman Brothers. When they got themselves into BIG trouble, they asked a commission to change a capital rule, allowing them to take on more debt, so they could outsource their problem debts, yada yada yada. In other words, deregulate, and they promised they would voluntarily take precautions. Only one expert, a RISK expert, wrote a letter to the SEC, advising against abolishing that protective regulation. But the SEC unanimously passed the deregulation, anyway. Then all hell broke loose, and the walls came tumbling down. “The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” [the SEC Chairman Cox] said. Once they were deregulated, the big investment firms and banks started borrowing huge amounts of money (previously there had been a cap on debt to capital ratio). The SEC was powerless to stop it, once they had done away with the regulation.

There was a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess, too, but it was smaller and not the cause of the recession.
 
Campbell said:
The end of the recession? What has the rich people and stock market making enormous profits and paying low taxes got to do with low wages due to lost jobs?
Click to expand...

The Recession officially ended in June of 2009.

It took FDR eight years and a world war to smooth out the mess left by Hoover and the banks in the early thirties.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, with the exception of a disastrous trade protection bill, that mess started to sort itself out - FDR then spent 8 years continually messing with the economy in an endless series of large-scale experiments, often with unpredicted but seriously negative results.

This Republican house has pledged to stop anything the president wants to do.
Click to expand...

And were pretty much a failure at that in much of his first term, in which Democrats were able to pass whatever they wanted, as Republicans lacked the votes to stop them.

If he had been able to put his proposals for jobs into effect everybody would be working.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Gosh. If only he'd been allowed to pass, like, say, a $840 Bn stimulus package and a massive attempted re-write of our healthcare market..... gee whillickers, things would be much better if that had been allowed to happen, huh? Why, I bet by mid-2010 we would have been seeing a Recovery Summer, if only Obama had been able to put his proposals into effect. Or surely at least by 2011.

Also as a bonus our infrastructure would be getting needed repairs because none were implemented while Bush was invading countries which had not harmed the United States
Click to expand...

Certainly. No doubt. Sure wish we'd passed that Stimulus package back in 2009. I bet it would have been the biggest infrastructure bill ever. Because everyone knows that when Democrats spend money, it goes to infrastructure rather than to supportive identity groups.

Let's not forget where this bull**** started:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/31ef3f9069209f2b69_h81mvyju7.jpg
Click to expand...

No one blames Obama for the crash. Just as no one credits Obama for the fact that the Recession ended in June of 2009. What Obama gets credit for is the "recovery" we've been enjoying:

Lower Growth:



and Lower Employment:



that especially harms our younger, less educated, and less experienced workers, which can continue to hold them back for years, even once they start working:



Obama's not responsible for the crash, he's responsible for the gap:



that were produced by the failed ideas from a failed set of assumptions.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
more of their wealth is in stocks, which have zoomed back upwards even as the rest of the country puttered.
Click to expand...
So by having their wealth in stocks, and those stocks increasing in value, does that mean that the rich have just been working that much hard than the average joe? After all, the common argument is that the hardest workers get the most.

If I put $1million in stocks does that mean I worked harder than someone who put no money in stocks?
 
reinoe said:
So by having their wealth in stocks, and those stocks increasing in value, does that mean that the rich have just been working that much hard than the average joe? After all, the common argument is that the hardest workers get the most.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would say that hardest work = best remuneration. If I work very hard digging a hole and then filling it up to no effect for 12 hours a day, I am still less productive than the part-time substitute teacher who spends 4 hours a day teaching children to read, and my compensation (ie: I will probably get "zero") will thus be less. It is the most productive work that can demand and receives higher compensation.

If I put $1million in stocks does that mean I worked harder than someone who put no money in stocks?
Click to expand...

Meh.... sort of. You had to get the million dollars, after all, and you are now allocating your resources accordingly. The investments represent the labor you've already put in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…