This is the key stat to the answer, “Are you better off than you were four years ago”:
Household income is below recession levels, report says
By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: August 23
Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.
From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.
Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.
Overall, median income is 7.2 percent
ABC News has a survey. As of now, nearly three out of every four answer “No” to the question and say they are NOT better off under Obama.
Answer: HELL No. You want to blame the recession and even the first year of Obama’s utterly failed presidency on Bush? Fine. But the fact remains that the median household income has gone down nearly TWICE as much during Obama’s “recovery” than it did during the entire recession that Obama blames Bush for. Which is to say that even the very “best of times” under Obama’s failed presidency have paled in comparison even to the worst of times under Bush – with the very “worst” of “Bush’s times” happening while Bush was at home watching Obama stick his skinny legs up on the Oval Office desk.
THAT is what they call a “failed presidency.” There is NO FREAKING WAY Americans are better off now than they were when this failure took office. And when you add to that that the “failed Bush policies” led to a 5.26% unemployment rate whereas Obama’s messianic policies have led to a 9.33% average unemployment rate, well, you tell me which you like better. Especially given the fact that when you consider people who have simply dropped out of the job market all together in despair due to Obamanomics, and when you consider the labor participation rate, the real unemployment rate under Obama is about 11.6% rather than the still-miserable 8.3%.
O’Malley: We’re Not Better Off Now
By Jonathan Miller
Updated: September 2, 2012 | 2:58 p.m.
September 2, 2012 | 11:27 a.m.
Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, bucked other Obama surrogates on Sunday, saying that the country was not better off now than it was four years ago.
On CBS’s Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”
(RELATED: Axelrod Calls GOP Convention a Bust)
Responded O’Malley: “No, but that’s not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars — charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”
Quipped Schieffer: “George Bush is not on the ballots.”
The most senior Obama campaign simply refused to answer the question:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is he right, can the president argue unequivocally that Americans are better off today than they were four years ago?
DAVID PLOUFFE: Listen, George, I think the American people understand that we got into a terrible economic situation, a recession, only that the Great Depression — the only thing the country has ever seen like it. So they know we had a deep hole. It took us a long time to get into that hole, it’s going to take a long time to out of it.
First of all, Governor Romney is offering the same, exactly policies that led to the recession in the first place.
To paraphrase Plouffe’s response to Stephanopoulos’ question:
“Mumble, mumble, mumble. Blame Bush. Blah blah blah. And in conclusion, blame Bush.”
If you want your president to be a demagogue who will NOT accept responsibility for his record and who will blame and lie, then Obama truly is your “hope and change” and this really is your “fundamentally transformed America.” Because that’s all that Obama has done and it is all that he will continue to do.
And of course that “that’s what led to the recession” line might sound good, but let’s point out that RONALD REAGAN USED CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES TO PROPEL AMERICA TO 10 PERCENT GROWTH AND CREATED OVER A MILLION JOBS A MONTH.
David Axelrod took the plunge and said, yeah, we’re better under the man who lowered the level of our oceans and healed our planet before ultimately saying, okay, maybe we AREN’T better off:
“Can you honestly say that Americans better off today than they were four years ago?” Wallace pointedly asked Axelrod.
“I can say that we’re in a better position than we were four years ago in our economy, in the sense that when this president took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” Axelrod responded. “And the quarter before he took office was the worst since the Great Depression and we are in a different place.”
“29 straight months of job growth, 4.5 million private sector jobs,” the adviser cited as statistical evidence, but conceded: “Are we where we need to be? No.”
That 29 straight months of job growth might actually sound impressive if Democrats hadn’t utterly pooh-poohed George Bush when he had FIFTY-TWO STRAIGHT MONTHS OF JOB GROWTH from September 2003 to December 2007 thanks to his TAX CUTS. It takes so much freaking chutzpah to decry fifty-two months of job growth and then laud a number barely half of that as magnificent that only a Democrat could possibly be hypocrite enough to do it. But there you have it.
Then there’s the “monkey math” that Axelrod cites: basically, it first depends on the theory that Barack Obama really didn’t assume the presidency until 2010. It was the devil BOOSH who was president in 2009 and so all of those numbers only apply to the devil Bush. We only take credit for things we can make look good; Bush is responsible for everything else whether it happened during Obama’s watch or not. I say that because Barack Obama has been president NOT for 29 months, ye Democrat dumbasses, but for going on 45 months. And it is a national disgrace that we have such a completely failed leader that he can’t even assume responsibility for over a year of his failed presidency.
Then there’s the 800,000 jobs lost a month when Obama took office. Well, Democrats are such liars they even fabricate when they’re getting close to trying to tell the truth. We never lost “800,000 jobs a month.” The most jobs we ever lost was in January 2009 (during that year that Obama was president but refuses to acknowledge) when we lost 741,000 jobs. If you’re going to round that number honestly, David, you liar, we only lost 700,000 jobs that month, didn’t we? And for Axelrod to oh so conveniently round way, WAY up and then make it sound like it was happening every single month – we got to that 700k number in only ONE month – is a lie from a serial liar.
What’s always been interesting to me is that we had a crisis that was created by Democrat-OWNED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going bankrupt which triggered the meltdown as private banks held Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities that they suddenly discovered were “toxic assets” because the GSEs had loaded up so much bad debt in those securities that nobody could tell good debt from bad debt. And that month, in September 2008, we lost 280,000 jobs under Bush’s watch. In October, things looked a little better and we only lost 240,000 jobs that month.
Then America made the stupidest decision in its history and elected Obama. And businesses immediately responded in November by giving up 333,000 jobs – nearly a hundred thousand more jobs than the month before. The panic of a future-failed Obama presidency continued as we lost 632,000 jobs in the first full month after Obama was elected. What kind of fool can look at this reality and say, “Obama’s election calmed frightened businesses?” Because businesses said, “This turd is going to kill us. Let’s cut our losses now.” And so the month Obama took the oath of his failed office, we lost 741,000 jobs that month as businesses cut and ran on his presidency.
To document that the huge job losses that Obama demagogues actually occurred because of sheer terror of a pathetic failure assuming office, let me go back to an article I wrote in October of 2008: “Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama.” I note an article from CEO Magazine:
People are most concerned about jobs right now; maybe they should stop listening to mainstream media ideologues and start listening to the people who actually create jobs:
Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”
“Disastrous for the country.” That doesn’t sound good. And that’s about as optimistic as the CEO’s get about Barack Obama:
“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.
In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.
“Bankrupt the country within three years.” There. You want socialism, you can have it. “Spread the wealth around” so that country itself is as broke as the defaulting homeowners and the defaulting mortgage houses we keep hearing about.
We didn’t listen to those CEOs. And here we are very nearly damned bankrupt just as they predicted, as Democrats gather for their convention, with the national debt about to hit $16 TRILLION (now well above our entire GDP) and an actual fiscal gap of no “mere” $16 trillion but a supermassive black hole of death $222 trillion.
You want to see the market tank and employers cut their losses again? Just re-hire Obama. You’ll see things go to sh!t right quick as business reacts to the fiasco.
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” — Barack Obama, 3 July 2008
That’s right. Six trillion dollars in debt from Obama in one four-year term is responsible and patriotic; four trillion dollars over EIGHT YEARS is “irresponsible and unpatriotic.” Again, there’s that thingy about Democrat=hypocrite and hypocrite=Democrat. And if you are a Democrat, it is only because you, personally, are a hypocrite and a bad person.
The 4.5 million private sector jobs that Axelrod credits Obama for first of all utterly refuses to consider that 13 first months of Obama’s presidency (to quote that Servpro commercial jingle, “Like it never even happened!”) and second of all counts all the job gains but refuses to consider the rather disturbing factoid about all of those new jobless claims that have racked up every single month during Obama’s presidency. But you see, all the job gains are because of Obama but all the nearly 400,000 job losses every single damn month four damn years after Bush left the White House are still because of the devil Bush. Third, given our population growth, ten million Americans have actually entered the work force during Obama’s presidency; which is to say that Obama is nowhere NEAR keeping up with simple population growth even according to his own asinine horn-tooting. And fourth, this “4.5 million jobs” is a full-of-crap talking point parroted by rabid ideologues.
This turd needs to go. He needs to go now. And if he doesn’t go soon this country is simply doomed.
Tags: $16 trillion, 4.5 million private sector jobs, Are we better off than we were four years ago?, bankrupting America, demagogue, failed Bush policies, failed Republican policies, Great Recession, hypocrite, Martin O’Malley, median household income, Obama's average unemployment rate, recession, Ronald Reagan, straight months of job growth