Posts Tagged ‘median household income’

Why The More Democrats Destroy The American Economy, The Better It Will Be For Them Politically

April 9, 2013

In my student years and then in my working years, I have met many women whose boyfriends, live-in boyfriends or husbands treated them worse than I would treat dog crap.

It worked beautifully for the guys: they so destroyed these women’s self-esteem that they stayed with the men who abused them.

Why?  Their spirits were so crushed that they had been convinced that the low-life scum who abused them were the best they could ever hope to get.

And so they foolishly and self-destructively remained in abusive relationships.  If they had the crap beat out of them, they made sure to tell the police a story about some accident that hadn’t happened.

They sustained and protected and nurtured a “relationship” that was literally worse than cancer.

The national economic equivalent of the man I just described is Barack Hussein Obama.

He has so completely crushed so many desperate people – after selling them lie after lie after lie after lie – while holding out his socialist welfare state as the only solution for his massive economic failure – that many Americans believe Obama’s welfare society is their only hope.

Americans discouraged by economic recovery leave labor force
Published April 07, 2013
Associated Press

WASHINGTON –  After a full year of  fruitless job hunting, Natasha Baebler just gave up.

She’d already abandoned hope of getting work in her field, working with the  disabled. But she couldn’t land anything else, either — not even a job interview  at a telephone call center.

Until she feels confident enough to send out resumes again, she’ll get by on  food stamps and disability checks from Social Security and live with her parents  in St. Louis.

“I’m not proud of it,” says Baebler, who is in her mid-30s and is blind. “The  only way I’m able to sustain any semblance of self-preservation is to rely on  government programs that I have no desire to be on.”

Baebler’s frustrating experience has become all too common nearly four years  after the Great Recession ended: Many Americans are still so discouraged that  they’ve given up on the job market.

Older Americans have retired early. Younger ones have enrolled in school.  Others have suspended their job hunt until the employment landscape brightens.  Some, like Baebler, are collecting disability checks.

It isn’t supposed to be this way. After a recession, an improving economy is  supposed to bring people back into the job market.

Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force — those who have a job or  are looking for one — fell by nearly half a million people from February to  March, the government said Friday. And the percentage of working-age adults in  the labor force — what’s called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent  last month. It’s the lowest such figure since May 1979.

The falling participation rate tarnished the only apparent good news in the  jobs report the Labor Department released Friday: The unemployment rate dropped  to a four-year low of 7.6 percent in March from 7.7 in February.

People without a job who stop looking for one are no longer counted as  unemployed. That’s why the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in March despite weak  hiring. If the 496,000 who left the labor force last month had still been  looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would have risen to 7.9 percent in  March.

“Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons,” says Craig Alexander, chief  economist with TD Bank Financial Group. “It dropped because more workers stopped  looking for jobs. It signaled less confidence and optimism that there are jobs  out there.”

The participation rate peaked at 67.3 percent in 2000, reflecting an influx  of women into the work force. It’s been falling steadily ever since.

Part of the drop reflects the baby boom generation’s gradual move into  retirement. But such demographics aren’t the whole answer.

Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out  of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied  with November for the lowest since December 1984.

“It’s the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that  is keeping these workers from working or seeking work,” says Heidi Shierholz, an  economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The Labor Department says  there are still more than three unemployed people for every job opening.

Cynthia Marriott gave up her job search after an  interview in October for a position as a hotel concierge.

“They never said no,” she says. “They just never called me back.”

Her husband hasn’t worked full time since 2006. She cashed out her 401(k)  after being laid off from a job at a Los Angeles entertainment publicity firm in  2009. The couple owes thousands in taxes for that withdrawal. They have no  health insurance.

She got the maximum 99 weeks’ of unemployment benefits then allowed in  California and then moved to Atlanta.

Now she is looking to receive federal disability benefits for a lung  condition that she said leaves her weak and unable to work a full day. The  application is pending a medical review.

“I feel like I have no choice,” says Marriott, 47. “It’s just really sad and  frightening”

During the peak of her job search, Marriott was filling out 10 applications a  day. She applied for jobs she felt overqualified for, such as those at Home  Depot and Petco but never heard back. Eventually, the disappointment and fatigue  got to her.

“I just wanted a job,” she says. “I couldn’t really go on anymore looking for  a job.”

Young people are leaving the job market, too. The participation rate for  Americans ages 20 to 24 hit a 41-year low 69.6 percent last year before bouncing  back a bit. Many young people have enrolled in community colleges and  universities. That’s one reason a record 63 percent of adults ages 25 to 29 have  spent at least some time in college, according to the Pew Research Center.

Older Americans are returning to school, too. Doug Damato, who lives in  Asheville, N.C., lost his job as an installer at a utility company in February  2012. He stopped looking for work last fall, when he began taking classes in  mechanical engineering at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.

Next week, Damato, 40, will accept an academic award for earning top grades.  But one obstacle has emerged: Under a recent change in state law, his  unemployment benefits will now end July 1, six months earlier than he  expected.

He’s planning to work nights, if possible, to support himself once the  benefits run out. Dropping out of school is “out of the question,” he said,  given the time he has already put into the program.

“I don’t want a handout,” he says. “I’m trying to better myself.”

Many older Americans who lost their jobs are finding refuge in Social  Security’s disability program. Nearly 8.9 million Americans are receiving  disability checks, up 1.3 million from when the recession ended in June  2009.

Natasha Baebler’s journey out of the labor force and onto the disability  rolls began when she lost her job serving disabled students and staff members at  Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., in February 2012.

For six months, she sought jobs in her field, brandishing master’s degrees in  social education and counseling. No luck.

Then she just started looking for anything. Still, she had no takers.

“I chose to stop and take a step back for a while … After you’ve seen that  amount of rejection,” she says, “you start thinking, ‘What’s going to make this  time any different?'”

Let’s just call it “Battered Worker Syndrome.”

How did Obama campaign against Mitt Romney?  Well, this rich turd demonized and slandered Mitt Romney as a rich turd who didn’t care about the poor.  Even though while Obama – just a couple years before deciding to run for president – gave virtually NOTHING to the poor or to charity, Mitt Romney was giving tens of millions of dollars to the poor.  Who was the real rich turd who didn’t care about the poor?

Look at the one-percenter vacation-vacation-vacation lifestyle of the Obamas since they got to live off the fat of everybody else.  And then consider that the Romenys never even had a damn MAID.

Republicans are generous people.  In fact they are FAR more generous than Democrats.  But rather than cynically exploiting the desperation of the poor to create wasteful federal bureaucracy after wasteful federal bureaucracy that pisses away other people’s money, Republicans believe that WE as individuals should give, whereas Democrats believe that they are generous because they’re willing to give away other people’s money.

Republicans don’t want tax cuts because they’re greedy or selfish; they want tax cuts because if they are allowed to control more of their own money, they will be able to build a better, bigger economy that will benefit EVERYONE.  They want tax cuts because it is better for both those who give to the needy as well as the needy who receive the gifts when private individuals and organizations control the charitable giving.

Margaret Thatcher put it brilliantly: Under the failed policies of the liberals, Britain had degenerated into “the new sick man of Europe.”  The economy was in shambles when Thatcher took over.  She turned the nation around.  But liberals couldn’t have cared less; what mattered to them was that the rich had become richer along with everyone else in the nation.   And as Margaret Thatcher put it, “Liberals prefer that the poor become poorer so long as the rich become less rich.”

You were lied to by a wicked man.  And on the other side of that coin is the fact that it is bad people who believe lies.  Which means YOU.

But Obama knows how to slander.  He knows how to demonize.  He knows how to fearmonger.  No one but the coming Antichrist will ever be better at it.  And Obama’s new Democrat Party will frame the next election this way: if you vote for Republicans, they’ll end the welfare state that you [thanks to Democrats] now depend on.

It takes courage and selfless integrity to vote outside of yourself and support the policies that will be best for THE COUNTRY and for the country’s longer-term prosperity.  Obama knows that you don’t have either one of those things.  He trusts in your cowardice and in your greed, and he knows how to exploit those pathetic traits that now dominate the American people’s national “character.”

What Obama promised would work we now know DIDN’T.  The average American household lost forty percent of its wealth thanks to Obama’s failed policies.  The median household lost $4,300 under Obama. But – like Hillary Clinton said over the treasonous debacle in Benghazi – “What difference does it make now?”  You know, now that thanks to liberalism you’re dependent on the tit of the federal government and if you can’t keep sucking other people’s money you’ll die because you’ve been reduced to being helpless?

Next presidential election, I believe that people will vote for their welfare check and to hell with the economy.  And I believe that because that’s pretty much what we did in 2008 and in 2012.

The Republican Party is the party of adults who have finally reached the place where they know what will make a business or a household economic plan work.  They are adults who have worked hard to earn something and believe that they  should be able to keep more of what they earn rather than giving it away to a class-warfare system of Marxist redistributionism [in exchange for votes].  And Obma knows that the American people have degenerated into children who want their mommy and daddy – or after mommy and daddy the federal government – to keep treating them like babies forever.

That’s why the worse things get economically, the better off the Democrat Party will be in 2016.

Advertisements

Are You Doing Better Than You Were Four Years Ago Under Obama’s Failed Fiasco Of A Presidency? ‘No, But That’s Not The Question,’ Say His Minions

September 4, 2012

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:

David Plouffe (who frankly should have been explaining why he took money from IRAN):

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 CUTSIt 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.

Let’s see, what did the lying dishonest weasel say back in 2008?

“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.