If this is your recovery, you can keep it

[kallend 2,146]

brenthutch

Some would say that the "spread the wealth around" philosophy proalgated by Obama may have something to do with that.

I'm sure Obama is personally to blame for the drop in median real household income from 2001-2009 while GWB was president. He orchestrated the Watergate burglary too, as well as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

[kallend 2,146]

cvfd1399

I'm sure you simply ignored the cherry-picked dates in brenthutch's post, so as to include the 2007-2009 Great Bush Recession and somehow blame it on Obama.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,107]

>Some would say that the "spread the wealth around" philosophy proalgated
>by Obama may have something to do with that.

Of course. And some would say that vaccines cause autism, and Obama was really born in Kenya, and that Bush masterminded 9/11 using nanothermite and tactical nukes.

[billvon 3,107]

> He orchestrated the Watergate burglary too, as well as the Iraqi invasion of
>Kuwait, and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914.

Now don't be ridiculous. Watergate was Hillary.

[cvfd1399 0]

kallend

***

I'm sure you simply ignored the cherry-picked dates in brenthutch's post, so as to include the 2007-2009 Great Bush Recession and somehow blame it on Obama.

You were right about the first part but this was just well...I'm sure you know.

Quote

He orchestrated the Watergate burglary too, as well as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914.

[kallend 2,146]

billvon

> He orchestrated the Watergate burglary too, as well as the Iraqi invasion of
>Kuwait, and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914.

Now don't be ridiculous. Watergate was Hillary.

Oh, right. Mea culpa. I must have been thinking of the Manson murders.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Some would say that the "spread the wealth around" philosophy proalgated
>by Obama may have something to do with that.

Of course. And some would say that vaccines cause autism, and Obama was really born in Kenya, and that Bush masterminded 9/11 using nanothermite and tactical nukes.

Strawman.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

***

I'm sure you simply ignored the cherry-picked dates in brenthutch's post, so as to include the 2007-2009 Great Bush Recession and somehow blame it on Obama.

Have some more cherries.
"The tepid growth rate so far in 2015 merely extends the track record of the 23 quarter post-Great Recession recovery. The annualized growth rate of 2.24 percent dead last compared to the six other recoveries since 1960, which averaged 3.97 percent after 23 quarters. This translates into nearly $1.7 trillion (in constant 2009 dollars) in absent economic growth.

But the more amazing comparison is that of the Reagan—which trounces this current so-called recovery. That recovery’s sizzling 4.8 percent annualized growth through 23 quarters was more than twice the rate of the current recovery. In other words, for every $1 of economic growth experienced during the present time, the Reagan recovery produced more than $2. As a result, the Reagan recovery gap now stands at a record $2.48 trillion of real annual GDP (in 2009 dollars). The economy is now more than 15 percent smaller than it would have been with Reagan style growth."

[kallend 2,146]

brenthutch

******

I'm sure you simply ignored the cherry-picked dates in brenthutch's post, so as to include the 2007-2009 Great Bush Recession and somehow blame it on Obama.

Have some more cherries.
"The tepid growth rate so far in 2015 merely extends the track record of the 23 quarter post-Great Recession recovery. The annualized growth rate of 2.24 percent dead last compared to the six other recoveries since 1960, which averaged 3.97 percent after 23 quarters. This translates into nearly $1.7 trillion (in constant 2009 dollars) in absent economic growth.

But the more amazing comparison is that of the Reagan—which trounces this current so-called recovery. That recovery’s sizzling 4.8 percent annualized growth through 23 quarters was more than twice the rate of the current recovery. In other words, for every $1 of economic growth experienced during the present time, the Reagan recovery produced more than $2. As a result, the Reagan recovery gap now stands at a record $2.48 trillion of real annual GDP (in 2009 dollars). The economy is now more than 15 percent smaller than it would have been with Reagan style growth."

Moving the goalposts too, I see, from income to GDP.

However, The current recovery looks pretty good when you see where GWB left GDP growth rate.

www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

*********

I'm sure you simply ignored the cherry-picked dates in brenthutch's post, so as to include the 2007-2009 Great Bush Recession and somehow blame it on Obama.

Have some more cherries.
"The tepid growth rate so far in 2015 merely extends the track record of the 23 quarter post-Great Recession recovery. The annualized growth rate of 2.24 percent dead last compared to the six other recoveries since 1960, which averaged 3.97 percent after 23 quarters. This translates into nearly $1.7 trillion (in constant 2009 dollars) in absent economic growth.

But the more amazing comparison is that of the Reagan—which trounces this current so-called recovery. That recovery’s sizzling 4.8 percent annualized growth through 23 quarters was more than twice the rate of the current recovery. In other words, for every $1 of economic growth experienced during the present time, the Reagan recovery produced more than $2. As a result, the Reagan recovery gap now stands at a record $2.48 trillion of real annual GDP (in 2009 dollars). The economy is now more than 15 percent smaller than it would have been with Reagan style growth."

Moving the goalposts too, I see, from income to GDP.

However, The current recovery looks pretty good when you see where GWB left GDP growth rate.

www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

Ok, my bad, I will keep it simple. Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose $2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama administration median HH income dropped $4046. And I am sure you will recall the "stagflation" crippled economy Carter left.

[billvon 3,107]

>Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose
>$2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama
>administration median HH income dropped $4046.

This, then, should be very inconvenient for your worldview:

==================
Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

Adam Hartung
Forbes

There was a time, before primaries, when each party’s platform was really important. Voters didn’t pick a candidate, the party did. Then voters read what policies the party planned to implement should it control the executive branch, and possibly a legislative majority. It was the policies that drew the most attention – not the candidates.

Digging deeper today than shortened debate-level headlines, there is a considerable difference in the recommended economic policies of the two dominant parties.

The common viewpoint is that Republicans are good for business, which is good for the economy. Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, laissez faire the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy. Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers.

Right?

Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done it in a great, easy to read book; “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box.” Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America’s dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression.

. . .

The authors looked at a range of economic metrics including inflation, unemployment, corporate profit growth, stock market performance, household income growth, economy (GDP) growth, months in recession and others. To their surprise (I had the opportunity to interview Mr. Goldfarb) they discovered that laissez faire policies had far less benefits than expected, and in fact produced almost universal negative economic outcomes for the nation!

. . . Here are just a few facts that caused me to realize that my long-term love affair with Milton Friedman‘s writing and recommended policies in “Free to Choose” were grounded in a theory I long admired, but that simply have proven to be myths when applied.

- Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
- Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
- Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
- Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
- The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

We often remember the myth, not the real facts.

The book looks past today’s economic myths by using long forgotten facts to set the record straight. For example, in explaining President Reagan‘s great economic recovery of the 1980s it is often attributed to the stimulative impact of major tax cuts (ERTA.) But in reality the 1981 tax cuts backfired, leading to massive deficits and a weaker economy with a double dip recession as unemployment soared. So in 1982 Reagan signed (TEFRA) the largest peacetime tax increase in our nation’s history. In his tenure Reagan signed 9 tax bills – 7 of which raised taxes.

. . .

The book covers only Presidents Hoover through W. Bush. But as we near this election I asked Mr. Goldfarb his view on the incumbent Democrat’s first 4 years. His response:

“Obama at this time would rank on par with Reagan."

Corporate profits have risen under Obama more than any other president. The stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance.

============
http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/09/22/12-habits-that-set-ultra-successful-people-apart/

[brenthutch 444]

At least I apologized for moving the goalposts.

[turtlespeed 226]

brenthutch

At least I apologized for moving the goalposts.

1945 - 1948 we had 5.6% GDP growth.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose
>$2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama
>administration median HH income dropped $4046.

This, then, should be very inconvenient for your worldview:

My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the average American family. Apparently your worldview is that cooperate profits and the stock portfolios of the 1% is how we should benchmark success.

[billvon 3,107]

>My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the
>average American family.

So I take it that you will vote Democratic in the future so that doesn't happen again?

[kallend 2,146]

brenthutch

***>Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose
>$2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama
>administration median HH income dropped $4046.

This, then, should be very inconvenient for your worldview:

My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the average American family. Apparently your worldview is that cooperate profits and the stock portfolios of the 1% is how we should benchmark success.

Wow, you just can't keep those goalposts still. Didn't like the effect the GHWB and GWB presidencies had on GDP, I guess.

Good reason for not inviting another Bush to occupy the White House.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the
>average American family.

So I take it that you will vote Democratic in the future so that doesn't happen again?

It happened under a Democrat.

[Amazon 7]

brenthutch

***>My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the
>average American family.

So I take it that you will vote Democratic in the future so that doesn't happen again?

It happened under a Democrat.

With the Compassionate conservatives of the GOP doing everything they can to harm those American families financially so the black guy looks bad and then those poor folks blame the wrong people and not the real people who caused the pain in the first place.

[brenthutch 444]

I think GWB was a failed president. No child left behind, Medicare part D, the Iraq war, huge expanse of government, domestic survailance, record deficit, Wall Street bailout, etc. etc.. The only thing worse is our current president, GWB on acid.

[cvfd1399 0]

kallend

******>Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose
>$2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama
>administration median HH income dropped $4046.

This, then, should be very inconvenient for your worldview:

My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the average American family. Apparently your worldview is that cooperate profits and the stock portfolios of the 1% is how we should benchmark success.

Wow, you just can't keep those goalposts still. Didn't like the effect the GHWB and GWB presidencies had on GDP, I guess.

Good reason for not inviting another Bush to occupy the White House. despite the usual bush republican hating aside can you address the numbers the man posted, and acknowledge that we are worse off now than we used to be despite who was at fault.

[brenthutch 444]

cvfd1399

*********>Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose
>$2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama
>administration median HH income dropped $4046.

This, then, should be very inconvenient for your worldview:

My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the average American family. Apparently your worldview is that cooperate profits and the stock portfolios of the 1% is how we should benchmark success.

Wow, you just can't keep those goalposts still. Didn't like the effect the GHWB and GWB presidencies had on GDP, I guess.

Good reason for not inviting another Bush to occupy the White House. despite the usual bush republican hating aside can you address the numbers the man posted, and acknowledge that we are worse off now than we used to be despite who was at fault.

No he can't.

[kallend 2,146]

cvfd1399

*********>Six years into the Reagan administration median household income rose
>$2,769 (inflation adjusted) while during the same period in the Obama
>administration median HH income dropped $4046.

This, then, should be very inconvenient for your worldview:

My worldview is that +$2769 is better than -$4046 in the pockets of the average American family. Apparently your worldview is that cooperate profits and the stock portfolios of the 1% is how we should benchmark success.

Wow, you just can't keep those goalposts still. Didn't like the effect the GHWB and GWB presidencies had on GDP, I guess.

Good reason for not inviting another Bush to occupy the White House. despite the usual bush republican hating aside can you address the numbers the man posted, and acknowledge that we are worse off now than we used to be despite who was at fault.

I have. He cherry picked the dates to make it look as if BHO is responsible for GWB's failed policies.

BTW, I am not worse off now. In fact I'm far better off.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Not everyone is a fortunate as you to live in a nice big house, own an airplane, and have a good job. You are probably closer to the 1% earners everyone is complaining about than you are middle class so you do not live in that income range where we are hurting you only read about it.

[billvon 3,107]

>It happened under a Democrat.

Hmm. I'd say the Bush recession happened under Bush.

Overall the economy does better, people make more money, the deficit goes down and employment improves under democrats. But if you enjoy losing money, vote GOP.