Skip to comments.Obama 's Accelerating Downward Spiral For America (Some Facts from Forbes Mag)
Posted on 09/03/2012 12:46:54 AM PDT by Innovative
New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That's a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month's income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better.
Obama never tires of telling us that the economy was in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression when he entered office, as if he was the only President to have suffered a recession early in his term. But nobody expected that he would use the vast powers of the most powerful office in the world to make it worse. But that is what he has done.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Nothing compared to the destruction of the hated kulaks (the middle class) during a second Obama term.
The Kulaks are a good comparison to what is ahead for us. Class envy just moved down to the next highest class as the wealth is re-distributed, and Soviet history is illustrative.
Somethings I’ve learned over the past 3.5 years reading “rebuttals” to facts as presented in this article:
- Americans enjoy higher food and energy prices as long as the right people are in control.
- Seniors don’t care that they are having to spend the principle of their investments due to almost 0% returns.
- Jobs don’t matter when you can have funemployment.
I read the comments as well and the one true point made in one of them is the decline in manufacturing jobs. Of course that poster while presenting the fact that they peaked in 1965 fails to recognize that while capital will indeed seek the highest returns that the issue is the abject failure of our leadership to make America competitive.
When government workers unionized we then had 2 separate forces striving for higher wages. Were it only the private sector the unions never would have had the success they did. Once government was involved and the permanent corrupt relationship between elected officials and public unions came about we were doomed from a competitive standpoint.
Furthermore successive congresses and administrations have done little or nothing to encourage capital to be invested in jobs producing businesses here in the U.S. I am not advocating a policy of protectionism which would be a disaster for us and the world but simple tax measures to make it cheaper to keep labor here than to relocate operations in the third world. The only reason those tax measures don’t exist is because the government cannot do without those revenues (ignoring the fact they’d get revenue from workers taxes) since it has grown into one vast bloated self perpetuating machine or redistribution which the article correctly points out.
But Obama has offset the decline in wages with 50-60% inflation at the grocery store.
I don’t see the problem...
An issue of The Economist explained this phenomenon last fall. The central bankers of the world -- ECB, BoJ, the Fed -- have decided that the elderly have to be encouraged to come back to work (in order to eat) .... not enough young replacements, you see, so no matter how much or how long people worked in the past, no matter how much they saved, that savings needs to be zeroed out to get them back to work (for cheap, of course, in the "secondary" job market).
In the meantime, of course, different strokes for J.P. Morgan Chase, B of A, Morgan Stanley, Goldman, and the rest of the Boys Downtown. They get free money at zero interest to purchase long Treasurys paying 5% .... and sit on it, taking nice spreads for near-zero risk, and of course there's no inflationary effect (well, academically speaking) because the banks aren't extending credit hardly at all.
No interest for the old folks -- just McJobs.