Just How Bad Has Obama Devastated the Middle Class?

I'm only going to list the first of the list of 27. It hits the nail on the head.

#1 American families in the middle 20 percent of the income scale now earn less money than they did on the day when Barack Obama first entered the White House.

Okay, so it comes from a conservative blog. Instead of attacking the messenger, why don't you liberals trying refuting the statements?

Read more @ http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/01/27-facts-that-prove-just-how-badly.html

 

Why try to refute that statement, it's true. Problem for you is that the middle earned 20% less money within a week (not 6.5 years) of Obama entering the White House. He didn't even have a chance to take his first crap in the White House before the economy was totally gutted.

 

Another canned "Bush caused it" reply.

 

So you think everyone took a pay cut?

 

I noticed you did not
Do not say the statement is wrong

 

America has been doing so much better than the rest of the developed world. It was a GLOBAL financial crisis, with its epicentre in the USA. Name any other developed country that has performed better than the USA since the BUSH II crisis.

Obama saved the USA.

 

Being canned doesn't make it any less obviously true.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm saying we were losing 700,000 jobs per month and the biggest pay cuts came very early in Obama's tenure.

 

Nobody took a pay cut.......

It just sounds good to say they did.......and use it as an excuse.

I actually got a raise......

 

As always, note how the topic is framed by way of a leading question as if its premise had any truth to it which it does not.


The OP fails to prove his point and expects everyone to believe it. Therefore, let us see some proof of his claim. Also let us see him address the failure of Republicans in Congress to close foreign tax shelters as requested by President Obama - this would have ended the Nation's debt and made life much better for the middle class as everyone knows.

 

Go to the link in post #1, every one of the 27 items is linked to a source. Or just google the item, even the HuffPoo is making the claim that the middle class has suffered under this 6 year "recovery".

It pays to read the OP before posting.

 

Not one of those sources actually proves that Obama has caused the middle class to shrink. On the contrary a more rational reading of these writings would show it is Republican politics and obstructionism that has caused much of these problems.

 

That's a strong indictment against conservative policies. Housing bubbles being promoted by the right, and following up with obstruction of known ways to make economic recovery faster and stronger, says that the GOP should step up and take the blame from their policies.

 

How about those 700,000 people per month who were taking pay cuts from $50,000/yr. to $0/yr.? If I'm doing my math right, that's about a $50,000/yr. pay cut.

 

Amen! It continually amazes me how people jump in with their ignorant comments without bothering the read the OP.

 

Amazing that some right wingers are willing to believe opinionated bunk and accept it as "fact". Then they expect everyone else to buy into the myths they worship.

I thought this forum had evolved from the days of ridiculous threads such as "why are progressive men intimidated by conservative women" and other such blatant nonsense. Clearly some right wingers still cannot get past these self created myths.

If you want to be believed, you need to present evidence.

 

What posters like you fail to grasp is that the economy is really run by ideas supported by laws and memes that cannot be managed by a single POTUS without a complete reversal of the structure of the economy itself. Yes, a POTUS can help or destroy parts of the economy but unless they are revolutionaries, nothing changes fundamentally. We are seeing a groundswell of distrust of capitalism grow everywhere. This is the kindling that might start a fire that reverses the trends. The GOP and their economic foils do not want anything to change. The left wants change and so does Obama, that is the key difference.

 

Have any of you ever bothered to read and pay attention to The Federal Register?

Day in and day out, faceless members of the Executive Branch (which, by the way, is headed by President Barrack Hussein Obama) issues hundreds of pages of rules and regulations concerning such things as what kind of toilet paper you can flush down your toilets to what farmers can allow to run off their property when it rains.

Those - far more than legislation - is what determined the basic economy of this nation! They are the result of executive orders and memorandum and, to date, very few have been overturned by legislative action because the previous Senate Majority Leader never allowed them to be voted on!

In other words, based on the power of his pen, POTUS plays an immense control over how our economy runs on a daily basis.

That's what you liberals cannot seem to understand - or accept.

 

This isn't an Obama issue. It's an American capitalism issue that began in the 1970s. If you have 14 minutes to watch, this explains it very clearly and it's exactly why the middle class today has been eroded to where it is now. It's a speech to a group by Dr. Richard Wolff, economics professor UMASS Amherst and visiting New School University, New York, and taught economics at Yale as well, among others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKFoqnc3Hg

 

It is a trend that has been going on for thirty years. Primary causes are globalization , automation, and two member working families so the supply of labor becomes increasingly inflated resulting in lower wages. Very simple and nothing Obama, Bush , Clinton or the next president will be able to change.

But if you really think politicians can change the trend please post your ideas.

 

You appear to be confused between the state of the middle class and the state of the economy. Thay are not the same. The economy is doing quite well, corporate profits are at record levels, the stock market is close to,record highs and the GDP has recovered nicely. Could they be even better, well maybe if the rest of the world improves we could sell more goods and services but none of this is really going to help the middle and lower classes.

If regulations were really the problem corporate profits would be suffering. Yes you could remove regulations but you will be hard pressed to find any credible source to say that removing regulations on business will change the overall trajectory of wealth distribution in the United States. Removing regulations will however increase corporate profits and improve stockholder values somewhat

 

Oh goodie a blog! Bound to get some solid evidence from that!

Point 1 is just plain silly. Why pick the middle 40-60%? The data doesn't indicate if folks from that group moved to 61%+ and if they did that would indeed account for a drop in the income for the middle group but doesn't imply that there's any overall damage done to the middle-class.

I don't believe Obama has done much to help the middle class, but I also don't like cherry picked data used for the purposes of scoring political points. Until there's major changes to the tax code the middle class will continue to shrink and wealth will continue to aggregate at the top. That has been and will likely continue to be the trend regardless of who's sitting in the oval office.

Get rid of the Mortgage interest deduction, set the capital gains tax to the same as income and remove the cap on income and then maybe you'd see some upward movement, but those will never happen because their politically unpopular.

 

How was the Housing bubble promoted by the right? It was the Bush Administration who called for stronger regulations of Fannie and Freddie, and what they got from Congress was a half-assed solution. So Bush, in his obligation was allowed to veto the bill. In much the same way the current POTUS waves the veto pen over significantly lesser pieces of legislation(and most certainly not because they wouldn't work but because he's ideologically opposed to them)

I'd also have to add that while Bush did pass that Housing Act, I believe he did so primarily as a compromise. That definitely wasn't a Conservative piece of legislation. Even if he hadn't passed the bill, it would've most certainly passed under the Obama Administration.(You can't tell me that Far Left-Liberals did not advocate for minority house ownership. Clinton was the one who started to pave the step towards it back in '98.)

What the aftermath of the worst crisis since the Great Depression shows us is that Economic Decisions cannot be political, but instead economic and solidly rational. It's for this reason that I'm pro-border and that we must do all that we can do to secure our country's demographic advantages. Because a mere Democratic victory doesn't secure our nation's food supply, the health of our nation or even minority rights.

Minorities cannot be majorities in lands which they haven't been raised in or to believe its culture. Let's look at South Africa to see what kind of tragedy that results in. Do we want to be the next Zimbabwe? If the current demographic numbers are not overwhelmingly Democratic, then the Democratic Party will have to reconfigure its political strategy around winning those Americans who are indeed Americans. Not looking outside.

All the Democratic Party will accomplish is a new and very fractured paradigm. A country without a single majority, but instead groups with an "equal" proportional size, resulting in civil war. One along ethnical, not national or even state lines. A very different state of affairs than the North-South one. And this one, can't be brought together by a government decree.

Ethnical/tribal wars aren't resolved by government being policeman. The Democrats are making a HUGE mistake on America's shoulders.

 

You're joking. Right?

 

No,you really are confused. The state of the overall economy and the state of the middle class are different issues.

 

Sounds like your solution to America's problems is to deport anyone who isn't of Native American heritage.