Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#983213 Sep 15, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> y
STEPHEN MOORE
For better or worse, a truism of American politics is that voters vote their pocketbooks. Yet according to a new report on median household incomes by Sentier Research, in 2012 millions of American voters apparently cast ballots contrary to their economic self-interest.
Each month the consultants at Sentier analyze the numbers from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and estimate the trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. On Aug. 21, Sentier released "Household Income on the Fourth Anniversary of the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2013." The finding that grabbed headlines was that real median household income "has fallen by 4.4 percent since the 'economic recovery' began in June 2009." In dollar terms, median household income fell to $52,098 from $54,478, a loss of $2,380.
What was largely overlooked, however, is that those who were most likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have suffered the steepest income declines. Mr. Obama was re-elected with 51% of the vote. Five demographic groups were crucial to his victory: young voters, single women, those with only a high-school diploma or less, blacks and Hispanics. He cleaned up with 60% of the youth vote, 67% of single women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 64% of those without a high-school diploma, according to exit polls.
According to the Sentier research, households headed by single women, with and without children present, saw their incomes fall by roughly 7%. Those under age 25 experienced an income decline of 9.6%. Black heads of households saw their income tumble by 10.9%, while Hispanic heads-of-households' income fell 4.5%, slightly more than the national average. The incomes of workers with a high-school diploma or less fell by about 8%(-6.9% for those with less than a high-school diploma and -9.3% for those with only a high-school diploma).
Blaming Obama yet again for the effects of the Bush recession.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#983214 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
folks if you lack reading and comprehension skills, maybe you shouldn't be posting...it just confirms what everyone knows,
the subject was income gains of blacks and women since the 80's as compared to under President Obama.
Don't point fingers when you were the one to change the topic and failing to notice this.

The discussion was documented gains that blacks and women were making in income prior to Obama.

Your attempt to obfuscate this and claim the figures wrong by using income inequality data is mixing apple and oranges.

Ergos isn't a magic word that overcomes this mixing of stats.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#983215 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, from everything I've read, real earnings of the middle class and poor have been shrinking since the 80's
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/i...
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/us-income-i...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/inco...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/ineq...
http://www.reuters.com/subjects/income-inequa...
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/201...
The income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened to a record last year.
The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share in Internal Revenue Service figures going back a century.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But until last year, the top 1 percent's share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 percent it reached in 1927, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.
One of them, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.
Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose 19.6 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
The more that society depends on advanced technology instead of manual labor, the more income will be skewed to those with superior intellect and technical skills.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#983216 Sep 15, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! They used to take shifts!!!
LOL. Yes. I can think of one screen name in particular that several people post under. Sometimes they don't get their lies straight which makes them scramble with more lies in an attempt to explain themselves. It's laughable.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983217 Sep 15, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Karma and Yeah this is for you -
Definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
An authorization for use of military force is a euphemism for war.
No constitutional scholar, that I am aware of, has ever claimed that a POTUS went illegally to war using "authorization for use of force..."
lol! Son, why do you insist on dodging the point?

No one care what the denotative definition is.

It's as prescribed in the Constitution and how you used it.

Still trying to slither away from your point I see. It's funny how you claim I was beginning to make sense when you're trying to run from it!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983218 Sep 15, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Islam is an international terrorist conspiracy, not a religion.
Then by your definition, so must Christianity since they're of from the same tree.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#983219 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. my post was a reply to your post, so it should be "That isn't what "I" was talking about"
2. I was pointing out that since blacks and women are part of the middle class and poor, for their incomes to have been going up since the 80's and during the Bush administration doesn't make sense, as those two groups have seen their income and wealth go down.
here's part of your post
"This is a stunning reversal of the progress for these groups during the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, and even through the start of the 2008 recession. Census data reveal that from 1981-2008 the biggest income gains were for black women, 81%; followed by white women, 67%; followed by black men, 31%; and white males at 8%.
In other words, the gender and racial income gaps shrank by more than in any period in American history during the Reagan boom of the 1980s and the Clinton boom of the 1990s. Women and blacks continued to make economic progress during the mini-Bush expansion from 2002-07. "Income inequality" has been exacerbated during the Obama era. "
Just provided evidence that your conclusion is false.
"Middle class" is a set of values, not an income level.

Make your arguments by referring to specific income levels.

Most people with middle class values are doing very well, or at least do not continually blame others for their problems.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#983220 Sep 15, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>OMG OMG OMG cut 4 hours a week. The cheapsass b*astard were already using PT help to avoid paying certain benefits.
So, Dumbass Dave would be happy to take a 12.5% income reduction for the glory of ObamaKKKare.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983221 Sep 15, 2013
Whatever wrote:
Obama, in an ABC interview airing now, is blaming ATMs again for the bad job market.
lol! I bet you write for those supermarket tabloids?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#983222 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
folks if you lack reading and comprehension skills, maybe you shouldn't be posting...it just confirms what everyone knows,
the subject was income gains of blacks and women since the 80's as compared to under President Obama.
Why are you people consumed with envy based on gender and race instead of building an economy with growth for all?

Try baking a bigger pie instead of slicing a shrinking pie differently.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#983223 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
we already have one
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?/ 5/24/2012 / http://tinyurl.com/c6b2acy
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05 ...
Any statistics that charge Bush for Porkulus are bogus and unworthy of further discussion.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983224 Sep 15, 2013
Whatever wrote:
1. my post was a reply to your post, so it should be "That isn't what "I" was talking about"
Folks, if you are changing the topic, the original poster has the right to challenge you for obfuscating the issue.
lol! And yet, you have no declaration of wars you claim exist.

Son, you clearly aren't making any sense.

You're only trying to escape!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#983225 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. my post was a reply to your post, so it should be "That isn't what "I" was talking about"
2. I was pointing out that since blacks and women are part of the middle class and poor, for their incomes to have been going up since the 80's and during the Bush administration doesn't make sense, as those two groups have seen their income and wealth go down.
here's part of your post
"This is a stunning reversal of the progress for these groups during the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, and even through the start of the 2008 recession. Census data reveal that from 1981-2008 the biggest income gains were for black women, 81%; followed by white women, 67%; followed by black men, 31%; and white males at 8%.
In other words, the gender and racial income gaps shrank by more than in any period in American history during the Reagan boom of the 1980s and the Clinton boom of the 1990s. Women and blacks continued to make economic progress during the mini-Bush expansion from 2002-07. "Income inequality" has been exacerbated during the Obama era. "
Just provided evidence that your conclusion is false.
You're hopeless get like the rest.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#983226 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
where did I ask him to prove his conclusion was false?????
just go back and point it out.
Why don't you make your case how income inequality changes the data that blacks and women were making income gains during 90s on.

The data is accurate and cannot be changed based on another set of unrelated data.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983227 Sep 15, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
"The economy would be this bad or better if Obama had done absolutely NOTHING!"
Prove it dumbass. Prove we would be we we are today in the same amount of time.
I knew that when Obama took office & when the economy improved you f*cking morons would scream how it would have improved any how. This is how PATHETIC you people are.
Obama & hos stimulus took us from looking nearly 800,000 jobs a month to zero is less than a year.
And then this whopper: Flack said: "Obama had nothing to do with it except cause the layoffs in the first place."
This GD idiot is blaming Obama for the Bush recession saying he caused all the layoffs.
The only people that have done squat are your heroes the Republicans who blocked nearly every effort to get our economy growing faster.
Well, cons were complaining Obama didn't 'fix' the economy on January 20, 2009.

So obviously they knew the economy was terrible at that pont!
Whatever

Gering, NE

#983228 Sep 15, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I bet you write for those supermarket tabloids?
I wish I was kidding but...

Obama again is complaining about technology taking away jobs such as bank tellers.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983229 Sep 15, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama has no economic plan except to place more people on welfare and more people in government jobs, a plan similar to the Detroit plan.
lol! Romney's plan was to give them 'opportunity,' whatever that meant considering he kicked a lot of people out of jobs!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#983230 Sep 15, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't point fingers when you were the one to change the topic and failing to notice this.
The discussion was documented gains that blacks and women were making in income prior to Obama.
Your attempt to obfuscate this and claim the figures wrong by using income inequality data is mixing apple and oranges.
Ergos isn't a magic word that overcomes this mixing of stats.
lol! Still waiting for your declaration of wars son.

Still waiting......

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#983231 Sep 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
folks if you lack reading and comprehension skills, maybe you shouldn't be posting...it just confirms what everyone knows,
the subject was income gains of blacks and women since the 80's as compared to under President Obama.
Yes and what you fail to understand is they lost ground under Obama because you can't read. Nobody was talking about the wealthy(changing the question).
Whatever

Gering, NE

#983232 Sep 15, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Blaming Obama yet again for the effects of the Bush recession.
And ATMs is destroying the economy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 min Saint Demetrius 50,006
Abia State University, Direct entry admission c... 23 min prof vicktor 1
Abby 9-30 26 min edogxxx 2
Amy 9-30 29 min edogxxx 2
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 51 min Rogue Scholar 05 178,568
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 57 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,544
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Frijoles 69,461
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr edogxxx 98,321

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]