• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biggest Increase In Income In 50 Years

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,098
Reaction score
18,013
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Thanks Obama.
 
Black unemployment figures?
(Hint. All time high.)

Numbers of Americans on welfare, public assistance, food-stamps?
(Also, all time high.)

Cherry-pick much?

You two are whistling in the graveyard, I think.
:doh
 
Thanks Obama.
Wait Moot. Didn't you know that it's Bush's policies finally catching up to the present? :roll:
 
You people would line up and willingly vote for Hillary Clinton's corpse, that's how much you have bought into the Party Line and the Party Narrative.

They could wheel her dead body up onto the steps of the Capitol, and somebody could hold her withered claw of a hand onto the Bible, and somebody could whisper, "I, state your name, do solemnly swear...." and they would declare her President, and the start of the 3rd CAMELOT could begin, and you would cheer shamelessly.

It would be funny, if only it weren't so tragic and depressing.
:(
 
Black unemployment figures?
(Hint. All time high.)
LFPR isn't bad either. It was worse in the 50s, 60s, 70s. For blacks, it's stabilized since roughly 2011, whereas it's declined for the population as a whole.

fredgraph.png



Numbers of Americans on welfare, public assistance, food-stamps?
(Also, all time high.)
lol... Not so much.

Welfare barely exists anymore, Clinton crippled it. Since then, TANF participation has dropped like a stone. Long story short, people prefer to look for work rather than collect public assistance.

As to AFDC? Bush 43 eased eligibility. Thus, it is not surprising that AFCD participation started rising in 2001.

TANF_fig1b.png



Cherry-pick much?
Broad measures of wages is "cherry-picking?" lol

But hey, let's drill down a little bit!

The real median income of Hispanic households increased by 6.1 percent between 2014 and 2015. Non-Hispanic white and black households also saw increases of 4.4 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively. While Asian households had the highest median income in 2015, the percentage change in their real median income was not statistically significant between 2014 and 2015. The differences between the 2014 to 2015 percentage changes in median income for non-Hispanic white, black and Hispanic households were not statistically different.

So, the 2015 increase in wages was nearly the same for blacks as for non-Hispanic whites. Not bad.
 
You can keep blowing sunshine up each other's a$$ all you want, friend.
And you can keep posting shiny, Party-friendly graphics all you want as well.

People of intellect and integrity aren't buying the shabby lies.
The truth will out.
;)
 
You people would line up and willingly vote for Hillary Clinton's corpse, that's how much you have bought into the Party Line and the Party Narrative.

They could wheel her dead body up onto the steps of the Capitol, and somebody could hold her withered claw of a hand onto the Bible, and somebody could whisper, "I, state your name, do solemnly swear...." and they would declare her President, and the start of the 3rd CAMELOT could begin, and you would cheer shamelessly.

It would be funny, if only it weren't so tragic and depressing.
:(

Does that mean we would get Kaine instead? I'd vote for her corpse if that were the case.
 
Does that mean we would get Kaine instead? I'd vote for her corpse if that were the case.

You would have to check with the DNC on that one, brother.

The DNC, they of the impeccable credentials and unquestioned integrity, right?

I don't know, man.
It's such a s#%t sandwich.
:(
 
Food stamp usage is up over 34% since Obama took office.

Any liberal that looks at that statistic and is not ashamed of it is a failed liberal.

Obama was supposed to look after the little guy/gal. How the hell is making a ton more of them looking after them?


Plus home ownership rate is at an all time recorded low.


Thank you Obama.
 
Food stamp usage is up over 34% since Obama took office.

Any liberal that looks at that statistic and is not ashamed of it is a failed liberal.
Oh, good grief. Wasn't someone complaining about cherry-picking earlier?

SNAP participation started increasing in 2001, because Bush 43 lowered the eligibility requirements.

Meanwhile, AFDC/TANF participation has been cratering.

TANF_fig1b.png



Obama was supposed to look after the little guy/gal. How the hell is making a ton more of them looking after them?
Uh, hello? Are you not even reading the news now?

- Wages went up 5.2%
- Percentage in poverty went down 1.2%
- Since you missed it, more people can get health insurance / Medicaid now
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau up and running, including $11 billion in relief for over 27 million consumers as of mid-2015
- Preventing the creation of 1.5 million more poor people, by bailing out the US auto industry

And of course, Obama certainly did not create the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. You do know that, right? Right...?


Plus home ownership rate is at an all time recorded low.
Uh, hello? Are you not reading the news now?

Home ownership rates were inflated by a bubble in the housing market, and are now much closer to normal than they've been in years. What do you expect from the worst housing crisis perhaps in the history of the nation? A 100% bounce back after 6 months?


Thank you Obama.
You're welcome.
 
You can keep blowing sunshine up each other's a$$ all you want, friend.
And you can keep posting shiny, Party-friendly graphics all you want as well.

People of intellect and integrity aren't buying the shabby lies.
The truth will out.
;)

Dude, you have already been owned twice on this thread...by actual statistics.

You continue to embarrass yourself, its hilarious.
 
You can keep blowing sunshine up each other's a$$ all you want, friend.
And you can keep posting shiny, Party-friendly graphics all you want as well.

People of intellect and integrity aren't buying the shabby lies.
The truth will out.
;)

If you have an argument, feel free to make it.

Alluding to an argument that you neglect to articulate is not a valid substitute for an actual argument.
 
Quite possibly the funniest thing I have read all week.

Thanks for that, my Southwestern US-dwelling friend.
:lol:

Your post says nothing.

But, you were owned, big time.
 
Your post says nothing.
But, you were owned, big time.

You seem to be fond of that word.

Is it a thing with you, this business of feeling that you have bested someone else on the internet?

I'm not a fan of the word, quite personally.
It carries with it a spirit of a negative connotation, 'owned' as in made a slave or subject of somebody else.

I certainly don't feel owned.
Not by you or anyone else.

Let's explore this together;

Your pal visbec posted a variety of shiny charts depicting some recent economic up-turns.
The statistics behind those shiny charts may or may not necessarily reveal any particularly good news for your President, but in no time at all, there was a wholesale celebration of this awesome victory for your President anyway. "Thank you, Obama," etc.

I accused the OP of cherry-picking glad/happy news, and offered some darker economic facts regarding black unemployment (well, perhaps I could have clarified, young black male unemployment) being at an all time high, and also regarding an all time record number of Americans on federal assistance, food stamps, etc.

You and your pals reacted angrily, provided more shiny charts, and declared me owned.

Now, there are many things that this President can rightly take credit for.
* Creating and fostering a climate of hatred and mistrust between black Americans and white Americans and cops in general - Check
* Reckless spending resulting in a doubling of the national debt, more debt accumulated by any single President in history - Check
* A cavalier history of going golfing and vacationing at the most inopportune times - Check
* Degrading the image and prestige of the United States worldwide, and constantly apologizing to other world leaders for the US's history of exceptionalism - Check
* Rushing a crooked and morally-bankrupt pair of Bills into Law that have steadily driven up health care costs in this country, and contributed to a staggering growth in government bureaucracy - Check
* Degrading the image and prestige of the Office of the US President simply by being a pathological liar and a self-absorbed hedonist - Check

Here are things that no President should be knee-jerk given credit for, or criticism for, at any time in history:
* Seasonal rises and drops in per capita income
* Seasonal rises and drops in employment figures
* Daily and weekly rises and drops in the key economic indicators (Dow Jones Industrial, interest rates, stock market fluctuations, etc)
* Flooding in Louisiana and droughts in California

I don't know, friend beefheart who affects the avatar of Frank Zappa;
I'm just not feeling owned, sir.

I'm just not feeling it.
;)
 
I would say this has less to do with Obama and more to do with congress stopping him from passing more destructive bills.
It would also suggest that the recovery has actually started now not before.

worst recession recovery still on track.
 
Quite possibly the funniest thing I have read all week.

Thanks for that, my Southwestern US-dwelling friend.
:lol:

Translation: you've got served and all you have in response to that is sputtering, wheezing and running from your own claims.

Same old, same old.
 
Translation: you've got served and all you have in response to that is sputtering, wheezing and running from your own claims.
Same old, same old.

You misunderstand, friend Tanngrisnir.

The reference to something being proven, on the internet no less, by 'actual statistics' is a scream.
It's hilarious.

You did study Statistics at University, no?
Or in high school at least?

How well versed are you in the arts and sciences of statistics, statistical analysis, objective presentation of said analysis, and (non-objective) spin of any given study or analysis?
I'm only asking because it's central to the discussion, and to my very-accurate observation of just how funny that was.

No offense intended, by the way.
I just found it hilarious, given the non-scientific cultures and sub-cultures that exist on most web forums.

Still buddies?
:)
 
You misunderstand, friend Tanngrisnir.

No, I understand perfectly that you had your ass handed to you, and all you can do is sputter.
The reference to something being proven, on the internet no less, by 'actual statistics' is a scream.
It's hilarious.

You did study Statistics at University, no?
Or in high school at least?

How well versed are you in the arts and sciences of statistics, statistical analysis, objective presentation of said analysis, and (non-objective) spin of any given study or analysis?
I'm only asking because it's central to the discussion, and to my very-accurate observation of just how funny that was.

No offense intended, by the way.
I just found it hilarious, given the non-scientific cultures and sub-cultures that exist on most web forums. [q/uote]

Why try and reference something that I not only didn't mention, but that you have no background or concrete grasp of?

Still buddies?
:)

Oh, btw, sorry you had to turn tail and run from our last exchange.
 
No, I understand perfectly that you had your ass handed to you, and all you can do is sputter.
Oh, btw, sorry you had to turn tail and run from our last exchange.

You are deflecting, and in a common (i.e., not particularly humorous or compelling) fashion.
No offense, but it's true.

Do you have any formal training or education in statistics?
(I am blessed, in that have had just that, by virtue of both my profession, and by some awesome life's circumstances.)

If you don't, that's okay.
Most web forum visitors don't have any proper schooling in Stats, and therefore they tend to fall for whatever shiny, glossy, Party-friendly charts and graphs are thrown in front of them and presented as some sort of compelling evidence (or even, God forbid) proof.

I'm just trying to establish a baseline so that we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

And if you are reluctant to answer, I can respect that too.
We are all God's children, whether we benefited from a University education or not.
:peace
 
Cherry-pick much?
I don't believe that term means what you think it means. Providing the broad overview statistic, the statistic which is reported, is not cherry picking. Ignoring the broad overall data to find the subsection of data which aligns to what you want to believe is, however, cherry-picking.
 
You are deflecting, and in a common (i.e., not particularly humorous or compelling) fashion.
No offense, but it's true.

No, I'm not. Try and refrain from using words that you don't understand. You won't look so desperate that way.
Do you have any formal training or education in statistics?
(I am blessed, in that have had just that, by virtue of both my profession, and by some awesome life's circumstances.)

If you don't, that's okay.
Most web forum visitors don't have any proper schooling in Stats, and therefore they tend to fall for whatever shiny, glossy, Party-friendly charts and graphs are thrown in front of them and presented as some sort of compelling evidence (or even, God forbid) proof.

I'm just trying to establish a baseline so that we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

Again, sorry you had your ass handed to you and now you're lashing out about that.

Try and be less emotional. You might make a cogent argument that way. Some day.
And if you are reluctant to answer, I can respect that too.
We are all God's children, whether we benefited from a University education or not.
:peace

So, if I'm reading you right, you're insanely jealous of those of us that do actually have university educations.

You have my pity, but that's about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom