• 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!

It's a Middle-Class Boom

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,467
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just thought I'd post a little reminder why Trump will win in a landslide in 2020.

These are "WOW" type numbers of improved and improving income numbers for the common man.

As the article says, the Democrats are lying about the economy. I will add to this observation that their willing lap dogs in the media are helping them to spread their lies.

It's a Middle-Class Boom | RealClearPolitics

<snip>
" [Donald] Trump's economy is great for billionaires, not for working people," Sanders likes to say.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi grouses that under the Trump agenda, "the rich get richer, and everyone else is stuck paying the bill."
<snip>

But not a word of this is true, according to new Census Bureau data on the incomes of America's middle class.

<snip>

This study by former Census Bureau researchers and now statisticians at Sentier Research has found gigantic income gains for the middle class under Trump.

The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office.

Median family income is now (August 2019) $65,976, up from about $61,000 when he entered office (January 2017).
<snip>

Under George W. Bush, the household income gains were a little over $400 in eight years, and under Barack Obama the gains were $1,043.

That was in eight years for each.
<snip>

The tax cut also added an additional $2,500 to a typical family of four's after-tax incomes.

So after taking account of taxes owed, the income of most middle-class families is up closer to $6,000 in the Trump era.
<snip>
 
{sarc}

I am a Trump hater and I don't believe those made up numbers...and even if those made up numbers are true, Obama did it...not Trump.

{/sarc}
 
If people are at all active in managing their 401ks they have made very good money since Trump took office. This last year has been remarkable. Even the Sept/Oct slump not only didnt happen but portfolios grew. Middle income America should dread a commie/socialist presidency.
 
This study by former Census Bureau researchers and now statisticians at Sentier Research has found gigantic income gains for the middle class under Trump.

The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office.

A right wing hit piece with no link to the original study being cited. Show me the original study and we'll talk.

Here's something that is actually worth looking at...

Majority say they are not better off financially under Trump: poll | TheHill

The Financial Times-Peterson poll released Monday found that almost two-thirds of Americans said their finances haven’t gotten better since Trump has taken office.

Thirty-one percent of respondents in the new poll said their finances have gotten worse since Trump won the White House
 
If people are at all active in managing their 401ks they have made very good money since Trump took office.

The S&P 500 was negative in the year following Trump's tax cuts. Let me repeat that...Negative.

This last year has been remarkable.
Because the year before that it was negative. It had nowhere to go, but up. Overall since Trump's tax cuts passed the S&P has only grown by a total of 7% in two years. It normally grows by 10% every single year.

Middle income America should dread a commie/socialist presidency.
S&P 500 Performance by President | MacroTrends

Both Obama and Clinton had better stock market performance through the first 34 months of their presidency. The only Presidents Trump seems to be able to beat are other Republicans.
 
The S&P 500 was negative in the year following Trump's tax cuts. Let me repeat that...Negative.


Because the year before that it was negative. It had nowhere to go, but up. Overall since Trump's tax cuts passed the S&P has only grown by a total of 7% in two years. It normally grows by 10% every single year.


S&P 500 Performance by President | MacroTrends

Both Obama and Clinton had better stock market performance through the first 34 months of their presidency. The only Presidents Trump seems to be able to beat are other Republicans.
perhaps you just suck at managing your 401k. I have significant increases in all 3 years.
 
Just thought I'd post a little reminder why Trump will win in a landslide in 2020.

These are "WOW" type numbers of improved and improving income numbers for the common man.

As the article says, the Democrats are lying about the economy. I will add to this observation that their willing lap dogs in the media are helping them to spread their lies.

It's a Middle-Class Boom | RealClearPolitics

Trump's Shaky $5,000 Boast - FactCheck.org

So the increase is actually about 2.7%; after inflation of 1.8%, the real increase is about 0.9%.
 
The S&P 500 was negative in the year following Trump's tax cuts. Let me repeat that...Negative.

It's going to sound pedantic, but there is an issue of substance here. We need to know exactly how you transformed the index data (did you look at drawdown, sequences of negative rates of returns, average rates of returns and, if you used returns, did you use daily, weekly, monthly or yearly returns)?

The picture can change a lot depending on how you make mathematically precise the idea of the SP500 falling. However, if you use returns on daily adjusted closing prices taken over a year, you get negative growth rates only around the end of 2018... As I said, stories of "falling" indexes depend on how you transform those variables.

Because the year before that it was negative. It had nowhere to go, but up. Overall since Trump's tax cuts passed the S&P has only grown by a total of 7% in two years. It normally grows by 10% every single year.

If anyone wonders about the 10% figure, it's not too bad in recent years. Using adjusted closing daily prices, I computed yearly returns on 253 trading days. On average, this gives you a little over 11% per year if you start on January 4th, 2010. If you include the crisis, you get 5.6%, but Yahoo! gives me only enough data to compute these from January 2008 onwards -- and I am too lazy to go dig into CRSP.

On the other hand, I cannot be kind to someone who looks back on financial prices and claims that "it had nowhere to go but up." It might not be obvious to you, but your claim amounts to saying you found a pricing signal that was ignored by other market participants. A more plausible explanation is that you suffer from hindsight bias.

S&P 500 Performance by President | MacroTrends

Both Obama and Clinton had better stock market performance through the first 34 months of their presidency. The only Presidents Trump seems to be able to beat are other Republicans.

The link between the presidency and stock market performances is considerably looser than you believe. Clinton did not invent a bubble in technology stocks and Obama did not create a financial collapse.

I'd suspect the president would have an impact on stock performances through their announces at specific moments. If a new tax cut or tax hike is pushed forward, if some changes in regulations are made, then any correction in the expectations of market players will be observed. If enough money was tied to bets that things would be rosier, bad enough news will drive the price down, for example, but those are far and few in the 4 years of a mandate.

The guy is not quite God. He doesn't make or break what investors perceive throughout 4 years. That's just insane.
 
Perhaps you just suck at managing your 401k. I have significant increases in all 3 years.

Here is a plausible story:

Look at his avatar and his political affiliation. What are the chances he would say anything positive about Trump? Of course, he'll look at financial events and feel like he understands them not realizing how easy it is to retrospectively fit stories on past events and how tempting it is to pick just the one story that fits your political views.
 
Here is a plausible story:

Look at his avatar and his political affiliation. What are the chances he would say anything positive about Trump? Of course, he'll look at financial events and feel like he understands them not realizing how easy it is to retrospectively fit stories on past events and how tempting it is to pick just the one story that fits your political views.

Your post almost begs one to ask... why did you take MW to task without any skepticism regarding the phantom study that predicates the OP? Stephen Moore is a well known partisan hack, and his analysis has little if any credibility at all. If you can show where i am mistaken... i'm more than willing to learn.

However, i do recall a plethora of DP members arguing that stock market performance isn't a balanced way of measuring the economic success of the middle class.

Has this sentiment changed? If so... why?
 
Your post almost begs one to ask... why did you take MW to task without any skepticism regarding the phantom study that predicates the OP? Stephen Moore is a well known partisan hack, and his analysis has little if any credibility at all. If you can show where I am mistaken... I'm more than willing to learn.

One of my biggest pet peeves concerns people trying to retrospectively fit a narrative on financial data. It might give you the impression it makes sense, but all those stories only make sense retrospectively and only when you don't bother digging. A direct corollary of any one of those stories is that you have in your hand a pricing signal, something others ignored... Just ask yourself if these guys really got ahead of Rennaissance, GetCo or the trading operations at Goldman.

Another related thing that bugs me is people who insist on tying stock market performance over the years to who's in the White House. Presidents have military power and some discretionary power over agencies such as the EPA and, yes, a surprise can force a move, but as I pointed out you won't get that every day. If you actually bother looking into business cycle variations, you'd conclude which party is in the White House is unrelated to output growth (once you correct for falling rates over the last 50 years in all western countries, the correlation is insignificant). You'd also conclude that even things like monetary policy play minor roles. Most of our theoretical models and statistical studies put monetary policy as responsible for less than 10% of the movements you see in GDP growth. Now, that's monetary policy with a rather well behaved and smooth time series like GDP growth over the last 70 years or so. Just imagine what the WH being either blue or red means when you choose instead the highly volatile and noisy financial data.

I picked on MrWonka because he stepped on that hornet nest.

However, I do recall a plethora of DP members arguing that stock market performance isn't a balanced way of measuring the economic success of the middle class. Has this sentiment changed? If so... why?

Who did the hell say stock market performance is a core determinant of how well Joe Average is doing?
 
Last edited:
{sarc}

I am a Trump hater and I don't believe those made up numbers...and even if those made up numbers are true, Obama did it...not Trump.

{/sarc}

Let’s orient you here....

038781c2d37985f3933b5425d7e53c43.jpg
 
One of my biggest pet peeves concerns people trying to retrospectively fit a narrative on financial data. It might give you the impression it makes sense, but all those stories only make sense retrospectively and only when you don't bother digging. A direct corollary of any one of those stories is that you have in your hand a pricing signal, something others ignored... Just ask yourself if these guys really got ahead of Rennaissance, GetCo or the trading operations at Goldman.

Another related thing that bugs me is people who insist on tying stock market performance over the years to who's in the White House. Presidents have military power and some discretionary power over agencies such as the EPA and, yes, a surprise can force a move, but as I pointed out you won't get that every day. If you actually bother looking into business cycle variations, you'd conclude which party is in the White House is unrelated to output growth (once you correct for falling rates over the last 50 years in all western countries, the correlation is insignificant). You'd also conclude that even things like monetary policy play minor roles. Most of our theoretical models and statistical studies put monetary policy as responsible for less than 10% of the movements you see in GDP growth. Now, that's monetary policy with a rather well behaved and smooth time series like GDP growth over the last 70 years or so. Just imagine what the WH being either blue or red means when you choose instead the highly volatile and noisy financial data.

I picked on MrWonka because he stepped on that hornet nest.

Who did the hell say stock market performance is a core determinant of how well Joe Average is doing?

Did you not see post #3?

If people are at all active in managing their 401ks they have made very good money since Trump took office. This last year has been remarkable. Even the Sept/Oct slump not only didnt happen but portfolios grew. Middle income America should dread a commie/socialist presidency.

It's what predicated MW's response.

Furthermore, the OP failed to source any of the statistics he used to make his case.

This study by former Census Bureau researchers and now statisticians at Sentier Research has found gigantic income gains for the middle class under Trump.

The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office.

Median family income is now (August 2019) $65,976, up from about $61,000 when he entered office (January 2017).

fredgraph.png


Furthermore, these statistical sets are annually released (March).

IMO, the nonsense spouted from the OP and Vance is far more deserving of critique than what MW posted. You're new here, and so i don't expect you to know that the overwhelming majority of conservative/GOP posters did an about face regarding their views on stock market performance and the financial well being of the middle class.
 
Just thought I'd post a little reminder why Trump will win in a landslide in 2020.

These are "WOW" type numbers of improved and improving income numbers for the common man.

As the article says, the Democrats are lying about the economy. I will add to this observation that their willing lap dogs in the media are helping them to spread their lies.

It's a Middle-Class Boom | RealClearPolitics

<snip>
" [Donald] Trump's economy is great for billionaires, not for working people," Sanders likes to say.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi grouses that under the Trump agenda, "the rich get richer, and everyone else is stuck paying the bill."
<snip>

But not a word of this is true, according to new Census Bureau data on the incomes of America's middle class.

<snip>

This study by former Census Bureau researchers and now statisticians at Sentier Research has found gigantic income gains for the middle class under Trump.

The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office.

Median family income is now (August 2019) $65,976, up from about $61,000 when he entered office (January 2017).
<snip>

Under George W. Bush, the household income gains were a little over $400 in eight years, and under Barack Obama the gains were $1,043.

That was in eight years for each.
<snip>

The tax cut also added an additional $2,500 to a typical family of four's after-tax incomes.

So after taking account of taxes owed, the income of most middle-class families is up closer to $6,000 in the Trump era.
<snip>

How wonderfully delusional.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
Did you not see post #3?



It's what predicated MW's response.

Furthermore, the OP failed to source any of the statistics he used to make his case.



fredgraph.png


Furthermore, these statistical sets are annually released (March).

IMO, the nonsense spouted from the OP and Vance is far more deserving of critique than what MW posted. You're new here, and so i don't expect you to know that the overwhelming majority of conservative/GOP posters did an about face regarding their views on stock market performance and the financial well being of the middle class.

Are you seriously posting a chart that ends in 2018 to refute data gathered in 2019?
 
How wonderfully delusional.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

So, just to be clear, you're saying that economists disagree? This is a tad less than astonishing.

Are you saying that the stock markets, employment, wage rates, household income and personal wealth have NOT hit all time highs since Trump was elected?
 
Are you seriously posting a chart that ends in 2018 to refute data gathered in 2019?

I'm posting the official data. Median family income is an annual data set that is released each year in March. You're so desperate to give Trump a win that you'll post such garbage statistical analysis.

This thread is nothing of not a massive failure.
 
I'm posting the official data. Median family income is an annual data set that is released each year in March. You're so desperate to give Trump a win that you'll post such garbage statistical analysis.

This thread is nothing of not a massive failure.

SHHHHHHHH!!!! Quiet, you fool, you'll absolutely RUIN the fanatasy narrative!
 
I'm posting the official data. Median family income is an annual data set that is released each year in March. You're so desperate to give Trump a win that you'll post such garbage statistical analysis.

This thread is nothing of not a massive failure.

Do you have the data from March 2019 to which you refer?

Again, you're posting data from 2018 to refute data gathered in 2019.

Do you have any data from 1960? Maybe that would help... ?
 
I'll bet many of those who responded in your title poll think they didn't get a tax cut, either.

And you point is what? The truth is that they probably didn't get a tax cut, but it's irrelevant. From their perspective their financial situation hasn't improved so it doesn't really matter if YOU think they are. They don't agree. The minimum wage in this country hasn't been raised in over a decade. Meanwhile inflation keeps making those wages worth less and less.
 
Do you have the data from March 2019 to which you refer?

Again, you're posting data from 2018 to refute data gathered in 2019.

Do you have any data from 1960? Maybe that would help... ?

I don't think you understand what's the issue. Stephen Moore, being the partisan hack that he is, will not be able to make this type of argument using official data, and so he is sourcing Sentier Research's unofficial data while masquerading it as census data. Must i explain to you why this is invalid? Your ignorance is on full display. Median family income figures are released each March, meaning the data that was released in March 2019 was for 2018. We won't know what income growth looks like for 2019 until after 2019 (March 2020).

Trump supporters are a desperate folk.
 
And you point is what? The truth is that they probably didn't get a tax cut, but it's irrelevant. From their perspective their financial situation hasn't improved so it doesn't really matter if YOU think they are. They don't agree. The minimum wage in this country hasn't been raised in over a decade. Meanwhile inflation keeps making those wages worth less and less.

The minimum wage is a Red Herring. Does anyone actually work for the Minimum Wage for an extended period of time? If yes, WHY? Do YOU know ANYONE who has been working any job at minimum wage for more than a year?

If anyone was paying Federal Taxes before the Trump tax cuts, their Federal Tax liability was reduced. That is the simple fact of the matter. You can do what you like with the facts, but facts are facts.

Wages are up. How much they are up can be argued depending on which of the various factors you choose to include in your consideration.

If you're Corey Booker, you say they're down and refuse to explain how you came up with your false claim.

The JOLTS index is a good one to watch if you're interested in this. It's been in the good territory for many, many years.

Are Wages Rising or Flat? - FactCheck.org

Are wages rising, falling, or stagnating?

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom