The wheels are falling off the Obama admin.

So,here you are on a political forum & your talking about issues that have been front & center in the news for 3 weeks now & the facts that have come out don't support your claims here at all.
First-there is" no" evidence that links OBAMA to the IRS scandal--but here's some facts for you--NO tea-party groups were denied tax exemption from the 501c4's-there was no hold up on these tax exemptions during the campaign-the groups in question were in full operation,if you were to scroll down to the bottom on their web-sites, it would say tax status pending, or they didn't even have to request 501c4 status ,they could just claim it(don't get this at all,why request something if you don't have to,but whatever).So,there was no influence on the campaign.
The Benghazi so called "scandal" was debunked as it was found out that a "GOP" sent a false e-mail to ABC-
Now,the collecting of the phone logues,yes this is something we should all question-and the POTUS is addressing it-but go after Holder's head on this one-
And your taking ole Mitt's word on anything?

 

" W-H-E-W"----the sound of the logic bird flying right over the head-------

 

Sorry,they didn't even loosen a lug-nut-
You can thank your inept GOP Congressmen for her pleading the 5th----

 

No one got the extra credit. Johnnymayo took a shot at it with his argument that the average number in a households has declined, so kudos for the attempt, but he was wrong. A declining number per household might explain why household incomes would decrease, but not way the average income increases while the median income is flat. Additionally, he was off base as his own data showed that the number per household has not changed significantly over the past 30 years.

The correct answer lies in the difference between what median and mean averages measure. The median average is that number where there are an equal number of population (here, households) above and below that level of income. So, if the median income is $50k, half of households make more than that, half make less. The mean, is the arithmetic average, where you total the amount and divide by the population.

So how can they be different? If you have a population with incomes of 20k, 30k, 40k, 40k, 50k, 60k, 70k, 8k and 500k, you have a median income of 50k (half are above and half below, but a mean of about $100k, about twice that amount.

So when you have a situation where like we've had over the past 30 years, where the median has basically been unchanged but the average has increased significantly, what that tells us is that the number of Americans making below and above $50k has not changed, but the average is increasing because the total combined income is increasing. For most families, their income has not changed much, but there has been an increase in some household incomes, because the mean has increased.

Which is exactly what the data tells us has happened.

 

So,then what part of "she can't testify against herself" do you not understand?
I find it really interesting & quite telling that all the GOPBAGGERS want "selective" Constitutional rights.

 

She can testify and always has the right. You don't understand law at all.

She violated what rights of what Americans again?

- - - Updated - - -

Not a declining number of households. A declining number of people in them. You still don't know the difference between personal and household income do you? If you think you do please explain it so I can correct you.

 

1) Irrelevant because I am comparing the same population group -- households with households.

2) Immaterial because households have barely declined as your own data proved.

You still are harping on these irrelevant and immaterial points, as I keep correcting you.

 

Where did I say slash spending?

How could the slowing of government spending could also be as a result of the SS surpluses as you claimed?

They are unprepared even with SS. What are you going to do with the tens of millions of folks who are disabled, survivors, or run out of savings without SS?

So what?

You'd have to prove that to me. But in any case, we have SS because we need it.

That's not going to get us cheaper goods without cutting labor costs.

That is disposable income, not prices.

Income share shows what portion of the nation's income and wealth are going to different income groups. And in the past 30 years, the 1% have doubled their take of the nation's income (to 20%) and wealth (40%).

Real incomes of the bottom 20% have stagnated over the past 20 years.

Relatively higher wages and incomes. I agree the 1% can take more without others being poorer. The question is should they be taking double the portion of the nation's income (to 20%) and wealth (to 40%) when the middle class and economy are struggling for lack of money.

Reverse the "tickle down" policies that got us here. Cut taxes for the middle class. Raise them on the richest. Increase the MW and EITC. Increase the power of unions. Strengthen and broaden overtime laws. Broaden social programs that help the middle class.

Inaccurate.

Year - Spending:GDP
1980 21.2%
1981 21.7%
1982 22.9%
1983 22.9%
1984 21.7%

I didn't leave out anything. Those figures are from the CBO.

I haven't done a survey.

Do you not understand the difference between the economy and the debt?

Why would our taxes be higher? Why would our money be worth less?

 

Clarification on #2: The number of persons per household has barely declined, about 5%.

 

Congress could knock a few wheels off the Obama admin. Start with the "two" crooks in the Cleveland office and go right on up the crooked line.

 

You are 100% ignoring the rise of divorce and single family homes. You dont care though right because it serves the purpose you are trying? Because if you look at actual data, people live in bigger homes, have more disposable income, nearly twice the median wage of 1940 etc... Obama has wiped out nearly all the gains over the last 30 years, but before him things were very good.

2) Immaterial because households have barely declined as your own data proved.
- Workers per household has declined dramatically. Please look at it again. Personal median income has shot up dramatically. Can you define personal median income for me so we can just end this silly game? I get the household income is declining trick liberals use, you have 1.2 of marriages in divorce and single people as the majority that is what will happen. This is simple stuff.
You still are harping on these irrelevant and immaterial points, as I keep correcting you.[/QUOTE]

 

I like how you skipped over the part where I said forecasts. You act like he didnt walk into a high inflation rate and Soc Sec crisis. All you need to know if you really do care about the middle class like you say, is that their personal median income shot up through the roof during Reagan. Blacks made the most gains, gaining income faster then whites etc... the poor saw their incomes rise the fastest, but they had the furthest to go.

Contract with America was a good time too...

 

Number of workers per household.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0061.pdf

Post where you got your data if the census is inaccurate.

But you agree Yes or No, that personal median income is still higher then it was 30 years ago, and that it has been rising fairly steadily until Obama? You can see the Bush years were flat, they were. Even some decrease. Once you agree to that, do me a favor and define personal median income, so I can see where you are going wrong here when you think the middle class has been getting hurt the last 30 years, and that Reagan was bad for them etc...No more dodges thank you, no more fun with stats. I played your game, try taking up my challenge to you. (1) Define personal median income (2) Explain why it is bad when it shoots up under Reagan and Contract with America times, and good when it plummets under Obama.

 

And you can thank the IRS and President Obama's administration for giving her cover and allowing her to keep her job on our dime (so far).
It is just like all the other things he has said and hasn't done ... I love the part where he said he would be outraged and would take actions.
Where is the outrage ... What would be the action he took ...Nope, Nothing, Zilch, Nadda ... Not A Stinking Thing.

Still ... The wheels aren't falling off President Obama's administration, and for simple reasons.
It is all calculated pretty well and he knows he will not suffer long-term in a lame duck second term anyway.

They knew about the IRS scandal and Benghazi before the election ... and said or did nothing to address either ... and still haven't.
Learner comes out in May with a statement in response to a planted question ... to out the situation well before the 2014 elections and get it off the table.
By 2016, both the IRS and Benghazi scandals will be long gone out of the spotlight to the Democrat, Independent and Moderate voters ... So no lingering damage there.

Furthermore ... President Obama and Eric Holder successfully trump the press with devastating blow.
As people get caught up in the details of activities, they forget the overall implications ... from a president who has no problem or shame threatening private citizens or even the Supreme Court.
While we run around wondering who knew what, where and when ... he rests assured that he just put a lid on anyone talking to the press about anything.

It wasn't about finding a leak and you will never see any prosecution by the Justice Department regarding their investigations.
It was all about intimidating the press, and keeping anyone from talking to them.

President Obama knows he won't have problems with any of these things, because he knows his voters will defend him regardless what he does.
He could push granny off a cliff in a wheelchair, blame it on Republicans as well as partisan politics ... and his little lap dogs around here would defend him to their death.

 

I didn't skip anything. Just proved your assertion was wrong. Again.

Median income grew faster when Clinton was president.

But in any case, it wasn't grow anywhere near the growth of the 1%, which doubled its take of the national income (to 20%) and wealth (to 40%) over the past 30 years.

 

iriemon

The "great economy" that Clinton enjoyed was because of what Reagan and Bush did before him. It was also the Republican Congress handling the budget that made the economy good for Clinton.

 

My, can you move the goal post any farther? 1940s?? The charts talk about the last 30 years. Maybe you are weak in math? The charts also cover the last 30 years and not the Obama years only.

How has Obama wiped the gains and why do you bring up a smokescreen and avoid the facts that the charts show?

2) Immaterial because households have barely declined as your own data proved. Workers per household has declined dramatically. Please look at it again. Personal median income has shot up dramatically... I get the household income is declining trick liberals use, you have 1.2 of marriages in divorce and single people as the majority that is what will happen.

I understand why you keep bringing up median income. That is part of your smokescreens. Iriemon tried to explain to you that only tells you that 50% make more and 50% make less in actual dollars. It doesn't tell you anything about the shares of wealth. Wealth goes higher because of inflation and more productivity. It does not tell you whether any given group is better off. Iriemon's charts show you that.

You are the one trying to trick someone by harping on a statistics that have nothing to do with share of wealth.

 

No you are. More real median income then the 60s too. Reagan years saw more growth the the liberal 60s and 70s combined. Much more just not double. Real median income up so much since that chart. Big middle class growth!

His stimulus policy tanked real wages of employees. That is what happens when you print money and give it to your campaign supporters.

That chart doesn't show a thing other the divorce causes households to make less even when the personal median income, the amount the middle class worker makes is soaring in real dollar terms. Why don't you you define personal median income vs household for me question dodger?

2) Immaterial because households have barely declined as your own data proved. Workers per household has declined dramatically. Please look at it again. Personal median income has shot up dramatically... I get the household income is declining trick liberals use, you have 1.2 of marriages in divorce and single people as the majority that is what will happen.

Wealth is in the hands of older people who saved all their lives. The rich get richer in a good economy. If the middle class is making more money in inflation adjusted terms how is that bad? Don't say because that money comes From the middle class, that is not true and shows a lack of understanding about growth that you should have learned in high school, in fact your chart proves it wrong. There is not a fixed pie. Workers today make more then before and their wages soared under Reagan. Tanking under Obama. The rich are getting much richer now, but the middle class is suffering under these liberal policies like they always have in the past.

 

Clinton before or after Gingrich was ramming economic policy past his vetoes? Answer that, lets take this one at a time.

You can read that it went up under Clinton. Can you now admit the same for Reagan?

 

Tell me where real median income starts departing from the line of productivity in this chart: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/productivity-and-real-median-family-income-growth-1947-2009/

His stimulus policy tanked real wages of employees.

That is your opinion with no facts to back it up.

That chart doesn't show a thing other the divorce causes households to make less even when the personal median income, the amount the middle class worker makes is soaring in real dollar terms.

Only if you want to use a smokescreen, would you clutter non-important issues about the chartS.

Wealth is in the hands of older people who saved all their lives.

How do you account for people like Gates, Zuckerberg and the young rich people?

If the middle class is making more money in inflation adjusted terms how is that bad?

It wouldn't be if that was happening.

There is not a fixed pie.

That is your problem. There is a fix pie every time you use wealth in a discussion. If you want to see where wealth was distributed in 1980, you start with the total wealth at that time. If you want to compare the percentage differences of that distribution with another period, you start with all the wealth of that period.

 

So,again you are going on emotions & assumptions & Oh,GOD I can't believe Mitt lost.
I am going on facts & parlimentary procedures & understanding the rule of law.
So,unless you think it is a good idea for our POTUS to interfere with an investigation(then you have all the GOPBAGGERS coming after him for not following the Constitution)you can't argue both ways here.
Please go research the law,the parlimentary procedures & the Constitution,then come back & le'ts have a conversation.

 

What the heck are you talking about ... I said he didn't have anything to worry about.
I never said he should interfere with the investigation of anything ... I did say he didn't do what he said he was going to do ... but that is on him not me.
I understand his procedures better than you do ... and the Constitution better than he does.

You are the one full of emotion ... enough emotion you can't even read and understand what I was saying.
But good luck in your endeavors, and you are smart enough I don't see the need in trying to educate you.

 

So,are you related to Adam West?

 

Uh, Nope ... Related to William Bradford (Plymouth Governor).

 

aging population plus you are still using household income. Stop dodging the personal v family issue. Divorce rate also rose starting after the 60s.

what has happened to personal median income since pelosi and him got their way?

That chart doesn't show a thing other the divorce causes households to make less even when the personal median income, the amount the middle class worker makes is soaring in real dollar terms.

Only if you want to use a smokescreen, would you clutter non-important issues about the chartS.

- dodge.

Wealth is in the hands of older people who saved all their lives.

Yes most wealth is in the hand of older people about to retire then th youth who are starting out without savings. Don't be thicker then usual.

How do you account for people like Gates, Zuckerberg and the young rich people?

- wealth is not a zero sum game that is how. I keep telling you. Also we live in a place with opportunity in unregulated fields. Neither field was regulated or controlled by government so there is a lot of room for upstarts.
If the middle class is making more money in inflation adjusted terms how is that bad?

It wouldn't be if that was happening.

It was during Reagan and Gingrich years. Can you say their times were good for me so I can stop wasting my time? Or are you too partisan for that?

There is not a fixed pie.

That is your problem. There is a fix pie every time you use wealth in a discussion. If you want to see where wealth was distributed in 1980, you start with the total wealth at that time. If you want to compare the percentage differences of that distribution with another period, you start with all the wealth of that period.[/QUOTE]

No it is not, it is yours. GDP can grow and everyone can get more money. Workers were seeing their incomes rise whil gates, dell, etc... Amassed wealth at an unprecedented rate. When people voluntarily trade they can each be richer. Consider the typist who buys a computer. Gates gets richer but the typist can also make more money with the benefit of the computer.