Do I have this right: Obama shouldn't get credit for saving the US economy

[apples and oranges]

because there are still people who are unemployed and - or struggling financially?

I'm sick and tired of democrats diminishing accomplishments and providing cover to republicans! Own it! Obama saved this economy and repaired the damage of the Bush years.

I know that everything isn't perfect. There are a lot of shitty jobs out there and minimum wage isn't enough to support a family. But has there ever been a case where every american jobseeker was employed and prosperous? If not, is there an example of a country where every adult citizen was employed and financially independent? If not, then what solution should President Obama try that will bring poverty and unemployment down to 0%?

[bravenak]

1. He's supposed to be MAGIC!!!

Thought you knew.

[Major Hogwash]

61. Well, in a way, he is.

He made John McCain's chances of ever becoming the President of the United States disappear.
And to prove that it was not a fluke, he did the same thing to Mitt Romney 4 years later!!

[bravenak]

66. Hell yeah!!

[JaneyVee]

2. His legacy will go down as one of the best in history.

On paper the numbers are amazing.

[Savannahmann]

8. In neighborhoods, the reality is crushing.

Median Household income is lower now than it has been since 1994. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/

That's real money, and people are bringing home less than they were when President Clinton was in office.

Another record, More than 92 million people are not in the workforce, and are not counted as unemployed. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Participation rate has actually fallen over the last year. Not surprising since the number not in workforce has grown. Barely half the eligible workers have jobs in the nation, the rate is so low that the Senate couldn't end debate with that percentage.

Two million four hundred and fifty three thousand people have part time jobs because they could not find full time employment.

So how are we dealing with this crushing reality? We're clearing out homeless camps. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30336704 They're a big drain on the total happiness of the community man.

Food banks are giving smaller portions, and turning people away. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025889321

So everyone cheer President Obama. Sure, a vast majority of the nation is suffering, but we can't let the great news on doctored unemployment numbers go unheralded. The Dow Jones is also doing well, and the S & P is doing really great. So the rich are great, the fairly wealthy are fine, but the rest of the people are eating watered down catsup and calling it soup.

Yay team.

NOTE: All of those numbers are from US Government sources. Read them yourself if you doubt me.

When the Democratic Party quits flinging handfuls of propaganda at these people and starts to pay attention and gives a shit about them, then the Democratic Party will find itself in the majority again. Until then, all the propaganda in the world isn't going to make us popular. Telling people that things are great when they aren't is just stupid.

[apples and oranges]

14. Technology, automation, and China. What now?

What is the solution? It is us Americans who keep insisting on the cheapest products from China, and we love our gadgets and self check out.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

31. President Obama will tell you the solution is the TPP or SHAFTA

[Odin2005]

57. "SHAFTA" Brilliant!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

91. I can't remember where I heard that - some MSNBC show

It actually stands for something, I just can't remember but its funny!

On edit: It was on the Thom Hartman radio show - "Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement" or SHAFTA".

[Savannahmann]

33. Well I suppose we can dismiss this reply eh?

After all, when another poster said that most aren't experiencing the economic recovery, you called it BS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025917475#post15

apples and oranges (1,372 posts)
15. "Most aren't" = BS.

I think I conclusively proved that most are as a matter of fact, not. I would point out that expecting those people to cheer the numbers like they mean something is beyond silly to absolutely ludicrous. By the way, the numbers I used were before inflation adjustments. So we're probably worse off on average than we were when President Clinton took office if you factor Inflation in.

So why should anyone give President Obama credit for saving the economy, when to a vast majority it hasn't shown any signs of being "saved" or even "improved"? We're talking people who are struggling to make the ends meet, and the gap is getting larger, and the string is getting shorter. The Democratic Party utterly ignored that truth, and suffered huge deficits in the voting booths because of it IMO. The largest single issue facing people according to polling is the Economy, and you ignore those economic truths at your peril.

You haven't posted any numbers showing the effects of the great economic recovery, so are you unaware of the reality? Or are you unconcerned? In one post, you appear unaware. In another, unconcerned. If you are one of those lucky enough to be doing well, I say congratulations. I'm happy for you. Really I am. But don't pretend that your success (if you are experiencing it) is in any way, shape, or form reflective of the reality faced by many millions each and every day.

Because people are not doing well, and until someone pays attention, they won't bother voting. On this board many times I've read people outraged that people would vote against their own interests. Well, if the party is ignoring those interests, then why would the people vote?

You want to see President Obama's approval rating climb above 50%? Then here's what you do. Start talking truth about the economy. Start to address those truths, and propose actions that will help the people. But don't tell people that it's their own fault because they buy from China.

Let's be honest shall we? Most "foreign" manufactures or Cars have set up plants in the United States, while the "American" companies have shifted plants to Mexico. My Toyota was built in Indiana, which is in the United States unless we've broken off diplomatic relations, you can never tell with Georgia. I was sorely tempted to buy a Kia, since they have a plant here in Georgia, but the model made did not meet my needs. So we do manufacture cars in the US, but they're not limited to, and sometimes even exclude the traditional "big three".

But we don't make TV's. You can't buy one american made. We don't build Stereo systems, or DVD players, or even game stations. Electronics are all built overseas. But many items are built here. Have you heard of the Scorpion Jet? Chances are the US Military will never see one, but the plane will be sold overseas, and I predict in large numbers.

[bhikkhu]

18. The labor participation rate isn't really a statistic to gripe about

Its been lower in the past during healthy economic times, and its been higher as well - a few percentage points either way. Two big drivers of the recent numbers are that older workers are holding on to jobs longer than expected - the "boomers" aren't retiring as predicted, which raises the number. And younger people are going to college at a much higher rate, which lowers the number. There's only so long people can hang on to jobs, and college only lasts a few years - in the medium-term, there will be a lot of turnover, and the workforce overall will be better educated. You can see lemons there, or lemonade, depending on predisposition.

[Savannahmann]

34. You do know that was one of the numbers right?

The participation rate is below 60% now by the way. That chart is a little out of date.

[bhikkhu]

40. 62.8% currently

From the latest release: "The civilian labor force participation rate held at 62.8 percent in November and has
been essentially unchanged since April."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

There are different ways of counting that, just as there are different ways of figuring unemployment. The customary one is to take all the people of employable age and seeing how many are employed. That excludes only people in prison and young people under 16 (and, being the "civilian" rate, it excludes military personnel). It includes disabled people, students, retirees, stay-at-home moms and dads and so forth, so its a much more general number than the unemployment rate.

Personally I don't mind that not everyone has to work for a living all the time. My parents are retired, my wife didn't work while our kids were young, and I have two kids over 16 who don't currently have jobs (their job is to study, learn, and get good grades).

[former9thward]

46. An utterly false chart.

It neglects women coming into the labor force. Before 1970 or so women in the labor force was minimal.

[bhikkhu]

48. The increase in the labor participation rate is largely due to women entering the workforce

As the chart reflects. That is the standard explanation for the big bump up in participation in the era of "boomer" employment.

Disagreement with a chart is fine, but think - how are the numbers utterly false? Is there something you are missing, or is there something I am missing? I have an open mind if you have useful information.

on edit - this chart as an alternative, if you like, as it breaks out the changes by gender:



Everything derives from the same BLS numbers, collected by the same methods for ages.

[former9thward]

73. The drop in the labor participation rate is not voluntary.

It is because people can't find jobs and drop out. Some take a reduced early social security, some try and get on some form of disability, some go to marginal 'cash' jobs, some just depend on family to support them. None of that is healthy for the economy.

[Andy823]

23. Same old BS

Obama bad, doom and gloom good. Have you ever once given the president credit for what he has accomplished since he took office?

Yes there are shitty jobs out there, yes wages need to go up, but why not do something at your state level to increase wages since republicans in congress will "NEVER" got to raise the minimum wage, it has to be done at state levels until there are enough people in congress who WILL vote for a raise in the minimum national wage.

Things will change but bashing president Obama in every post is not going to change anything. Get out and do something to help get rid of all the republicans in congress who have stopped the president form doing the things that need to be done. Go to your state capital and protest and demand that the minimum wage be raised.

[okaawhatever]

26. +100 nt

[Savannahmann]

39. Have I ever given President Obama credit?

Holy Crap. How come I have to have this discussion whenever I tell the truth about anything?

Fine, here we go again. Why must I go through this all the time? Here's one, and just one of the posts I've made in support of the President. http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10025388493 By the way, that one is in my journal.

Now, that we've paid token attention to my bonafides. Let's talk economy. Since it is consistently the number one issue that voters are concerned about. How do we show we care, and are aware of the situation that many if not most people find themselves in?

I only mention that because, as I said above, it's hard to get elected when all you throw people is propaganda about how awesome things are. Ask Harry Reid if you doubt me, because next month he's moving to the Minority Leader instead of Majority. I'm sure Turtle will be awesome for our side. Should I put the Sarcasm tag on for that one or are you willing to accept that I really didn't want him to be the leader since I spent most of the last year warning about the danger of losing the senate while people just like you claimed I was spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt because I wanted the Democratic Party to read the fucking polls and see how much trouble they were in. I had this crazy idea that if we represented the people, and took on some populist issues like reigning in the NSA we would get more support than if we ran a campaign which centered on the idea that the Republicans would lose the election for us with something like a Real Rape quote.

Now, I want the Democratic Party to notice the economy, and start a two pronged attack on it. A) Tell the truth about the economic conditions. B) Propose plans to improve the economy. I don't care if we can get it through the Republican Congress. We have to be talking about it before the voters will think we care about it. Then we can get elected to fix the things that they all see as screwed up. http://www.gallup.com/poll/110824/gallup-daily-us-economic-outlook.aspx

Allow me to quote a post I made some time ago and was thinking about a week or so back.

What can I do? I can keep pushing my country to be better. I can keep striving to make my nation live up to the promise, the principles I hold dear in my heart. It is not because I hate my country, or President Obama. It is because I love it, and the President, that I demand we be better than we are.

I want to see the day when a child can achieve to the limits of their ability in well funded schools. I want to see the day when we respect one another with all our differences and live in peace together. I dream of the day when police serve the community and don't abuse those who have entrusted the power with them. I fantasize about the day when we are all truly equal and are all assured of our individual rights.

I dream of the day when the NSA, CIA, FBI, and DHS are reigned in and put on the shortest leashes possible. I ache for the day when the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are enforced by the courts with no exceptions.

If you want it or not, I'm going to tell you the truth about Politics. You have to wake every morning and ask yourself how can I help the people today. You can never forget you represent the people, and you can never forget that they will vote you out of office, fire you, if you ever appear tone deaf or unconcerned about them. I've marched in protests. I marched back in the 1980's. I marched before it was AIDS or HIV. I marched when it was called The Grip. I've stood shoulder to shoulder to protest the deaths. I protested Gulf War One, Two, and will probably protest Gulf war Three.

So keep pushing the propaganda, and keep ignoring the truth. Because as long as the Democratic Supporters continue this, we will continue to lose elections. I've told you the truth, and you don't want to hear it. Fine with me, but don't pretend it's the fault of Citizens United, or Money in Politics when we lose in 2016. Because the reason will be we're more interested in form over function, and the people desperately want us working on the function.

While you are busy running around demanding proof that the posters are truly Democratic, I've been spending my time trying to help the Democratic Party win elections. You let me know how the witch hunt goes, I'm not enjoying much success, our party seems determined to lose through obstinate stupidity. But at least we have a good loyalty test and quick punishment for those who don't measure up to today's constantly changing loyalty standard.

[Andy823]

79. I will give you credit for that one

However in the very first post in your journal you said

"So why are we doing everything we can to alienate as many voters as possible? I've heard nonsensical RW CT that President Obama was going to destroy America. It looks like he's working overtime to destroy the Democratic Party to me."

And then there was the one "The inevitable Hillary clinton will lead to President Rand Paul".

I didn't go any further. It just seems that most of your posts have some kind of attack on either the president, other democratic politicians or the party in general.

The present has accomplished a hell of a lot since he was elected, her is NOT destroying the party, and I really doubt that if Hillary was the nominee we would end up with Rand Paul as president. I don't think Paul has a chance at becoming the republican nominee in the first place, but people are not going voter for Paul instead of Clinton. Sure he may have the tea party crazies in his pocket, but he would NOT pull democrats away from Hillary to vote for him, and I don't think he can pull enough independent voters either.

[Savannahmann]

90. What is the popularity of the party in polling?

What is the popularity of our policies in polling? How do we represent the voters? These are questions I ask all the time, and my writings are efforts to increase both our electoral advantage, and our popularity for further electoral advantage.

I was warning of the danger to our majority in the Senate months before anyone else. I saw the danger in the polls, and I tried to warn people. What are my reasons if I don't want Democrats to win? The only way that works if I am some sort of RW shill is if the Democratic Party is so stupid that they would rather lose elections than do what some rural Georgian says they should backed up by polling information.

I do think that HIllary will lead to President Rand Paul. Think it through. Study your enemy and learn about them. What are Paul's recent speeches about? Populist issues backed up by polling. More than half the people polled think that the NSA should be reigned in. Just over half think that Marijuana should be decriminalized. Aren't people tired of constant war? It's been thirteen years since 9-11, and people want to see an end to the constant daily news on new enemies, new bombings and attacks.

I know that Hillary polls higher than Paul now. I know it because I read them all the time. Yet, the issues she's addressed are ones that aren't motivating the people.

So fast forward thirteen months. Rand Paul has had a year of running around the early primary states getting things set up. He manages to get some people into all the Iowa Caucus locations, people who want to see the NSA reigned in, or Marijuana legalized. Younger people who think that Government is fucking with them in other words. Seven years ago, it was President Obama who motivated those people to show up for him. Next time it will be Paul, and don't pretend that the issue will draw people to Hillary, you know it won't. At least I hope you're not that out of touch.

Rand is far more dangerous than anyone else the Republicans can fields, because he can get the win in Iowa that way, and that sets him up for the next couple where he'll be taken very seriously. Imagine the Debates over the next year and a half. Televised on the cable news shows, and CSPAN. Excerpts put up on You Tube. When Rand says that he wants to see the NSA reigned in, people will hear, and decide they like him.

When they ask him about economic problems, and he has a plan, granted another recycled trickle down my back plan, but one that is targeted at Detroit and other cities that are struggling, do you think that people will snort and turn away?

I don't. I saw the dangers to the Senate Majority long before the "experts" here did. I saw the danger to us in the midterm when the people in the know on the Sunday shows were all predicting huge wins for the Democratic Party. I read the polls, and I see the danger. Not just in the who do you want to be PResident polls that are out there, but the how do you feel on this issue or that? Because we're on the wrong side of too many populist issues, and we have to change that right now if we want to win. If we do it soon, before the campaigns actually start, we stand a chance. If we wait much longer, we're going to be viewed as the Me Too party while Rand is viewed as the leader in the arena.

So what do you think? Do you think Hillary running a traditional campaign in favor of the NSA and Criminalized Marijuana as well as the things are going great economic play book will defeat Rand Paul? Who will the voters think is more in touch? You've seen the numbers I'm sure, so you tell me who you think is going to win. I would like to see the Democratic Candidate win, I'm terrified that the winner will be Rand Paul.

[Cha]

103. Yeah, Good News and the ODS Crowd busts out the

Whine and Cheeze.

[GitRDun]

41. Agree with you on the fact that it's not so rosy for many

However, I don't think you can lay that at Obama's feet. He said himself a lot of the jobs aren't coming back.

I have my personal issues with Obama: drones, guantanamo, failing to reign in banks, etc. but he is making efforts to solve the problem:

Vocational Training
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education/building-american-skills-through-community-colleges

Promotes colaberation with manufacturing on technology
http://www.manufacturing.gov/amnpo.html

Put together a plan to improve manufacturing jobs
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_for_an_america_built_to_last.pdf

In the end, I think it is OK to take a small bow, for the stimulus, saving GM, and other things that kept us from really tanking. You are right, it should be a small bow due to the suffering that continues.

I don't think you can lay that suffering at Obama's feet, however. It should be laid at our feet. We elected the Congress that won't pass anything that helps lower and middle class...he's trying.

[brush]

42. On Guantanamo btw . . .

the repugs again blocked the closing of it by including that provision in the just approved funding bill.

Just so you know, they've been behind preventing the closing of it all along.

[GitRDun]

43. I am aware of Congress role.

At the time, before Congress had done anything, I was telling people he should just move them all out of there to US prisons and close it.

Congressional action killed that.

So, in my mind, he made a mistake in being too cautious.

[99Forever]

71. Oh HELL YES ^^^THIS^^^

[Odin2005]

56. Human beings don't live on paper.

[Major Hogwash]

62. Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

That's the funniest shit I have ever read here concerning President Obama!!!

[Odin2005]

63. Keep laughing, bro.

[Major Hogwash]

64. I will, if you keep posting insane shit like that!! Hahahaha!!!!

Human beings don't live on paper!

[Odin2005]

65. You must be one of the senators one of FDR's cabinet members was talking to when...

...he said "people don't eat in the long run, Senator, they eat every day".

[SidDithers]

87. Really, eh?...

Sid

[JaneyVee]

68. Legacies do though.

[Alittleliberal]

74. But we have to govern by abstractions.

It sucks, but there is no other way. The country is far too large not to.

[rhett o rick]

95. You must be smoking some gooood stuff. nm

[elleng]

3. Thanks.

Yes, I think you've got it right.

[okaawhatever]

4. Most people are complaining about the number of part-time jobs and the lower wages. All recoveries

(the ones that aren't fueled by government jobs) start with part-time work and evolve into full-time jobs. Also, when the unemployment rate gets low enough wages will rise. Short of a massive increase in minimum wage the next thing to increase wages is supply and demand. When workers are in shorter supply wages will rise. It will take time but we are on the right track.

The recovery would have been more rapid had we invested in more infrastructure projects to stimulate it and didn't have the sequestration, but as it is private sector jobs are being added and no one can dispute that is good.

F$%k the naysayers, their desperate pleas reflect only their desperation, not the state of the economy.

[rhett o rick]

96. You say F$%k the naysayers. I take that to mean you say F$%k to those making up

the larger lines in the soup kitchens and foodbanks and those that have lost their homes and are living on relatives couches or in their cars. The economy looks rosey because corp profits are the greatest ever. The poverty rate is unacceptable and the gap between the rich and poor is continuing to grow.

[okaawhatever]

97. Hyperbole much? My F$%k the naysayers comment was directed only at those who are

ignoring the reality of the jobs report. The fact is the economy is improving. Unemployment is dropping. Wages are rising. We have had 50 straight months of job growth. (a new record, the previous being set in the 90's).

It is not perfect but it is improving. That is the bottom line. It is fact, it is reality. People are suffering, people are always suffering. There are just more now that at other times in the past. The jobs report tells us FEWER people are suffering, and heck yes I'll celebrate that.

[rhett o rick]

105. Go ahead and celebrate your statistics. I'll celebrate when people I know personally

get jobs and homes. When the demands at the foodbanks and soup kitchens decrease. Our foodbank runs a emergency shelter and it's overflowing. I'll ask them if they are aware that statistics show the economy is recovering.

[Thinkingabout]

5. I would say the workers who got their jobs back in the auto industry are not complaining

[razorman]

6. I don't believe that the economy has been "saved", yet.

Regardless, I never give a president (any president) much credit or blame when it comes to the economy. Government does not "run" our economy. Even to the extent it does have an effect, it is primarily Congress that wields the influence.

[OilemFirchen]

10. Very interesting.

Can you provide a quick summary of the Congressional legislation that "influenced" this growing economy?

[TampaAnimusVortex]

13. Exactly - nothing has really been passed for years.

At least no huge stimulus beyond what the fed is trying. Economies go up sometimes, they go down sometimes. That's the way they work.

[Fred Sanders]

22. What the fed is doing, cheap cash in unlimited quantities, is huge. Low interest rates for years and

years is huge. And do not discount the stimulus, it kick stared the whole thing, and saving the auto industry, he did that too. Oh, how about keeping a lid on the deficit and levelling higher taxes on the rich?

Should I go on?

[TampaAnimusVortex]

72. Well the question was what had the president done, not the fed.

As for the deficit, he cant claim that alone given spending bills originate in the house.

As for tax rates, I just checked and inflation adjusted, those making over 100,000 a year hasn't changed much since 2004 (as far as I looked back). And only in 2013 did the 39.6% come into being for those making over $440k - which is a small increase over 35%, but can hardly be a significant reason for the economy to continuously prosper.

Even without the stats, pulling more money out of the economy in taxes overall would suppress economic growth (ask Kennedy - if he was alive) - although it would go to reducing the deficit.

So yes, please do go on.

[Fred Sanders]

75. I remember the situation when Obama took over, some choose not to.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

83. And this has what to do with anything?

I stand by my original point. Economies go up and they go down all by themselves. I'm not sure what exactly your arguing against.

[razorman]

20. Aside from the fact that I am not convinced that it is really growing(at least not much),

I was speaking in general terms, of how, constitutionally, government money is controlled by congress. For instance, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. You also talked about credit or blame, and its indisputable that the Pukes

deserve most of the blame for NOT going along with the Presidents request for a jobs/infrastructure bill. As well as other good proposals he made. And there will never be an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage unless we get control of the house. When will the VAST majority of Americans understand that these PUKES will never do anything to help them get ahead. They want them to fall further behind.

[CK_John]

7. If you don't toot your own horn the band will play their theme. nt

[babylonsister]

16. Amen! Time for this admin to toot their own horn! nt

[riqster]

104. This.

The Obama admin sucks out loud in thus respect. I grant that the Reeps own the media, but still.

[Old and In the Way]

9. His instincts on the state of the US economy was right,

McCain would have allowed the Auto Industry to crater and bank liquidity would have remained frozen. This would have meant millions more unemployed, lost tax revenue, and probably a Greater Depression. Of course, he won't get credit for fixing what Bush/Cheney tried to destroy, but in opposite universe, US citizens are eating dollar bills for sustenance.

[unrepentant progress]

11. Depends on if you're one of the people he helped save the economy for

Most aren't.

[apples and oranges]

15. "Most aren't" = BS.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

37. How soon some forget 2009... n/t

[progressoid]

50. "Recovery bypassed 90% of American families-who have gained 0 in terms of wealth/income"

76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck

Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.

Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/

Stock Market Surge Bypasses Most Americans, Poll Shows

More than three-quarters of Americans say the five-year bull market in U.S. stocks has had little or no effect on their financial well-being, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents dismissed the 176 percent rise in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) since its March 9, 2009 financial crisis low, according to the poll, taken March 7-10. Barely one in five -- 21 percent -- said the market’s gains have made them “feel more financially” secure.
...

The poll’s findings reflect the concentration of financial assets among better-off Americans. Only about half of Americans own stock, either directly or through retirement accounts, according to the Fed’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/stock-market-surge-bypasses-most-americans-poll-shows.html

Roughly 36 percent of working-age survey respondents said they have less than $1,000 in savings and personal retirement investments, and 60 percent reported having less than $25,000 saved. The numbers are similar among retirees surveyed: 58 percent have less than $25,000 on hand, and 29 percent have less than $1,000 saved.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/20/3416808/retirement-savings-survey/

So-called recovery bypassed 90% of American families-who have gained 0 in terms of wealth/income

Robert Reich



The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, the most comprehensive source of data on the finances of American families, was released Thursday. Its findings are sobering. The so-called recovery has bypassed 90 percent of American families, who have gained nothing in terms of income or wealth; and the bottom 20 percent are worse off than when the recovery started. Only the rich have done better. Between 2010 and 2013, the most affluent 10 percent of families saw their incomes rise 10 percent, and their wealth increase 2 percent to an average of $3.3 million. (Those in the top 1 percent and top one-tenth of one percent did far better than this.)

Before you say “duh,” you should note that this is the first “recovery” on record that has shown this pattern. Although inequality has been widening for thirty years, the business cycle usually hid it when the economy was expanding, as in the late 1990s. The range of remedies many of us have been pushing for – a higher minimum wage, for example – are necessary but hardly sufficient. The entire economy must be reorganized in more fundamental ways. (I'll be suggesting some larger reforms in coming posts.) You agree, and, if so, what do you think are the biggest changes that are necessary?

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich?fref=nf

[apples and oranges]

53. Now the goal post has moved. I know people driving luxury cars who have no savings

And plenty of people with great incomes who live check to check. A lot of people DO.NOT.SAVE. anymore. They are spenders. It doesn't tell us about the job Obama is doing, but moreso the mindset of Americans. We love our gadgets. How much money do we spend per month on cable, internet, phones, and streaming services? I spend well over $300, all of which can and should be going to savings. But still, I do manage to save as well while a lot of my peers aren't thinking about saving.

Another major factor is the housing market. Many families still have homes that are underwater which impacts wealth.

[progressoid]

59. Nope.

The goal post hasn't moved. But income has.

A recent presentation from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco lays out the situation clearly. The vast majority of job losses during the recession were in middle-income occupations, and they've largely been replaced by low-wage jobs since 2010:



Mid-wage occupations, paying between $13.83 and $21.13 per hour, made up about 60 percent of the job losses during the recession. But those mid-wage jobs have made up just 27 percent of the jobs gained during the recovery.

By contrast, low-wage occupations paying less than $13.83 per hour have utterly dominated the recovery, with 58 percent of the job gains since 2010. (This data all comes from an earlier report (pdf) from the National Employment Law Project.)

[woo me with science]

100. Excellent posts in this subthread. Thank you for all the links

and for laying out the harsh reality for ordinary Americans of this mythical "recovery."

[babylonsister]

17. A depression averted: are you kidding? Did you know a

depression was averted? If you dispute that, please provide links, thanks, and welcome to DU.

[notadmblnd]

12. You got it right. Obama gets credit for nothing, only blame.

[Vattel]

19. Two possibilities:

(1) No one has actually argued that "Obama shouldn't get credit for saving the US economy because there are still people who are unemployed and-or struggling financially?" In that case, why are you debating with an imaginary opponent?

(2) Some poor fool actually did make that argument. In that case, why are debating with a fool?

[kelliekat44]

21. You may have noticed that it was easier to fake support for the first-time black President,

believing or hoping that he would be an abject failure. But as the President became more and more successful at what he was doing and especially after bin Laden was killed, the faking some Dems began their "damning with faint praise" and now seem to have all but changed their party affiliation.

[Andy823]

27. Exactly

Of course some of the bashers here may never have been a democrat in the first place!

[bhikkhu]

49. Now that you mention it, that describes the last 6 years of dems in congress well

Not all of them, of course, and maybe not even a majority, but the overall sense. I don't think I can recall a party leadership so unwilling to share in the success of their own president.

[abelenkpe]

24. It's not better for VFX workers in Los Angeles

Countervailing tariffs on work offshored to combat subsidies offered by foreign governments would help.

[Andy823]

25. Yes you have it right

There is a group here who will NEVER give him credit for anything. They claim he is going to "destroy" the party, that he has accomplished NOTHING at all, that he never tries to help anyone but he 1%, and of course we can't forget the famous "he is a f ing used care salesman piece of shit!

For some here it's a daily "trash and bash" of the president, the democratic party, and anyone who disagrees with them. It's actually getting pathetic to see so many here who claim to be democrats act like a bunch of right wing teabaggers who have nothing positive to say, just doom and gloom, trash and bash, and keep doing it day after day after day.

[okaawhatever]

29. Not all are right wingers. There is a pretty large Socialist contingent here. Not European Socialist

but Marxist type Socialist. To them the Dems, Clinton and Obama can do no right. They tend to use corporatist and third way a lot. Nothing is ever progressive enough. They're not quite as easy to spot as the right wing shills but you can usually identify them. It's the same gloom and doom but with a left-leaning theme.

[Odin2005]

58. Marxist here. U MAD BRO? U MAD???

[Kermitt Gribble]

70. There is a large

Traditional Democrat contingent here who are labeled "extreme left" and "socialist" by conservatives and personality-cultists.

[jillan]

28. The reason he doesn't get credit is because minimum wage has been stagnant. People are working

harder and not making a penny more.

And why hasn't minimum wage been raised? We all know that answer.

[flamingdem]

30. Love your post, too true

and sad that we didn't figure out how to sell the good news to Americans in the last election
and do something about corporations who are squeezing profits out of the working class and
middle classes.

We'll get other chances, Obama will be a positive factor for Dems for a long time.

[demosincebirth]

32. There will always be people unemployed or sruggling financially, except not so many. Only

time unemployment was almost zero was, sad to say, during WW2.

[MFrohike]

36. Classic example of a bullshit argument

The question is not whether there was a mystical golden age when everyone had plenty, but whether the condition of the majority is improving or not. ALL the data, except in the most general aggregates, indicate the majority are seeing things get worse.

One of the most important solutions he could have pursued would have been to resolve the large banks and prosecute the massive frauds on Wall Street. This would have given us a healthier banking sector AND made a huge dent in reducing the endemic criminality in modern finance. It also would have made a huge dent in the uninterrupted corruption of all levels of American government, as no sector of our economy spends more on bribes, campaign contributions, than finance.

[woo me with science]

98. ^^^^Good post.^^^^ This administration *covers up* Wall Street criminality

and has made sure it can and will continue:

Jaw-dropping corruption from our own "Justice Department":
Helping criminal bankers bury the evidence...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5776546
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IJnvzrej

One of the ongoing myths about the financial crisis is that the government is outmatched by the legal talent representing the banks. But Fleischmann was impressed by the lead attorney in her case,a litigator named Richard Elias. "He sounded like he had been a securities lawyer for 10 years," she says. "This actually looked like his idea of fun – like he couldn't wait to run with this case."

She gave Elias and his team detailed information about everything she'd seen: the edict against e-mails, the sabotaging of the diligence process, the bullying, the written warnings that were ignored, all of it. She assumed that it wouldn't be long before the bank was hauled into court.

Instead, the government decided to help Chase bury the evidence. It began when Holder's office scheduled a press conference for the morning of September 24th, 2013, to announce sweeping civil-fraud charges against the bank, all laid out in a detailed complaint drafted by the U.S. attorney's Sacramento office. But that morning the presser was suddenly canceled, and no complaint was filed. According to later news reports, Dimon had personally called Associate Attorney General Tony West, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, and asked to reopen negotiations to settle the case out of court.

[DeSwiss]

38. Here ya go.....

- Ummm, yeah.

[rhett o rick]

44. Well I for one am willing to give him complete credit for the high profits of his Wall Street

friends. The stock market is up, yea! I personally know people that are losing their home and others out of work looking for jobs. Maybe it's time for more tax breaks for billionaires and another bail out for the banks. The foodbanks and soup kitchens are over flowing with the hungry. Tell me what specifically he has done to improve the economy for the 99%, besides give a speech.

[rhett o rick]

45. Why don't you ask those going out on strike for a decent wage if they think Obama

has done anything?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014958765

[Andy823]

80. So tell me one thing

How can the president be blamed for the low wages when he, and others in the party, have been pushing for raising the minimum wage, but republicans refuse to do anything about raising wages? The only way to get around republicans is to work at the state levels. Those who are striking need to take to to the streets in the state capital and let their state politicians know how upset they are.

[rhett o rick]

84. Some here want it both ways. They want to give Pres Obama credit for the "recovery" and yet

blame Republicans for lack of recovery.

And sorry but "pushing for" doesn't cut it at the grocery store.

[apples and oranges]

54. Many middle class families are depending on that stock market for their retirement

And yes, they are in the 99%

[rhett o rick]

77. I would love to see the numbers as to how many middle class families are getting retirements.

Future retirements depend on the future behavior of the market.

It seems you are saying that it's ok if wages and jobs are down if the stock market is up. The stock market is up because the middle class is being robbed blind.

[progressoid]

78. If by 'many' you mean 'few'.

Even the White House has admitted this.

‘Little Benefit’

The wealthiest 10 percent of families earn 11 percent of their annual income from capital gains, interest and dividends, according to the Fed. The poorest three-quarters get less than 0.5 percent of their income from such sources.

“Many moderate- and middle-income households have seen little benefit from recent stock market gains and are still grappling with the implications of home prices that, despite recent progress, remain well below their previous highs,” the White House economic team wrote in a March 10 blog post.

The Bloomberg poll offered little cheer for the White House on the economic mood: 42 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s efforts to make people feel more secure economically while 52 percent disapprove. “He’s done a very poor job,” said Robin Walker, 41, a part-time executive assistant in Tucson, Arizona. “Low-income people get all the blessings, while those of us who work out butts off -- we get nothing.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/stock-market-surge-bypasses-most-americans-poll-shows.html

[Cha]

47. Good for you, apples and oranges sticking up for what is evident..

Jobs, Jobs, And More Jobs. Thanks, President Obama!


Ben Casselman ✔ @bencasselman
Follow
Virtually all the job growth in the recovery has come in full-time jobs.
4:12 AM - 5 Dec 2014 517 Retweets 255 favorites

Justin Wolfers @JustinWolfers
Follow
It's a record: The U.S. economy has never before delivered 50 straight months of payrolls growth (Previous record: 48, ending in mid-1990.).
3:54 AM - 5 Dec 2014 738 Retweets 239 favorites


Ben Casselman ✔ @bencasselman
Follow
Simply put, the November jobs report crushed it.
http://53eig.ht/1z29igO
5:26 AM - 5 Dec 2014

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/12/05/jobs-jobs-and-more-jobs-thanks-president-obama/

[steve2470]

99. [phone] nt

[Hekate]

52. Rachel Maddow pointed out it's the best since 1999, with charts, naming names....

It's pretty clear that Repub presidents trash the economy or stall it, while Dem presidents pick up the pieces and then surge us forward. But I suppose the posters in this thread think Rachel is shilling or lying or deluded or something, because she is giving Obama HUGE credit for this.

[rhett o rick]

89. Problem is you can't have it both ways. Not holding the President accountable for the state of the

nation (because of an obstructing Congress) and yet give him credit for saving the economy. Where I live the economy hasn't been "saved".

[Major Hogwash]

93. Where do you live?

In what state?

[rhett o rick]

94. Washington the State

[Odin2005]

55. Nobody saved the US economy. The Banksters got saved, the rest of us were told to fuck off.

The official statistics are meaningless because they ignore the fact that most of these new jobs are complete shit. Reciting them and talk about the "Obama recovery" makes you look out of touch.

[Major Hogwash]

60. Ya, right after Obama slashed Social Security and cut food stamps, he doesn't get credit for it.

Obama nearly brought this forum to its knees what with all of the giveaway federal programs that he started!
He was giving away cell phones to poor people, for free!!

And the DOW Jones has set a record almost daily for a month as well.
Unemployment is down to less than 6%, but as for that Obama guy, he doesn't get any credit for it.
He was just there when it happened.

It was Boehnor's "Grand Slam" all-inclusive, "shovel ready" jobs bill, the one that he passed unanimously in the House 4 years ago, that had more influence on the economy than any of the economic policies of the President.
And now, gas is down to $2.65 a gallon because of it.

Back in the real world, I guess the jobs numbers for November came out today, and that is what really hurt their feelings.
That would be my guess.

[bobGandolf]

67. No kidding! It is ridiculous how dems and repubs alike refuse to....

give him the credit he deserves.

[lonestarnot]

69. Yes, I do think you have it "right." Righties in their uncomfortable tighties want that to be the

language of the day. People are working 3 jobs because that is what pugs have created with the obstructionism in the House. They like the slave labor culture and "being able to fire people that work for them" Mit the twit.

[INdemo]

76. If John McCain would have won in 2008

McCain would have been Bush III

There would be grass growing up through the concrete cracks of the parking lots of GM plants. There would not have been a recovery as we have seen but there would be millions still unemployed because of all GM employees, the satellite companies that manufacture parts for GM and the list goes on and on.
Kind of scary?
In many ways I think sometimes the banks and wall street didn't care if they brought the economy down...Through the recovery when jobs did come back the wage demands decreased drastically and I wonder could that have been part of their plan??
What the hell it didn't cost banks anything no one went to jail and through all of this BS Republicans took control of the House with all those T baggers in 2012...What a shame.

[rusty fender]

81. Obama saved a shitty system

Capitalism isn't an egalitarian system. It only has winners and losers. The Potus, along with a like-minded Congress, can add laws that will create, sustain, and even grow, a middle class.
FDR recognized this.

For Obama, or any POTUS, to save the U.S. economy from itself, he would need an overwhelmingly progressive congress, one that was willing to restructure the whole damned capitalistic thing. Together, they would have to add and strengthen social programs, heavily tax the financial sector, nationalize the FED, etc., because capitalism only has winners and losers; it doesn't mess with Mr. Inbetween.

Yes, Obama saved the American economy, but given the staggering problems we had/have, he was unprepared and/or decided against trying to rebuild our entire system from the top down.

Just remember what Obama was facing in November of 2008: his choices were an abyss or an even greater abyss. Considering his choices and all the obstacles he faced by the Repubs, he has done a remarkable job.

However, our shitty system also has collapses built in, so too, our present economy will collapse.

[spanone]

82. k&r....

[SidDithers]

85. DU rec...

Apparently, a healthy economy is a bad thing, to the fringe left.

Oh, and that good jobs report? More bad news, 'cause all 321,000 jobs aren't high-paying union jobs.

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. "More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."-St. Teresa Of Avila

Perhaps you will get a Republican president, House, and Senate, and really have something to carp about.

[LittleBlue]

88. He should get credit for this diseased debt bubble of an economy

Actually he shouldn't. This is just a continuation of Greenspan's and Helicopter Ben's policies, aka print money as fast as possible.

Our GDP is being kept on life support by enormous amounts of debt to offset the last batch of bad debt. Once the poor quality of these assets becomes apparent, as in 2008, we're looking at another collapse. We've entered the same phase as Japan has had for the last 20 years.

[Major Hogwash]

92. President Obama has consistently lowered the deficits every single year he has been in office.

The reason for the record highs on Wall Street is because of his economic policies and his stances on foreign affairs.

[Albertoo]

101. Obama stemmed the panic, but it's hard to say he 'saved' the economy

Obama saved this economy and repaired the damage of the Bush years.

Mmhh, you probably wouldn't get a consensus of expert economists on that statement.

Obama and Bernanke share one achievement: stemming the panic with quantitative easing (QE1)


The main interpretation difficulties are:

1- should the blame for the non-cyclical 2008 crisis due to piling bad loans be shared?

GW did nothing in 8 years, but Dems wanted to maintain lending to low-asset profiles.

2- did Obama let the Fed overspend (QE2, QE3) in a positive cycle (if it is)?

[Man from Pickens]

102. how can someone get credit for something that hasn't happened?

If today's economy is what "saved" looks like, we're in deep shit, and our posterity is in even deeper shit.

[rhett o rick]

106. Without Congressional help what specifically did the President to

"save" the economy?