The Obama disease takes toll on economy

ObamaEbola

Ronald Reagan’s famous question that sank Jimmy Carter in 1980 — “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” — could be reprised to measure the performance of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The latest figures from the Census Bureau and Federal Reserve suggest the answer would be an emphatic “no.”

In 2008, Mr. Obama’s message of hope and change resonated with the promise of “policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy from the bottom up so that everyone has a chance to succeed.” Audiences cheered, but now with the knowledge from experience, the question becomes, has that investment paid off?

A new Federal Reserve study finds the median net worth of families last year fell to its lowest level since 1992, after adjusting for inflation. For most families, this means that the work of two decades of economic struggle has vanished. The dollar figure on the paycheck is higher, but dollars don’t buy nearly as much as they did.

LaborUPDATE

By this measure, the presiding generation is less well-off than the one that preceded it. This is not a surprise to parents who find their dreams of peace in an “empty nest” dashed when their children return from college, unable to find jobs.

Stimulus and “investment” were supposed to reinvigorate the economy. Government spending would create jobs and rescue Americans from the grim clutch of poverty. Census Bureau statistics released Tuesday show 45.3 million Americans living below the poverty level as measured by the government. That’s almost 10 million more living in poverty than in 1992.

While the population is larger, the poverty rate is identical — 14.5 percent. It’s as likely that someone is poor today as in 1992, or in 1962. Mr. Obama’s economic policies have achieved nothing, but worse, the entire 50-year Democratic “war on poverty” has made no discernible impact on poverty.

Washington Times: The Obama disease takes toll on economy

Party of the Rich? That’s the Democrats, GOP is the Middle-Class

As we continue to knock down individual members from the long list of liberal talking points, another we can add to the scrap heap of history is that Republicans are the “party of the rich.”

In polling data during the 2012 election campaign, two and a half times more registered voters said that the Republicans’ policies favor the rich versus those of the Democrats. Twice as many voters thought the Democrats’ policies favored the middle class compared to those of the Republicans. And twelve times as many voters indicated that the Democrats’ policies favored the poor over those of the Republicans.

And yet, when we look at the data, what do we see? The Democrats are actually the party of the rich, the Republicans are the party of the middle class, and the Republicans may even have a slight lead over the Democrats in representing the poor.

The US Census Bureau has released its latest installment of “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” a document that includes measures of household income dispersion.

The following figure shows the change in share of household income going to the top 5% and the highest quintile (i.e., top 20%) over each presidential term since Reagan.

RichParty2

Well, now. This doesn’t fit the liberal narrative very well. Clinton increased the share of household income going to the top 5% by a whopping 3.5% during his two terms, double the rate of Reagan at only 1.8%. After four years, Obama increased this share to the rich (0.8%) more than Reagan had following his first term (0.6%). Bush 43 actually dramatically decreased the share of household income headed to the top 5%, and his father saw only a very small increase.

So, on a time-equivalent basis, the two presidents who increased the household income share the most for the top 5% are both Democrats, with Republicans pulling up the rear in third, fourth, and fifth place. After four years, the three Republican presidents average only a 0.2% increase, compared to a 1.8% increase for the two Democrat presidents. After eight years, the two Republicans are up only 0.6% versus a 3.5% increase for the Democrat.

We see the same message in the share of household income for the highest quintile. Clinton is well out in front in terms of increasing the income share for the highest 20%. Reagan and Obama are in an effective dead heat after their first four years. After four years, the Republicans average a 0.7% increase; the Democrats are at +1.6%. After eight years, it is Republicans at +1.2% and the Democrat at +2.9%.

But the Democrats are the party of the middle class and the poor, aren’t they? Wrong again. The following plot shows the change in share of household income going to the third quintile (i.e., middle class) and the lowest 40% over each presidential term.

RichParty2

Clinton decreased (-1.0%) the share of household income going to the middle class more than Reagan (-0.8%), and far more than Bush 43 (effectively unchanged at -0.1%). After four years, Obama (-0.3%) has decreased the middle-class income share more than both Bush 41 (-0.2%) and Bush 43 (-0.1%). Four years into their terms, the Republicans average a much smaller decline in the middle-class income share (-0.3%) than the Democrats (-0.5%). After eight years the gap is even wider, with Republicans averaging -0.4% and Democrats at -1.0%.

In his first term, Obama has decreased the household income share going to the lowest 40% by 0.5%, the same decrease as Reagan after four years, and more than either Bush 41 (-0.2%) or Bush 43 (-0.4%). Clinton leads the way in this statistic, decreasing the income share going to the poorest members of society by 0.6% after four years in office. After eight years, the two Republicans average out to equal Clinton at a 0.7% reduction in the income share for the lowest 40%.

Another liberal storyline in shambles. Could it be that “Reaganomics” and the “Bush tax cuts” actually favor the middle class more, and the rich less, than the corresponding liberal policies enacted under Clinton and Obama? Nearly three and a half decades of data suggest that this may be the case. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being rich — and promoting the acquisition and protection of wealth — but if liberals persists in using these terms pejoratively, they may find that the data works against them.

American Thinker: Party of the Rich? That’s the Democrats by Sierra Rayne

Obama Will Not Call The Invasion of #Ukraine An Invasion Because Gov #Palin was 100% Correct

At yesterday’s tan suit presser, President Obama said a whole lot of nothing. After informing our ISIS enemies that he has no idea what he’s going to do about them – if anything – he turned his attention to Russia. It’s should be obvious to every clear-thinking man, woman, and child that, if over a thousand troops, tanks, and paratroopers drop into a foreign nation, it’s being invaded. Unfortunately, it seems that it’s not obvious to Barack Obama. …Because the word “invasion” has magically disappeared from his vocabulary.

palinukraine

According to the President, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an invasion. It’s either “an aggression,” an “internvention,” or some kind of “ongoing incursion.”

So why can’t Barack Obama bring himself to utter the “I-word?” Most media outlets are looking for a geo-political reason, but you don’t need to work that hard.  If there’s one thing we know about Barack Obama, it’s that – for him – everything is about Barack Obama. The nation, the world, and the very fabric of the known universe revolve around his visage.

So I have a theory about why he’s so reticent to call this an invasion: Sarah Palin.

Back in 2008, Sarah Palin warned the world that, if the United States elected a weak-minded equivocator like Senator Barack Obama as its next President, it would embolden Vladimir Putin and spark an invasion of Ukraine.

As she said at the time:

“After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of moral indecision and equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

She was, as you’ll certainly recall, lampooned endlessly for the assertion. This is where the infamous “I can see Russia from my house” bit on SNL came from. Now, it turns out that her prognostication was 100%, dead-on, correct.

Not only did she nail the countries involved, but she also stuck the landing by predicting the reason. Putin doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, and he has no reason to concern himself with Obama, because Obama has projected nothing but abject weakness.

Sarah Palin was “right” with a specificity rarely seen in politics and the left spent six years mocking her mercilessly for it.

To admit that the “stupidest woman on the face of the Earth” was correct all along would not only be an embarrassment, it would be anathema to every single thing for which the modern Democrat party stands: namely ego, arrogance, and agenda. For them, Palin is public enemy number one. She is the embodiment of everything they despise and a six-year focal point for their unhinged rage.

She can NEVER be allowed to be proven right. She said Putin would invade Ukraine, so there is no invasion of Ukraine.

Is it petty? Yes. Is it a childish? Sure. Is it everything we’ve come to expect from the petty man currently occupying the Oval Office?

“You betcha!”

Canada Free Press: Sarah Palin predicted a weak Obama would enable the ‘invasion’ of Ukraine