Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise


#1

Under President Obama, the richest 10 percent were the only income group of Americans to see their median incomes rise, according to a survey released this week by the Federal Reserve.
The survey also found that family in the middle income bracket (40th to 90th percentiles) saw “very little” change in average real incomes and still have not recovered losses from 2010 and 2007. **Families at the bottom of the income distribution continued to see “substantial declines” in average real incomes, a continuing trend from the previous two surveys. **

Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/#ixzz3CSGMp4m4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


#2

Well, you know, between President Bush’s tax policies, those darned representatives in Congress who won’t roll over and play dead for the President, and the darned economy for not knowing that the Big O meant to turn it around so it had better cooperate, it’s really the Republicans fault. #Obama2016

In all seriousness, though, without seeing more of the underlying data, it is difficult to tell how much this is related to the action (or inaction) of the President. The ultra-wealthy are typically better equipped to navigate downturns and come out stronger for it. Heck, I started my 401k in January 2009 and went heavily into stocks because everything was so cheap - now, I’m just watching them climb back towards normal, gaining all the way.

It reminds me of a situation in Connecticut. Every few years, the state does some sort of lottery game. There is a way, though, to guarantee a payout of like $750,000, provided you have $300,000 to spend on it. The same doesn’t work with $300 and $750, or even $30,000 and $75,000. It takes money to make money, and the more you have, the more you earn.


#3

Totally agree. Without some historical and comparative data, this really doesn’t mean anything.


#4

Like President Obama could do anything without the cooperation of the House and Senate. (Congress) We have a bunch of fools holding everyone hostage via our Congress and people want to blame the President. Congress has done nothing to help this country out of the situation it landed in under Bush and Bush.

I am sick of all of them, as most are not there for the people, they are there for special interest groups, lobbies, big oil and big business. I think it is time for some trash collectors, ditch diggers and common people to be placed in office. We could really get somewhere if we put some good old housewives on stingy, mean budgets in office. At least they know how to make a dollar go like $100.


#5

Well, a stiff, wet northwest wind in January doesn’t mean snow where I live, but it often does.

The lower down the wealth scale one is, the more one’s earnings are dependent on income from work. The higher on the scale one is, the more it depends on income from property.

Unfortunately, for the former, “income from work” is part of the same scale as “income from non-work” (being paid not to work), while the relationship between income from work and income from property almost never changes from a 1/3 (property) to 2/3 (work) ratio.
As income from non-work increases, income from work decreases as a percentage of national income.

And, of course, the greatest upward driver of income from work is high employment. It is also during those periods that the ratio of income from work is highest relative to the total.

There are reasons for all of that.

So, in an economy in which hiring and investment are discouraged by uncertainty (taxes, healthcare costs, regulatory environment, monetary stimulus that often results in high interest costs eventually) there is no reason to be surprised that income from work is not doing all that well relative to income from property. It’s always that way when employment is relatively low.


#6

Yeah well Eric Cantor just saw his income rise to $3.4 million as he just got hired by an investment banking firm.

And Goldman Sachs earnings are up so I’m sure VP Heidi Cruz, Ted’s wife, saw her income go up as well.

:rolleyes:
Jim


#7

Sometimes it’s just ideology.

There is a lot of ranching where I live. Beef prices are very high, mainly because the national cattle herd is low and ranchers are slow in rebuilding their herds.

The proposed new EPA waterway rules will almost certainly make it impossible for ranchers to water their cattle from streams or, indeed, make good use of fields next to them. It will make ranchers apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers even to buttress a stream bank that’s eroding or take out debris that’s clogging a stream. It even regulates dry ditches. Why? Well, because environmentalist radicals have a lot of pull with this administration and give its party a lot of money.

That will become effective in October. Fill your freezer now if you can. :wink:


#8

This isn’t hardly news to those who are both literate and actually think about what they read. It’s nothing more than a Democratic Party campaign slogan to say that they’re the party of the regular guy while the Republicans are the party of the rich.

The TRUTH is that Republicans are generally the party of the relatively rich while the Dems are the party of the ULTRA rich. What do Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros and the current Rockefellers have in common? Dems. All out of charity though, right? :rolleyes:

The fact is that Democratic Party policies pay lip service to helping the weak, but are actually designed to permanently entrench the status quo. Not surprisingly, the ultra rich are very happy with that idea.

Want evidence? One example. We had a financial collapse largely because the financial wellbeing of our economy was excessively concentrated in just a few places, making them “too big to fail.” So what has this administration done about it? Vigorously pursued policies obviously intended to drive small banks into merges and buyouts by big ones. The exact opposite of what was needed.

Never trust what a politician says. Look at what they DO and figure out by that what they really value.


#9

:thumbsup:


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.