Monday, October 10, 2011

Thanks Obama - Flat-Lining the Middle Class - Cain: 'Why Don't You Move the Demonstrations to the White House?'-Al Sharpton not handling Cain’s candidacy well - Idiot: Obama’s offered 11 reasons as to why higher taxes would be beneficial - Shock: Obama Raises $2.4 Million from Wall Street in one evening - Is the Obama administration using your tax dollars to promote ObamaCare?

 Thanks Obama - Flat-Lining the Middle Class - The American Conservative

Food pantries picked over. Incomes drying up. Shelters bursting with the homeless. Job seekers spilling out the doors of employment centers. College grads moving back in with their parents. The angry and disillusioned filling the streets.

Pan your camera from one coast to the other, from city to suburb to farm and back again, and you’ll witness scenes like these. They are the legacy of the Great Recession, the Lesser Depression, or whatever you choose to call it.

In recent months, a blizzard of new data, the hardest of hard numbers, has laid bare the dilapidated condition of the American economy, and particularly of the once-mighty American middle class. Each report sparks a flurry of news stories and pundit chatter, but never much reflection on what it all means now that we have just enough distance to look back on the first decade of the twenty-first century and see how Americans fared in that turbulent period.

And yet the verdict couldn’t be more clear-cut. For the American middle class, long the pride of this country and the envy of the world, the past 10 years were a bust. A washout. A decade from hell.
Paychecks shrank. Household wealth melted away like so many sandcastles swept off by the incoming tide. Poverty spiked, swallowing an ever-greater share of the population, young and old. “This is truly a lost decade,” Harvard University economist Lawrence Katz said of these last years. “We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we’re looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s.”

Cain: 'Why Don't You Move the Demonstrations to the White House?' - CNS News
( - Republican presidential nominee candidate Herman Cain called for the Occupy Wall Street protestors to relocate to the White House, in remarks he made Friday at the Family Research Council’s annual Values Voter Summit, in Washington, D.C. “When a reporter asked me the other day, well, what do you think about those demonstrations up on Wall Street, I said, first of all, Wall Street didn’t write these failed economic policies -- the White House did,” said Cain. He then added, “Why don’t you move the demonstrations to the White House?” The Values Voter Summit is a three-day conference that brings together conservatives aligned on traditional ideas, beliefs and values. The summit also included appearances by presidential nominee candidates Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich.
Somehow certain conservatives would never support a black presidential candidate, lefty commentators have been caught off-guard by business leader Herman Cain's sudden rise. Still under the impression Rick Perry was the GOP's frontrunner, libtalkers hadn't even begun to concoct an anti-Cain smear campaign. With the emergence of strong polling data, however, that is quickly changing. Below, find two examples of how Cain's increasingly effective effort has perplexed the left. For his part, Al Sharpton's annoyed at the mere existence of a Cain candidacy within the Republican Party! How could Herman possibly be ideologically sincere given his upbringing and background? Professor Karen Hunter, Sharpton's guest, believes the reverend is badly underestimating Cain's political potential.
During Obama’s presser last week, he offered 11 reasons as to why higher taxes would be beneficial.  Unfortunately none of these reasons were based on fact or logic.

Is the Obama administration using your tax dollars to promote ObamaCare? 

Marxism versus the Middle Class.


Obama Raises $2.4 Million from Wall Street in one evening
(Hey occupier morons check out your god) - Firedoglake (Liberal Blog)

By: David Dayen
I’ve heard people openly wondering why the President hasn’t cracked down on the financial sector. They’re historically unpopular! The economy cannot recover without a crackdown! The people would love him for it!I can give you 2.4 million reasons why Obama wouldn’t.
Last night Obama headed to the Upper East Side to wine and dine Wall Street.
The DNC fundraiser at tony restaurant Daniel cost attendees $35,800 each, and a source told Ben White at Morning Money that the event netted $2.4 million [...]
Marc Lasry was there, as expected. So was Orin Kramer.
According to Dealbook, the menu included: “Maine lobster salad with roasted beets, duos of Black Angus beef, braised short ribs with young spinach, and roasted tenderloin with stuffed potato and hen of the woods.”
The meal was prepared by Daniel Boulud himself.
The dinner was part of Obama’s plan to win back the group of financiers that helped him cruise past McCain in 2008, many of whom were turned off by the President’s labeling of them as “fat cats” near the beginning of his term.
Daniel Boulud himself!
Here’s the situation. You have a President who wants to get re-elected. You have a financial sector that is so thin-skinned that they take the phrase “fat cats” as a personal affront. You have a post-Citizens United world where campaigns get more and more expensive. This is not algebra, it’s first-grade mathematics.

Report shows that the Obama recovery is worse than the recession on income - Hot Air
When running for President, Barack Obama decried the decline of American household income, which certainly dropped during the 2007-2009 Great Recession.  Since the recovery began in June 2009 — a recovery for which Obama has repeatedly claimed credit — that trend has gotten worse, not better.  A new report shows that the percentage of decline in household income during the so-called recovery actually doubled that of the recession:
Income for American families declined more in the years following the economic recession than it did during the official recession itself, a new study shows.
During the recession, which economists say lasted from Dec. 2007 to June 2009, the median annual household income fell by 3.2 percent, from $55,309 to $53,518, according to a report authored by two former U.S. Census Bureau officials. But in the post-recession period from June 2009 to June 2011, the figure fell by 6.7 percent, from $53,518 in June 2009 to $49,909 in June 2011. …
The study found that during the post-recessionary period, families with just a male or female head with no spouse present saw a 7.3 percent decline in income compared to the 4.5 percent drop for married-couple households. Income for households with a head under the age of 25 fell by 9.5 percent, significantly more than the 5.5 percent decline for households with a head who is 45 to 54 years old.

No comments: