Why voters hate the Obama economy

[tlongII]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/05/news...rts/?hpt=hp_t1

Americans are deeply dissatisfied with President Obama's economy.

According to CNN midterm election exit polling, seven in 10 voters said they were concerned about economic conditions.

Truth be told, the economy is actually chugging along if you look at the big picture data on GDP and unemployment. America is certainly better off than it was six years ago during the financial crisis.

But that doesn't matter to most people. They look at their own financial situation, and for many Americans, it hasn't improved.

Here's a look at the "ho-hum Obama economy" in four charts.

1. Economic expansion: After contracting in the first quarter due to some unusually harsh winter weather, the economy has been building momentum. GDP grew by a solid annual rate of 3.5% in the third quarter, driven by a bump in consumer and government spending.



Low gas prices could be an added bonus this quarter as shoppers have a little extra money in their pockets going into the holiday season.

The steady economic growth picture is in sharp contrast to Europe, where feeble GDP and inflation are threatening to tip the continent into recession.

2. Jobs: After years of sluggish jobs growth, the economy is finally adding to the employment ranks at healthy clip. In September, the unemployment rate dipped below 6% for the first time since the recession. And that was because people were actually getting jobs as opposed to simply dropping out of the workforce, a theme that's been all too common during the recovery.



But don't break out the champagne yet, as there are still far too many people who have given up looking for work. In fact, at just 62.7%, the share of Americans participating in the labor force is now at its lowest point since 1978.

Related: Are you a part-time worker? Share your story

3. Paltry wages: But even those who have jobs aren't necessarily seeing their fortunes improve.

Average weekly earnings are about $797 -- almost exactly the same as in 2007 (after adjusting for inflation). Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has repeatedly pointed to low wages as a big hurdle for the economy.



That's a tough pill to swallow and may be why so many voters expressed economic anxiety this election cycle. While some goods cost more, Americans' wages aren't going up accordingly.

Related: You won't miss those annoying political ads. Stations will miss the money

4. Bull market for some: At the same time, things are looking pretty good for the upper middle class and wealthy. The stock market is at record highs and home values have made a remarkable comeback.



But until things start to perk up for all Americans, expect the economy stay to front and center in the next election cycle.

[Spurminator]

So basically, Americans are reacting to the growing wealth gap. Things are getting disproportionately better for the wealthiest Americans while the Middle Class and below are having to work harder and longer to make ends meet. And they've been convinced, somehow, that the solution to this is to put into power the party whose policies disproportionately favor the wealthy.

Anyway, I don't think this election was about the economy at all, regardless of what voters say. The Democrats didn't have a succinct message, lacked inspiring candidates, and Republicans were able to take advantage of a lathered-up voting bloc freshly (and unitedly) agitated by Ferguson, Ebola, and all the gay stuff.

[Cry Havoc]

So basically, Americans are reacting to the growing wealth gap. Things are getting disproportionately better for the wealthiest Americans while the Middle Class and below are having to work harder and longer to make ends meet. And they've been convinced, somehow, that the solution to this is to put into power the party whose policies disproportionately favor the wealthy.

Meh. They're angry. Angry people lash out. The Democrats are just the ones in power and there's no other party.

If we had a 3 party system in this country, Dems and Repubs would both be sucking their thumbs right now after the last 6 years of carnage and idiocy.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs didn't run on Obama personally destroying the economy.

They ran on castrating hogs (extremely critical to voters in an urbanized country), Ebola and ISIS coming to kill us all, the usual god/gays/guns, vicious attack ads, and just bull in general, since the Repugs' actual federal policies (like privatizing SS, killing Medicare) are never in their attack ads. TX Repugs' platform DID have its usual Texas- ing-crazy insane planks, but they weren't front and center, if even mentioned in the campaign.

[ElNono]

So basically, Americans are reacting to the growing wealth gap.

I don't know it's necessarily that. I think the reality is that the labor market's quality has deteriorated a lot, over a long period of time (I would say it started long before Barry, but he did nothing to change that). More and more temp workers, low wages, outsourcing, automation... there's many factors. I don't think either party really has shown to have a solution to it, so yeah, whoever is ruling will get the thumbs down.

[Spurminator]

I don't know it's necessarily that. I think the reality is that the labor market's quality has deteriorated a lot, over a long period of time (I would say it started long before Barry, but he did nothing to change that). More and more temp workers, low wages, outsourcing, automation... there's many factors. I don't think either party really has shown to have a solution to it, so yeah, whoever is ruling will get the thumbs down.

I should have said wealth and earnings gaps. GDP is growing but laborers are overworked and underpaid. So they're working harder, being more productive, and not being rewarded with the economic growth they're helping to stimulate, because the people they work for aren't putting that growth into more jobs and better pay.

I am skeptical, though, that suddenly voters had a change of heart about who to indict for this. I just don't think liberals were inspired this cycle... and admittedly that could have to do with not feeling like they've gotten the results they'd hoped for.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All economic indicators are up but wages. Same different decade for going on 40 years.

The youngest boomers reached voting age in 1982.

[TDMVPDPOY]

cant do when his party doesnt hold the majority in the senate to pass legislation

lol economy
lol 400m population
lol trying to achieve full employment
lol made up statistics of unemployment
lol if every person does their bit in paying taxes, wouldnt solve
govt would just waste the money on stupid expenses/projects

[boutons_deux]

All economic indicators are up but wages. Same different decade for going on 40 years.

The youngest boomers reached voting age in 1982.

boomers! It's all their fault, because the somebody told Fuzzy, and he believes any generational warfare propaganda!

[Uriel]

I find it hilarious that Obama, and not the obstructionist Congressional Republicans, is the one being blamed for the poor economy.

[Uriel]

So basically, Americans are reacting to the growing wealth gap. Things are getting disproportionately better for the wealthiest Americans while the Middle Class and below are having to work harder and longer to make ends meet. And they've been convinced, somehow, that the solution to this is to put into power the party whose policies disproportionately favor the wealthy.

[TeyshaBlue]

All economic indicators are up but wages. Same different decade for going on 40 years.

The youngest boomers reached voting age in 1982.

Might check your math on that one....82 seems like a decade or so late.

[boutons_deux]

1964 + 18 = 1982

[boutons_deux]

unemployment down to 5.8%

Would be much lower and much sooner if the Repugs hadn't blocked all stimulus and hadn't screwed the country with their austerity at all levels.

Thanks, Repugs!

You got Congressional power now, and you'll America harder and deeper, even by doing nothing, obstructing everything.

[boutons_deux]

In January 2009, the new Obama administration came in with big ambitions to increase federal spending. The immediate need was to pass a stimulus bill to prevent the economy from sinking into a depression. Republicans (with a few exceptions) wouldn’t cooperate, even after Democrats loaded up the stimulus bill with GOP-friendly tax cuts and infrastructure spending in every congressional district.

In the past, Republicans had generally supported temporary stimulus measures, but that changed with the election of Barack Obama. And when the Tea Party swept the Republicans into a majority in the House in the 2010 midterms, the party began to say “no” to federal spending in general.

The Republicans were still the minority party in government, but they put a lot of pressure on Obama and the congressional Democrats, using every procedural and political tool at their disposal. In the summer of 2011, the Republicans took the government to the brink of default on its debt, which led to an agreement with Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to cut spending, by automatically sequestering funds if necessary.

A year ago, the Republicans again forced the issue with a 16-day partial shutdown of the federal government, which led to another agreement with the Democrats on spending cuts.

From this history, it’s clear that Republicans should get most of the credit (or blame) for the decline in federal spending over the past five years. Obama and the congressional Democrats were led kicking and screaming to the altar. They didn’t like it, but they agreed. Since then, Obama has pivoted to talking about economic opportunity and inequality, but to little effect.

Experience shows what a disastrous policy the spending reductions were.

Cutting your way to growth didn’t work in the eurozone, and it didn’t work in the United States (although thankfully our austerity was mild compared with theirs). The Congressional Budget Office figured earlier this year that economic output was about $622 billion smaller this year than it would have been if we had been at full employment.

For the 10 years between 2008 and 2017, the CBO figured that lost output would total $6.2 trillion, about one-third of annual gross domestic product.

About 6 million more people would be working today if we’d had pro-growth policies instead of the austerity forced upon us by the Republicans. And those of us who do have jobs have seen our wages stagnate because there’s so much slack in the labor market that very few workers have any bargaining power at all with their bosses.

http://www.marke ch.com/story/as-...4-10-31?page=2

Thanks, Repugs and the assholes who votes for ya!

Repugs got nothing but lies and ideological bull like trickle down will float all boats (nope, just the yachts), tax cuts pay for themselves and create jobs, austerity/deficit is more important than 10Ms of Americans out of work, underemployed, etc, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

1964 + 18 = 1982

Whoops...my bad. Was transposing young and old. Doh!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

boomers! It's all their fault, because the somebody told Fuzzy, and he believes any generational warfare propaganda!

You really are going to claim this after the VRWC nonsense you have been spamming for a decade?

I believe it because I look at the boomer bloc's voting record as well as the IRS reports of input vs output for the demographic and the smear campaigns I have cited. Add onto that a whole ton of personal anecdotes that hammers it home.

[boutons_deux]

You really are going to claim this after the VRWC nonsense you have been spamming for a decade?

I believe it because I look at the boomer bloc's voting record as well as the IRS reports of input vs output for the demographic and the smear campaigns I have cited. Add onto that a whole ton of personal anecdotes that hammers it home.

of course. The wealth gap/World Champion Inequality, the stagnation of real household incomes since 1980 and the actual decline, union busting (right to work (for less) laws) etc, etc are all due to govt policies as paid for by VRWC/1%/BigCorps.

boomers! HAMMERED into you malleable, nonsense-polluted head!

boomers are a demographic simplicity, you claiming they are also a monolithic voting block?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

of course. The wealth gap/World Champion Inequality, the stagnation of real household incomes since 1980 and the actual decline, union busting (right to work (for less) laws) etc, etc are all due to govt policies as paid for by VRWC/1%/BigCorps.

boomers! HAMMERED into you malleable, nonsense-polluted head!

boomers are a demographic simplicity, you claiming they are also a monolithic voting block?

1% is a demographic simplicity

And I only make the application regarding particular voting behaviors ie lower taxes, increase en lements guaranteed for boomers but not for anyone else etc.

I just cited over half a dozen article from mainstream news outlets describing a phenomenon that you claim does not exist. It details specific policies that benefited boomers to the exclusive or detriment of others as well as treasury and IRS figures that quantify how much that is the case.

You can stick your head in the sand all you like but huge swathes of millennials and a lesser extent of Xers hold the same opinion and you are going to have to do better than typical boomer condescension to change that.

[boutons_deux]

boomers! 10Ms of them are looking at tough retirement, or working at ty jobs, if they can find, way past 65.

but FuzzyMinded says the boomers have helped themselves while screwing the young'uns.

en lements is framing propaganda term from the Repugs whos want to privatize SS, and kill Medicare/Medicaid.

1% = Wealthy Class Warriors, a fairly monolithic, greedy, predatory bunch. Boomers are not at all monolithic and their decreasing real incomes for 45 years proves they have rigged the system in their favor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

boomers! 10Ms of them are looking at tough retirement, or working at ty jobs, if they can find, way past 65.

but FuzzyMinded says the boomers have helped themselves while screwing the young'uns.

en lements is framing propaganda term from the Repugs whos want to privatize SS, and kill Medicare/Medicaid.

1% = Wealthy Class Warriors, a fairly monolithic, greedy, predatory bunch. Boomers are not at all monolithic and their decreasing real incomes for 45 years proves they have rigged the system in their favor.

En lements guaranteed for boomers and not for anyone else is what I said. Please point me to the politician GOP or otherwise that ran on that. It's still political suicide to have boomers try even a modi of introspection.

[boutons_deux]

En lements guaranteed for boomers and not for anyone else is what I said. Please point me to the politician GOP or otherwise that ran on that. It's still political suicide to have boomers try even a modi of introspection.

Medicare/medicaid go back to when youngest were babies, and the oldest were not yet 20. How does those boomer kids include themselves but exclude everybody else? WTF?

boomers! fixing the boomers fixes USA!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Medicare/medicaid go back to when youngest were babies, and the oldest were not yet 20. How does those boomer kids include themselves but exclude everybody else? WTF?

boomers! fixing the boomers fixes USA!

The individual mandate, caps on premiums for boomers, the medicare prescription drug program, and the raiding of the SS reserve fund are all examples of en lement programs and/or policies specifically tailored to assist the Boomers and no one else and are cases of unsustainable programs which are not funded past into the era when Xers and millennials are of the age to begin receiving benefits.

Boomers allow your 1% to rape and pillage as long as it doesn't cost them anything. If SS and medicare aren't sustainable past 2030 then that is just fine with the boomer electorate.

I don't deny your notions of oligarchy although I think your approach is incredibly dumbed down and dated.

[SnakeBoy]

So basically, Americans are reacting to the growing wealth gap. Things are getting disproportionately better for the wealthiest Americans while the Middle Class and below are having to work harder and longer to make ends meet. And they've been convinced, somehow, that the solution to this is to put into power the party whose policies disproportionately favor the wealthy.

Yes it's the income gap they are upset about. I hear it all the time from people "if only the rich were less rich I would be happier with my part time $12/hr job."

[boutons_deux]

The individual mandate, caps on premiums for boomers, the medicare prescription drug program, and the raiding of the SS reserve fund are all examples of en lement programs and/or policies specifically tailored to assist the Boomers and no one else and are cases of unsustainable programs which are not funded past into the era when Xers and millennials are of the age to begin receiving benefits.

Boomers allow your 1% to rape and pillage as long as it doesn't cost them anything. If SS and medicare aren't sustainable past 2030 then that is just fine with the boomer electorate.

I don't deny your notions of oligarchy although I think your approach is incredibly dumbed down and dated.

obsessed with boomers! "how many programs can I MISinterpret to blame on the boomer?"

individual mandate applies to EVERYBODY, including boomers screwed out of a decent job late in life by the 1%/VRWC, not just young and healthy. And boomers pay more for the same coverage, screwing themselves for living longer!

Repugs' unfunded Medicare Part D, as was Medicare Advantage, are Repug taxpayer-wealth transfers (aka redistribution upward) to BigCorps, NOT aimed as impoverishing/disadvantaging non-boomers.

Raiding of SS trust fund, as well as all levels of govt and BigCorps raiding/non-contributing-to pension funds, HURTS boomers not aids them. There will be more cases like Detroit where boomers will lose pensions.

All of these programs are the BigCorps/1% policies to shift wealth to themselves, screwing the 99%, boomers and non-boomers.

your "generational conflict" is pure VRWC propaganda bull you've naively swallowed, ridiculously spewed, bull meant to hide the real culprit of the oligarchy/1%/plutocracy screwing boomers and non-boomers.