Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Personally, no.
From FOX News:
Median household incomes have fallen 8.2 percent since President Obama took office and continue to drop despite the official end of the recession, a new study shows.We need new leadership in the White House.
Data compiled by Sentier Research found that since the economic recovery technically began in June 2009, median household income has dropped 5.7 percent. As of August, that median income was $50,678 -- also down 1.1 percent from the month prior.
And since Obama took office in January 2009, the median income has fallen 8.2 percent, from $55,198 to its present figure.
"The August decline in real median annual household income is indicative of a struggling economy," Sentier said in its report.
"Even though we are technically in an economic recovery, real median annual household income is having a difficult time maintaining its present level, much less 'recovering.'"
The figures continue to paint a dim portrait of the nation's post-recession economic rebound, and are sure to factor into the robust economic debate on the campaign trail.
Obama has declared that he's not going to worry about the debt.
We can't afford Obama's wild spending spree, continuing on this trillion-dollar deficits path.
Fifty-five percent of small business owners would not have started their businesses in today's economy.
“There is far too much uncertainty, too many burdensome regulations and too few policymakers willing to put aside their egos and fulfill their responsibilities to the American people,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which commissioned the poll along with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “To fix this problem, we need immediate action on pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that put manufacturers in the United States in a position to compete and succeed in an ever-more competitive global economy.”There's no reason to believe Obama would change course in a second term and become business-friendly, when he'd have more "flexibility."
The poll reports another ominous statistic for job creation: “67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.” Why? Because “President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers,” according to 69 percent of the business owners surveyed.
Here are the key findings in the poll, as highlighted by NAM:
•67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.
•69 percent of small business owners and manufacturers say President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers.
•55 percent say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current environment.
•54 percent say other countries like China and India are more supportive of their small businesses and manufacturers than the United States.
Frankly, his potential "flexibility" scares me to death.
The reality is Obama's policies have screwed many Americans. I have faith in Mitt Romney's ability to help businesses, and thereby help American families.
5 comments:
And yet corporate profits hit all time high. How do you explain THAT?
Obama's crony capitalism?
But I thought he was a socialist redistributor? Can't have it both ways. Gotta pick one.
If a company is not sure of the future, they sit on the cash. They don't try to expand. They don't hire more people. They might even let some people go. They don't make new products. They don't build new factories. They don't order new equipment (notice the huge downturn in durable goods today- down 13% ?). They cut their costs to the bone.
That, Jimspice, is how you explain great profits for companies in a bad economy- not to mention uncertainty over the implications of what obamacare will do to their business. Yes, lots of business owners I have talked to still don't know how this will impact them in the long run and so are sitting on cash.
The introduction of "uncertainty" into economic models was, in my opinion, idiotic. Sure, take a discipline trying to demonstrate scientific rigor, and plug in psychological factors. Ughh. I'll take my variables accurately measured, thank you. You can always infer backwards. Remember, "we're all Keynesians now."
wv: 52 penisee
Post a Comment