Guess Who’s Benefited The Most During The Obameconomy?

That would be the top 10% of income earners

(Washington Times) 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 Fed data covered the years 2010-2013, during which period Mr. Obama constantly campaigned against income inequality and won re-election by painting his Republican rival as a tool of Wall Street plutocrats.

“Data from the 2013 [Survey of Consumer Finances] confirm that the shares of income and wealth held by affluent families are at modern historically high levels,” the report said in noting that the median income fell for every 10-percent grouping except the most affluent 10 percent.

“The 2013 SCF reveals substantial disparities in the evolution of income and net worth since the previous time the survey was conducted, in 2010,” the report stated. The SCF is conducted by the Federal reserve triennially and compiles information about family incomes, credit use, net worth and finances.

It’s no wonder Obama and Democrats yammer on about income redistribution and raising the minimum wage and other populist notions, as well as ever rising numbers of people on government assistance: their policies have caused direct harm to the incomes of the bottom 90%, while significantly helping those in the top 10%.

“The wealth share of the top 3 percent climbed from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in 2013. … The share of wealth held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33.2 percent in 1989 to 24.7 percent in 2013,” the report stated.

When’s this “recovery” going to happen?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Guess Who’s Benefited The Most During The Obameconomy?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Yes! The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer! But it didn’t start in 2009.

    Conservative solution: Clearly we need to cut taxes for the wealthy and for corporations and reduce regulatory burdens! And reduce Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment payments. Eliminate the minimum wage for Teach’s replaceable workers. That will fix everything.

    For several decades we have enacted policies that further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. It’s reaching the breaking point.

    We have an economic system that rewards Chelsea Clinton $600,000/yr for producing a few special reports for NBC. (She just resigned from that position.) That same system was laying off needed teachers, policemen and firemen.

    Productivity is up. Profits are up. Executive pay is up. Stock market is up. Wages for the people who do all the work – stagnant.

    Republicans want to double down on the policies that brought us to this point.

  2. Jim Curran says:

    “Imagine if every casino in Las Vegas retrofitted to improve energy efficiency and if they made it possible for all their employees to do the same in their homes,” Clinton said. “It would save on utility bills. It would save on energy. It would save on greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Please tell Mrs. Clinton that Las Vegas exists soley because of the Hoover Dam and hydroelectric power.

    Conservative solution: Clearly we need to cut taxes for the wealthy and for corporations and reduce regulatory burdens! And reduce Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment payments. Eliminate the minimum wage for Teach’s replaceable workers. That will fix everything.

    Exactly was is the Liberal solution? Raise taxes? Please explain how taking more money from they guy paying your salary will enable him to pay you more and hire more workers. The Robin Hood approach of taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn’t work, because the government is the middle man and they waste most of what they take so they can cry about needing more. Getting more people to pay taxes is the only way to generate more revenue. Lower taxes gives more money to everyone and creates jobs and creates tax revenue. The good years in the 60’s and the 80’s all started with lowering taxes and ended when the greedy government raised taxes.

  3. USMC8511 says:

    Poor Jeffery mired n the Obama mud is partially correct. It started in 2007 with the policies of the Demcrats as they held both houses of Congress. But hey, don’t let that little nuance get in the way of Democrat “blame Bush” propoganda.

  4. Jeffery says:

    “For several decades we have enacted policies that further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. It’s reaching the breaking point.”

    For decades. Not just for a few years.

    The Great Recession resulted from the crash of the overpriced housing market.

    From the non-partisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: “While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in the fall of 2008. Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged, repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives such as synthetic securities.”

    Conservatives like to say that it was because Barney Frank was having gay sex with Freddie Mac, but that’s not true. They also claim that lazy Negroes took out mortgages and wouldn’t pay them back, ’cause Bill Clinton etc, but that’s not true either.

    There was $80 trillion of easy money looking to invest and the big banks and investment firms were more than happy to accomodate it. Those firms (and the execs) were made whole by our gov’t; the poor folks who lost their equity (and us taxpayers) took the hit.

    It’s not just Dems; it’s not just Reps; it’s both. Both parties support our plutocracy at the expense of the working classes.

    A few honest economists noted the housing bubble but no one listened. There was too much easy money being made.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Hi Jim,

    “Please explain how taking more money from they guy paying your salary will enable him to pay you more and hire more workers. The Robin Hood approach of taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn’t work, because the government is the middle man and they waste most of what they take so they can cry about needing more. Getting more people to pay taxes is the only way to generate more revenue. Lower taxes gives more money to everyone and creates jobs and creates tax revenue. The good years in the 60′s and the 80′s all started with lowering taxes and ended when the greedy government raised taxes.”

    The current problem isn’t that employers have too little money to hire workers (note record corporate profits), but that there isn’t enough demand for goods and services.

    With the working poor (and the unemployed) having too little money to buy things, the economy stalls. That’s what is happening now. So yes, cutting taxes sharply at this time for the working classes would stimulate the economy, as would extending unemployment benefits. But both of those actions add to the deficit. Cutting taxes for the wealthy now has little impact on the economy but does cut the deficit.

    The government does not waste most of the receipts.

    The top marginal tax rate was 70% in the go-go 60s and we built colleges and interstate highways to boot. During the go-go 90s, the top marginal rate had been raised from a low of 28% in the Reagan years to around 39% to counteract the massive deficit spending during the terms of Presidents Reagan and Bush.

    There is no evidence to support the claim that lowering tax rates results in more tax revenues. None. Nada. Zip.

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Take every single thing that you have expounded on and turn in 180 degrees and you will be close to the correct assumptions. FDR stagnated the economy in the 30’s with his reckless spending and taxes of 90%. Even the spending of WWII did not help. When the Republicans got in the dropped the income rates to 70%. But the effective rate was much lower due to write offs. The economy took off. I lagged a little in the 60’s so Kennedy drop the rates again and we had a decent result until the drag of Vietnam and the control of the government by the Dems. This resulted in the hyper inflated, stagnated late 70’s. Then Reagan dropped the rates and we did well until the combined Bush and Clinton tax increases and that resulted in yet another recession that came about just before 9/11. Bush then cut the rates and we were on the way to improvement when Big Barney caused the crash. Now, the fact is that you can’t reduce taxes on anyone but the rich as they are the only ones paying anything of meaning. Let me give an example. When Clinton raised taxes, I fired workers, cut back my hours and eliminated bonuses. There was no reason to work extra as I was giving so much to the government. Many did the same. Sure, we have a deficit, that is because both parties will not stop the spending and cut back on regulations. The economy that you now see is due to 10 years of Democratic control. Now, please go take an economics course. You will be shown that low taxes stimulate the economy.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Yet, during the 90s, when you and those like you were firing people because your taxes went up, the unemployment rate went from 7% down to 4%. And the yearly budget was balanced.

    Unfortunately for you the facts do not align with your narrative.

    Thanks for the advice on taking an economics course. Is that how you obtained your bizarre ideas?

  8. John says:

    David the 30s economy did well until FDR listened to the stupid conservatives in 1937 and cut back on spending
    How well did the economy do when Bush cut the taxes fir the rich?
    Let’s remember that the DOW fell 50% under Bush and may triple under Obama

  9. jl says:

    J-“There is no evidence lowering taxes increases revenues..” Really? Federal receipts 2002: (just before Bush cuts)1.85 trillion. Federal receipts 2009: 2.1 trillion. The problem was: federal spending 2002: 2.0 trillion. Federal spending 2009: 3.5 trillion.

  10. Jl says:

    J- “Yet, during the 90’s….”. Well, I can quote statistics, too. During the Reagan 80’s, inflation went from over 13% to just above 3%. Deregulation saved consumers an estimated 100 billion per year in lower prices. Eliminated oil and gas price controls, which increased production. The price of oil fell by about 50%. 20 million new jobs from 1982 to 1990. Real capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989. He stock market tripled in value from 1980 to 1990. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989. The Reagan recovery started in 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 when tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it……….And as liberal, you should love lower tax rates. For example, in 1958 the top marginal rate was 91%, the top 3% of wage earners paid 29.2% of the total tax bill. In 2010 with the top rate at 35%, the top 3% paid 51% of the total tax bill. Today the top 1% pay about 37% of the total bill while the bottom 50% pay next to nothing. Lower tax rates may mean more millionaires, but more millionaires mean more taxes paid.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8565 access attempts in the last 7 days.