Obama ‘recovery’ worse than Bush ‘recession’
And now a word on household income from Peter Ferrera, himself quoting the WSJ:
“For household income… the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”
But, but, but… that’s impossible! It’s Bush’s fault! Pants on fire! Four Pinocchios!
No, it’s factual. From Ferrera:
Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009.
Accordingly, Barry Oh! and his surrogates need to pull a manmade global warming and hide the decline. But what’s the real damage, Officer Ferrara?
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year.
Well, certainly the President and his Dems have improved the position of the poor?
Now The Huffington Post reports that the poverty rate is on track to rise to the highest level since 1965, before the War on Poverty began… [and] a consensus survey of experts across the political spectrum indicates the poverty rate could soar from the current 15.1% to as high as 15.7%.
So in summary: debt up massively. Unemployment up massively. Household income down significantly. Poverty up significantly. If only we’d had an empty chair like in the Eastwood skit, things wouldn’t be this bad. Instead we have an empty suit with initiative.
And to borrow an old line made modern by Obamanomics, Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the play?
Obama 2012: fool us twice, shame on us.