-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Under Trump, Median Income Soars Over Bush/Obama Era...
- Thread starter Ingomike
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Maybe you need a better chart...
Does the chart include August?
"I reported last week in the Wall Street Journal that real median family income had soared by $4,146 under Trump through July 2019. The just-released August numbers from Sentier show a huge monthly gain of $857 in income per household."
Why not? It certainly seems to work for 'climate science'
Like my global temperature data, I prefer economic data unperturbed by such things as 'corrected for inflation' or other numerical massagings that involve opaque assumptions. Surely a comparison of two factual data points unsullied by 'corrections' should still be valid
In before the attack on Sentier for being biased
https://www.sentierresearch.com/HouseholdIncomeIndex.html
Estimation Methods and The Sentier Household Income Index (HII)
Overview of Methods
I see nothing wrong with Sentier's methods. It is clearly one way of estimating and they appear to be professional in their approach to the art of economics.
The trend is always something that needs to be considered, however. The scale used in chart depiction should also be considered.
Overall, I have nothing negative to say about Sentier. Should other data refute their results, let he who have them come forward.
The trend is always something that needs to be considered, however. The scale used in chart depiction should also be considered.
Overall, I have nothing negative to say about Sentier. Should other data refute their results, let he who have them come forward.
ZeroHedge addresses it.... from the Obama era.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-15/deconstructing-median-income-farce
Dr.Midnight
Master
ZeroHedge addresses it.... from the Obama era.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-15/deconstructing-median-income-farce
3 bits of discussion that made this thread worth reading:
1) Hough's correct. Stop blaming or crediting the guy in office. It's probably not him. Although it can be indirectly. Presidents can **** things up, or they can de-**** things up.
2) Gatway Pundit IS unreliable. Just because they say what you like to hear, doesn't mean it's true.
3) Median income is bull****.
1) Hough's correct. Stop blaming or crediting the guy in office. It's probably not him. Although it can be indirectly. Presidents can **** things up, or they can de-**** things up.
2) Gatway Pundit IS unreliable. Just because they say what you like to hear, doesn't mean it's true.
3) Median income is bull****.
This entire post is bull****.
If you do not believe a President has an affect on many things including the economy I just cannot understand you. If you do not understand business does not react just to what happens but to what is promised to happen when a new President is elected. After Trump delivered his promises of lower regulations business responded to an even higher level. Conversely when Obama promised energy regulation, tried to put coal out of business, and used the executive branch to stop energy pipelines the energy sector pulled back. Both of those were only executive and had a profound affect on the overall economy.
The stock market records, the unemployment records, the middle class increase, and the gains by minority's is a direct result of this Presidents promises and policies implemented, God knows neither congress has done anything.
If you have not followed The Gateway Pundit regularly over the years then just STHU. I am sick of people saying bull**** they know nothing of. They are similarly reliable to other news sources out there. They all get some right and some wrong. They have some unique sources that there that you hear things there first. For instance they were the first source I saw that reported the Leaks from the IG report forth coming.
Many respected economists disagree with you on the value of median income...
This was a thread to celebrate good news for the country that the economy is helping lift all boats, I guess some of you wish we were talking how HRCs was bankrupting your social security...
The fed has shifted gears almost doubling down on the money per day dumps.
It's the end result of that life long process of robbing you blind while telling you how well off you will continue to be if only you will remain locked into their version of geopolitical reality.
Surprise!
It's the end result of that life long process of robbing you blind while telling you how well off you will continue to be if only you will remain locked into their version of geopolitical reality.
Surprise!
Is that really true? I'm going to make a case that it's not really, in point 3). I'm not claiming you're being dishonest. I think you mean it. But you'll need to read 1 and 2 though. Bear with me. Sorry for the length.
1) I did not say a president has no effect on the economy. A president can **** it up, or un-**** it up, but generally the Fed and normal market forces have bigger influence on the economy than politicians. If you think that presidents have that much influence, (again, I'm not saying zero) then you have to credit Bill Clinton for producing one of the longest economic expansion periods in history. Bill Clinton raised taxes and added mountains of regulations. The economy boomed because of other market factors, not because Clinton made that economy boom with higher taxes and mountains of regulations. I think I've posted about this before, Clinton did not create that economy. That economy boomed despite his best efforts to **** it up with his social agenda. Clinton's biggest contribution was that he didn't stomp on the burgeoning industry, the World Wide Web, to snuff it out. Trump's impact on this economy was that he un****ed up what Obama and Bush ****ed up. And then the economy did what it does on its own. Flows like water after opening the gates of a river dam.
2) You mean if I don't evaluate The Gateway Pundit as being reliable I have to STFU? Actually, I don't have to STFU. Let me just say this about GWP. Frankly, it's pretty ****ing embarrassing to cite an article from GWP to prove a point, just to eat crow later because it turned out to be biased bull****. Let me suggest that the reason you like the GWP, is because they say things pleasing to you. They do this because it makes you click on their articles. Then they get money from advertisers for your faithful clicks. This is the way it works now. It's not just the left that does this. It brings in revenue regardless of ideology. Say stuff that confirms people's beliefs, they click to have their beliefs confirmed. The faithful lefties click Slate articles and they believe as eagerly as you do that it's a trustworthy site. GWP is to the right what Slate is to the left. I'll tell you what. If you are willing, you can prove it to yourself. Read several gateway pundit articles, while detaching yourself from emotions. It's hard to do. But you can do it. Imagine that you get $100 for every piece of information you can disprove. Then deconstruct every claim. Some of it will be true. Some of it will be bull****. And the stuff that's bull**** should **** you off. How dare they profit from your bias?! It works the other way too. But imagine that you get $100 for every piece of information you can fact check as true on Slate. You'll not be surprised at the false information you find there, but you'll likely find a lot of true stuff mixed in as well. It's actually hard to be 100% wrong 100% of the time.
3) Median income, as an important measurement of how the economy is doing, is kinda bull****. I'm not saying that to take your Trumpian happy dance away from you. If you want to dance, you dance; I'm not judging. But, just think about it objectively for a moment with me. If the measurement is all that important, look at the steepest part of the trend line of the median income graph. If you are really looking at this measurement to celebrate the economy's recovery, you know, because "America First" and all, you should start with an Obama happy dance. The steepest part of the upward trend line happened deep in Obama's second term. You should celebrate that, if that's the important part. I suspect that this is not the most important part. I suspect you don't want to do a happy dance for Obama. And that's why I suspect this isn't about celebrating the economy as much as it is celebrating the confirmation of Trump as the economic hero you thought he was. But, good news. You don't have to do a happy dance for Obama. Because the median income number is bull****. The trend started in ~2014 and continued when Trump took over--depending on whose graph you're looking at. And that's why it's bull****: depending on whose graph you look at. People tell stories with numbers. If the numbers tell an important story, and are consistent no matter who does the figuring, it's probably meaningful. Otherwise. Median income is bull****.
Bottom line, I suspect you're far more critical of information which is unfavorable to the way you want to view the world. And so you're far less critical of information which is favorable.That's why you don't understand why I don't like GWP as a reliable news source. This just means you're normal. It's the normal human response. It's how the firmware is pre-programmed. But it's flawed in that it doesn't give you an accurate view of the world. It's worth re-flashing the firmware to be more critical of new information regardless of the source. It's fine that you're critical of Slate. You need to be. But you also need to be critical of information that's favorable to your worldview as well. Just because it's favorable, doesn't make it true.
Last edited:
I got rhythm,
I got music,
I got my girl
Who could ask for anything more?
I've got daisies
in green pastures
I've got my girl
Who could ask for anything more?
Old man trouble I don't mind him
You won't find him
'round my door
I've got starlight
I've got sweet dreams
I've got my girl
Who could ask for anything more?
[video=youtube_share;uPRiM5JvYx8]http://youtu.be/uPRiM5JvYx8[/video]
Last edited:
No need for ridicule.....wow, dude, you sure have a weird way of looking at the world. You said happy dance. I pictured Trump dancing to a Gershwin tune. And I found it through the google search engine, which all of you guys don't like.
So, put that in you vape kit and smoke it.
So, put that in you vape kit and smoke it.
Maybe if we focus less on specific numbers and roll with what Alpo's chart indisputably shows, everyone can unbunch their panties
1) According to the inflation adjusted MHI, GWB presided over a drop right out of the box that was barely recovered by the time he left office, and then only as part of 'irrational exuberance'. The nominal income graph shows a prolonged and steady upward trajectory, which makes me want to see the inflation graph being used to adjust these figures
2) According to inflation adjusted MHI, Obama's entire first term was a death spiral from which MHI never fully recovered during his tenure, where the nominal income graph makes him look better - although the slope of the line once it begins to recover (after pretty much his whole first term) appears barely equal to Bush's first term and is handily exceeded in Bush's second term
3) Only one president of the three shown has presided over a significant increase of both curves in his first term with no downward trend and that is Trump
4) Without question, the lone Democrat represented has the worst record
Cue the "But he inherited the great recession ..." canard, as if having 9/11 occur during your term was a walk in the park
1) According to the inflation adjusted MHI, GWB presided over a drop right out of the box that was barely recovered by the time he left office, and then only as part of 'irrational exuberance'. The nominal income graph shows a prolonged and steady upward trajectory, which makes me want to see the inflation graph being used to adjust these figures
2) According to inflation adjusted MHI, Obama's entire first term was a death spiral from which MHI never fully recovered during his tenure, where the nominal income graph makes him look better - although the slope of the line once it begins to recover (after pretty much his whole first term) appears barely equal to Bush's first term and is handily exceeded in Bush's second term
3) Only one president of the three shown has presided over a significant increase of both curves in his first term with no downward trend and that is Trump
4) Without question, the lone Democrat represented has the worst record
Cue the "But he inherited the great recession ..." canard, as if having 9/11 occur during your term was a walk in the park
See comments above. A well thought out reply, so I will rep you.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv -
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Creedmoor
- JBLee
- Gravyman
- DDadams
- Denny347
- Wolfhound
- Bighoss91
- drbntm
- BigMoose
- jtbriles
- JimH
- KYLogger
- Ozark1897
- NHT3
- Shadow01
- gmcman355
- Bennettjh
- Drewfus
- L C H
- JEOgle
- steelhead
- Cameramonkey
- Indyhd
- glockman49
- dieselrealtor
- Cherryspringer
- littletommy
- mamesquirk89
- Tradesylver
- thedreamer
- d.kaufman
- Aggar
- TJ Kackowski
- williamsburg
- db308
- Ephul
- chuckp
- three50seven
- sadclownwp
- cobber
- BehindBlueI's
- lance
- ditcherman
- BeDome
- Chip
- indydrummer
- Bobby
- YankeeDollar
- edwea
- mcoppers
