Obama's recovery: good for the rich people

[30ashopper]

According to a monthly survey released last week by Consumer Reports, households that earn less than $50,000 have been extremely downbeat on the economy every month since the survey's April 2008 launch. Such households make up half of the U.S. population. Meantime, affluent households — those that pull down $100,000 or more a year — have been feeling on average positive about the economy since February 2010.

The primary factor behind the disparity: jobs. Affluent households have seen little impact on job prospects overall. Meanwhile, low-income households have seen a net decline in jobs for 23 out of the past 24 months, according to the survey.

To be sure, the strength in upper-income households has been an important element in getting the economy back on its feet. While just 18% of households earn more than $100,000 a year, they account for slightly more than one-third of all household spending, according to a recent survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There are other factors behind the improved outlook among upper-income families besides jobs. For one, they tend to own stocks. The market has undergone a substantial rally since early 2008, adding to the so-called "wealth effect." While the market has taken a hit in recent weeks, it remains well above where it stood two years ago.

The rally has been little comfort to low-income households, which hold few stocks. Instead, high oil prices have dragged on the discretionary income of less well-to-do families.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-06-26-consumer-confidence_n.htm

Middle class incomes remain flat overall, the dollar is weak, commodities prices are rising, and inflation has increased. Generally speaking the middle and lower classes have basically been left out of the recovery, they are now worse off than they were three years ago.

 

[idlewind]

This will continue as long as the federal government sucks all the credit financing out of the economy in order to finance it's huge debt.

 

[scooterbug44]

And as long as the rich are the ones getting the tax breaks.

 

[futurebeachbum]

Its basically the rich folk (and organizations) that are funding our politicians, so those politicos only do things that help their funders. Just as Wall Street cares only about current results, not the long term health of a company and its employees, our politicians and their sponsors only care about what is good for them right now.

Its almost impossible to find any true difference in the politicians of either party. Their demagoguery and dialogs might sound different, but when it comes to making changes, the same folks are behind them so regardless of party, the S.O.S. happens.

 

[idlewind]

Its basically the rich folk (and organizations) that are funding our politicians, so those politicos only do things that help their funders. Just as Wall Street cares only about current results, not the long term health of a company and its employees, our politicians and their sponsors only care about what is good for them right now.

Its almost impossible to find any true difference in the politicians of either party. Their demagoguery and dialogs might sound different, but when it comes to making changes, the same folks are behind them so regardless of party, the S.O.S. happens.

You are sooooooooo right. A great example is Republican politicans run around claiming to want to overhaul the tax code and make it more simple for everyone, then vote against closing loopholes because they say it is a tax increase. If you never close loopholes you can never fix the tax code. So either say you are for one or the other. As far as I am concerned if Exxon losing their tax breaks is the price we pay for a rational tax code and a balanced budget, then I say proceed!

 

[scooterbug44]

As far as I am concerned if Exxon losing their tax breaks is the price we pay for a rational tax code and a balanced budget, then I say proceed!

I think we could all soundly sleep at night if that was the outcome.

 

[PearlSB4U]

The US is a Plutocracy.
Both parties are in thrall to the rich & powerful--one more so than the other.

 

[idlewind]

The US is a Plutocracy.
Both parties are in thrall to the rich & powerful--one more so than the other.

True, there are at least some Republicans like Ron Paul who are not in the pocket of the fat cats.

 

[Lake View Too]

True, there are at least some Republicans like Ron Paul who are not in the pocket of the fat cats.

I view Ron Paul in much the same way that I viewed Ross Perot. About half of what he says makes a whole lot of sense: we have to shake up the "system" somehow. And about half of what he says is so "out there", there's no possible way it would ever get thru congress. ( I agonized as I drove to the polls, Ross Perot or Bill Clinton- I chose Bill Clinton, perhaps the most fiscally responsible president in modern history).