@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What surprises me more than anything is how the likes of woiyo et al can continue to spit out stats to show that the middle class and the poor are better off today than they were before Bush while the majority says different.
Woiyo's statistics actually refute his position.
@DrewDad,
But that's not what he "believes."
@cicerone imposter,
Yup. He knows what he knows and ain't nobody gonna tell him diff'rent.
I just think it's funny that he finally decides to put up or shut up, and he shoulda shut up.
@DrewDad,
That's right. Do not let the facts get in the way of your opinion!
@Woiyo9,
That's nice..
Median income in 1999 was 50,641
Median income in 2000 was 50,557
Median income in 2006 was 49,568
Median income in 2007 was 50,233
The median income under Bush decreased. No question about it. Even with the recent increases it's still less than it was in 1999.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06AR.html
Who was wrong about the median income in the last 8 years? It wasn't me.
@Woiyo9,
Obviously you don't let facts get in your way.
My statement was factually correct. You claimed I was wrong.
@parados,
parados' numbers goes way over the head of people like woiyo; it can't be true if Bush and McCain tells us our economy is doing just fine. No matter that more people are losing their jobs and their homes, and are paying more for food and fuel. You must believe our president and republican candidate for president; they never lie.
UNITED STATES
2007 116,783 $50,233 $50,233 $67,609 $67,609
2006 116,011 48,201 49,568 66,570 68,459
2005 114,384 46,326 49,202 63,344 67,277
2004 35/ 113,343 44,334 48,665 60,466 66,373
2003 112,000 43,318 48,835 59,067 66,590
2002 111,278 42,409 48,878 57,852 66,677
2001 109,297 42,228 49,455 58,208 68,171
2000 30/ 108,209 41,990 50,557 57,135 68,792
1999 29/ 106,434 40,696 50,641 54,737 68,114
What you fail to mention, because your are either too stupid to understand or are purposely want to mislead, is that the recession in 2000/2001 dropped incomes and they have been recovering ever since.
@Woiyo9,
Quote:What you fail to mention, because your[sic] are either too stupid to understand or are purposely want to mislead, is that the recession in 2000/2001 dropped incomes and they have been recovering ever since.
So why was 2003 median income lower than 2002 and 2004 lower than 2003?
Median income dropped every year from 2000 to 2004. How long was the 2000/2001 recession? The median income still hasn't reached the level it was prior to the recession.
I must say, I love your attempts to ignore the facts and make stuff up. You still haven't admitted that your "WRONG!!!!!!" was what was wrong. Now you are only attempting to make excuses for the facts you originally claimed were "WRONG!!!!!!".
So, tell us why it took 7 years for incomes to almost recover from what was referred to as a "mild recession"? Since I am too "stupid" to understand maybe you can explain it to the rest of us. I could use a good laugh. I obviously didn't mislead anyone. I made a statement that has been backed up by figures from the US government. You said I was "WRONG!!!!!!". (You might want to revise or retract your statement about who is stupid or trying to mislead in light of your misguided attempt to spin the figures.)
(edited to add the correct number of "!" in the "WRONG!!!!!!")
@parados,
You are just unable to comprehend the facts. Any dope like you can look at numbers, but it takes some objectivity to UNDERSTAND what they mean.
@Woiyo9,
LOL.
You mean like your objective statement about recovery?
No one that is "objective" would consider a downward turn to be "recovery." It isn't part of the definition.
recovery
2. restoration to a former and better condition
@Woiyo9,
Then you should be able to show, objectively, how you are right.
Still watching factcheck , mm?
