Policies to get America back on track after recession aren't working

Actually, the real report has an entirely different tone. Maybe instead of your distorted version, you should just publish the report.

Your "data" doesn't demonstrate anything, you're just making assertions without establishing a connection. Why is that? Did you never learn to show your work in school, or do you just not care?

Heck, you don't even mention that the worst years were under the Bush Administration. You're like somebody complaining about the fireman not being able to put out the fire which you started while standing on the hose...

Bulbs,

Can you post a link to the report. I'd like to read it.

Sure. It's the "Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances"

http://federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf

BTW, I caught another misrepresentation, the Washington Post didn't write the line attributed to it. That's actually a statement that was mass reported everywhere and was a quote from the Fed's own press release. Competent persons wouldn't try to build their case with false attributions.

Are we ever going to see honest writings from this side of the paper? When you try to pad your position with such pitiful efforts, you only discredit yourself. Don't you realize this?

"Managing a decline" was almost certainly a better option than allowing the collapse that the US faced in October of 2008 and going forward. It took thirty years of bad tax and spending policy plus outrageous financial deregulation to destroy the world's strongest economy. 2008 was only the first leg down. The second and most severe is beginning in Europe now and will be upon us shortly after the first bank failures in Europe. It won't take long.

There is no political solution. The inevitable collapse is actually the solution because only through collapse can we wipe out enough debt and begin to re-build a healthy financial architecture. Until that happens, we are still on the downslope, even if we have periods of hope.

By managing the decline up until now, we have had a chance to prepare for what we face. For many, that preparation time wasn't enough and they will be hurt badly. Bank closures and credit card shutdowns will leave many people stunned and helpless. Government will not be able to step in and help. Food assistance programs will probably all be local and insufficient.

Neither Mitt Romney nor Barak Obama will be able to help or prevent what is already in motion.

Neither will these petty partisan editorials.

Debt isn't what we need to wipe out.

It's the corrupt power structures in place that benefit from having the currently flawed system, which includes that debt structure.

However I would prefer to do it by other means. The apocalyptic solution has way too many costs.

happywithbulbs...

What is another option that is possible with the way government functions or fails to function? I think nucanuck is right. It isn't a matter of if but when the inevitable collapse gains momentum?

Happy,

I don't favor collapse, but IMO, we have passed the tipping point, the collective, developed world tipping point... and the inter-connectedness of the financial architecture almost insures that we in the US will be part of a larger collapse. Is that apocolyptic? I don't think so. There will be an end game and we will survive, at least most will.

That is how and when we rid ourselves of the corrupt power structures. Figuritively speaking, we will tar and feather them and run them out of town (or to the pokey).

Liberal policies have never worked and they never will as they are the cause of the massive debt and unemployment created by Hussein Obama. Happy and easy123 are to stupid to see these failures as they are that blind to the truth. 850 billion dollars spent on the Obama stimulus with nothing to show for it is one example.

"Socialism works till you run out of other people's money" is the great truth of our time.

This tax, borrow and spend and then do it again has run it's course. The American people are catching on but it is going to be very painful. Even before Obamination took office we had tremendous debt due to Socialist tax, borrow and spend. It took full throttle Socialist tax, borrow and spend under Obamination for many to finally get it.

Those who have voted for and lived off other people's money are going to scream. They are going to have to be told over and over again until they get it that they are not entitled to other people's money. America just like Europe is going to have to go through austerity. The party is over it is time to pay the piper.

The policies that destroyed our economy were neither libral nor conservative. They were policies written by lobbyists for the corporatacracy that control our congress through money...huge amounts of money that corrupt our politicians.

It was greed,sloth,and,hubris...not political persuasion that worked their way into the American culture over time. We came to believe that we were more/better than we were. We quit enforcing our anti-trust philosophy and allowed corporations to grow too large until they controlled us.

Now we are in the end game. We have to break these corporate monsters up into smaller entities. We have to find ways to strengthen and re-build our middle class...that is where America's real strength lies. Without a strong middle class, America will be a miserable place to be.

Tooting about socialists and liberals lurking under our beds is for those who just don't get it.

Please consider for a moment, the possibility that marketing actually does sway your opinions even to the point of not being in your self-interest. As evidence I point to the billions spent on marketing, and those of us, myself included, who eat too much junk food and make impulse purchases.

Now consider the millions of dollars controlled by Super-PACs and the marketing firms they hire to influence public opinion. Could they possibly be influencing you? Judging by the parroted talking points I see in this "newspaper" I would guess "yes." (Excessive quotations are intentional.) Personally, I vote and rally for what's in my long-term best interest.

Well tu, I can agree that the government is unable to govern. If that means there should be less power to the Federal government and more state and regional power, I would agree. How we get there is another matter.

However, If you think advocating for a strong middle class is some sort of call for communism, you need to get your tin foil hat re-sized.

"This data demonstrates that the middle class has been hit by legislative goals to target the "wealthy" and the "rich" that are the basis of the tax-borrow-print-and-spend Democratic agenda and message during our nation's financial crisis. This agenda to move America "forward" was put into place subsequent to the 2008 election, while both the U.S. House and Senate were led by significant Democratic majorities serving as a funnel to Barack Obama's ineffective economics." - editor

What BS! There has been not one tax increase - not one, not even one-tenth of one percent - on anybody, least of all the rich; and the wealthy are making more money today than they have ever made. And while Obama might have had a majority of Dems in the House and the Senate immediately after getting elected, it was never enough to avoid the stranglehold of the filibuster which the Repubs used to their advantage over and over and over again. The "connection" this editor makes, trying to tie the stagnant state of our economy directly to the legislative action of Obama and the Democrats is as flimsy as gauze. Actually it's less than flimsy - it doesn't even exist! We have continued on the same road to ruin because the Republicans have made sure to keep things just as they have been all along, without enough "change" allowed to slip through their grubby, tight-fisted grasp to make a difference one way or the other.

Add to that the recent passage of Citizens United, a huge "gift" to the wealthy that will keep on giving, and it's lucicrous to say that the rich have been hindered or even marginalized in any way.

Once again, this editor has done what he seems to do best: lied and distorted the facts to suit his own conservative ideology.

"Liberal policies have never worked and they never will..." - joneses

That is not true at all. This country was never stronger than during the 50s and the 60s when the tax rates were the highest they have ever been and we still had strong banking regulations and other of FDR's liberal policies in place. That was a time when a middle class working person could live comfortably from a decent living wage, and the rich were still getting richer, despite the higher tax rates.

Harp3339, concerted effort to resist the people who are causing the real problems. Here's a clue, it isn't the government driving the failure.

Nucanuck, I consider it to be apocalyptic, but if you prefer catastrophic might also serve.
It would hardly be fair to understate it though.

Tu_quoque, actually, you're showing your ignorance of journalistic copy and misrepresenting what can be found in the Post.

Here's what the Post did write:

The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fed-americans-wealth-dropped-40-percent/2012/06/11/gJQAlIsCVV_story.html

You can find similar statements in dozens of other articles on the subject. Like the New York Times.

Http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/business/economy/family-net-worth-drops-to-level-of-early-90s-fed-says.html

Heck, that one is in the URL.

As I said, it's a quote from the Fed's press release. Which I didn't say was from the study per se, though of course the data is. Not surprised it isn't on Google, believe it or not, not everything is on the web, or even crawled by Google. Though I'm sure they will get to it eventually, it being federal work. If you want it, why don't you call the Federal Reserve's press office and ask them for a copy?

Sorry, but it's wrong to attribute it to the Washington Post in the way this editorial did and your failed justification of it only shows you're wrong. I think all the people you see attributing it to them are just following a script they got from somewhere.

BTW, small local and direct government is a tenet of Communism. Just hope you know that.

Also, do note that this survey covers from 2007-2010, that means even by the least scrutiny, two years of it cover the Bush Administration.

A more in-depth review would recognize that the time under Obama was a recovery from the low period resulting from Bush.

I guess we should blame Bush's liberal policies or something. Who knew he was a Socialist?

And Joneses, you can see the results of the stimulus, the Federal Reserve reported on that too. Or you can drive down some local roads paid for by the money, or talk to some tax accountants.

Rickaroo - I'm calling BS on your statement "And while Obama might have had a majority of Dems in the House and the Senate immediately after getting elected, it was never enough to avoid the stranglehold of the filibuster which the Repubs used to their advantage over and over and over again." It was TWO YEARS, and during the same time they figured out how to ram Obamacare thru, so I can't give any credence to your statement.

If you knew anything about the actual process of getting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, you'd actually give full credit to it.

I'll point out to the lack of single-payer as a key example of how it's obvious that accommodating ConservaDems (and "independents" like Lieberman) was necessary for the bill.

Tu,

The Washington Post didn't make that assessment. The Fed's Press Release did. The TFP attributed that assessment to the Washington Post. But it was really an assessment from the Fed's Press Release. Is that clear? A link to the press release was provided by bulbs. Read it. Then you will understand.

Chatt_man, "Obamacare" has not even gone into effect yet and there is no substantive correlation between it and the shape the economy is in today. Even the Dodd-Frank bill which most Repubs are claiming is such a bad thing (the horror of even thinking about reigning in those derivative-gambling banksters and speculators of other people's money!) does not have enough teeth to it yet to have made a difference one way or the other.

Whether you give any credence to my statement or not is completely insignificant to me.

The editorial here was trying to attribute these words as the work of the Washington Post. They said the Washington Post "made this assessment" as if that was the direct work of the paper. I notice you left that out, which is kinda pointless, since anybody can scroll up and see it. The omission on your part just shows what you're trying to hide, because despite the claims of this editorial, it wasn't the work of the Washington Post, but was instead what the Federal Reserve said, and was used by others writing on the same subject.

Notice how it's not even an "exact quote" from the Post. Did you expect nobody to notice that either? Three important words admitted.

And no, I didn't say it was a direct quote, I said it was a quote from the press release. You added the word "direct" to it, not me. You're trying to make it out as an exact quote, but that's just your duplicitous behavior showing. Take responsibility for your own words, you added them, I didn't, and you trying to rely on them only shows how you are creating a false set of goalposts. If you want the Federal Reserve's press release, ask them for it. You can get it, if you make an effort. Or email BINYAMIN APPELBAUM or Ylan Q. Mui and ask them about it. I can't say they'll respond to you, but you can try.

Your defense of the error just keeps making it more and more apparent that it was an attempt to deceive us by creating a false impression of agreement. That you're compounding the error by falsely adding words to my own statements is just making it worse for you.

Easy123: Actually, while the data is in that report, the line in question is from the press release they send out to journalists who wrote the copy on it.

TQ doesn't seem to be aware that there's a vast host of information and data that's not published on the web at large, and most of us just get the summary of well, the summary anyway. If you read articles on the same subject from various papers, you may notice a pattern of the same information in them. That's due to the practice of taking points from the press releases and putting them in a more readable form.

Well Rickaroo, The fact that parts of Obamacare have not gone into effect yet, have no bearing on my comment. Obamacare was passed during those two years whether it's gone into full effect, or not. If you could take your liberal blinders off for a minute, you would see that my response was to your statement that the "while Obama might have had a majority of Dems in the House and the Senate immediately after getting elected, it was never enough to avoid the stranglehold of the filibuster which the Repubs used to their advantage over and over and over again."

What I'm saying is... The two years he had the majority, if he got something as controversial as Obamacare passed (with his majority, you know, the Christmas eve last minute vote with no Republican support), he could have gotten anything passed. So, you're saying that he couldn't get anything passed because of Republican strangleholds and filibusters doesn't have any credence.

Tu,

You're rather dense aren't you. The report is the press release. The assessment you speak of is IN THE REPORT.

No, Easy123, the press release was about the report, you're misunderstanding what I am saying. Please do realize you are in error.

Which is distinct from the misrepresentations above, which don't even seem to have read it. Or want to admit its existence.

All tq has to do is call the Federal Reserve's press office and ask. Or contact the journalists who wrote the stories. But tq won't do that, and somehow expects me to do what? I don't know. I can't ask them to send anything to an internet forum.

Don't know why tq needs more details, the name of the Report is right there in the articles, and so is the date. All it would take is a phone call.

Chatt_man, and what I pointed out was the compromises and efforts in that act being passed. It wasn't an easy process and didn't go far enough. He couldn't get ant hi g passed, he could barely get the law that did get passed through. And it's nothing that Republicans hadn't proposed. Their failure to vote for it is demonstrative of their lack of integrity on the issue.

Tq, stop lying, they didn't actually write that line in the manner which it was presented. It's not their assessment. It's a quote from the federal reserve. Saying they wrote that line isn't honest. They published it, but anybody with a shred of integrity would admit the editorial's description is deceitful.

But wait, you have none, so you'll never be able to admit it is wrong. You're committed to your lies, I'll give you that. The more you fight, the more you show how that fails. It even discredits your appeals to pedantry, you're just not genuine enough for that. You're way too concerned with your partisan views to make arguments based on technicalities.

All you have to do is call the Federal Reserve's press office, and ask. Don't bother with a fake denial, I'll know that's a lie.

Tu - YardRakings? Creative. I like it. But my point about recognizing the influence of marketing upon your own opinions and actions applies equally whatever your political leanings. And I never said in which direction my personal long-term best interest lay.

My mistake bulbs. However, the report itself does make that assessment. It's not a direct quote. But the report does refer to the median net worth being the same as in 1992.

You're trying to do anything you can to project your own faults on others?

The press release is something you can get with a little work. The date, the title of the report, that's enough to have it found. Or heck, contact the authors, ask them about it. I doubt they'll respond, but who knows, you might get an answer.

BTW, here's another article with similar statements:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/06/11/family-net-worth-fell-almost-40-between-2007-2010/

It even attributes it to Fed economists. Yet you'd have us believe that the editorial was correct in attributing it to an assessment by the Washington Post.

C'mon, you can't actually think anybody honest would believe your version?

I don't know what discussion you think you're talking about, I'm quite aware that a person often needs to learn for themselves certain things.

Certainly posting some evidence is appreciated, but I actually expect people to check the facts for themselves.

The responsibility does go both ways. You may not appreciate the nuance, you often try for the kind of pedantic myopia that often seeks to exploit a minor error, but is not genuinely aggrieved, and ignores the real substantial faults.

Motes and logs.

Too late, Easy123 already admitted to being mistaken.

See, honest people can be in error, and own up to it without shame. Dishonest ones have to stick to their lies.

Though Easy123 is quite correct to say the actual assessment did come from the report.

But you're still trying to convince us that it was the Washington Post making the assessment, when they were just quoting the Fed's press release like everybody else.

Keep projecting, I've not bothered with looking for the release, I know you have to take responsibility yourself. It's not likely to be on the web unless somebody is really bored. I just caught it while looking up names earlier for you to contact and ask.

You have three names, and the Reserve itself. Will you dare to call them? I certainly don't expect you to admit your error. That would be completely beyond your character.

No, I never said anything about it not being on the internet. I said the web. The two are not the same, in this case the distinction is important, so please don't misrepresent my words. Especially since it's nothing I didn't say already, did you fail to notice:

"Not surprised it isn't on Google, believe it or not, not everything is on the web, or even crawled by Google. Though I'm sure they will get to it eventually, it being federal work. If you want it, why don't you call the Federal Reserve's press office and ask them for a copy?"

Really, you're trying to attribute mistakes to me, when you're making such flagrant errors of your own?

I don't see any reason to slink off, if anything, I should go celebrate how your terrible arguments make me right. You're trying to misrepresent a conversation that's viewable right here? Why don't you go stand in the rain and claim there is a drought?

The two parties are just a playhouse presentation put on by the ruling class to make us all think we have some sort of representative in government. We do have a few, but they are outnumbered by the democrat and republican establishment construct. Most of those representing U.S. citizens are just part of the play. They represent only themselves. That is why we are all being screwed and they are all insider trading and getting rich. That is why they are governed by a separate set of laws than those we are governed by. We need to stop being divided so easily and start working together again to get our freedoms back.

The FED is part of the play. Why would you ever trust data from a private entity that hides it's ownership from the people of the United States and wields such power over our economy? The Federal Reserve is not a government entity and is not answerable to the people of the United States of America. We were all sold down the river to them years ago by our own federal government. You know why the government is allowed to tax your income? Because by using federal reserve notes, you agree to taxation. By using that fiat currency, you agree to pay a portion of everything you own to the federal government. You are enslaved by a private bank and most of you don't even know it.

No, by living in this country and benefiting thereof, you agreed to be taxed.

If you conducted your business entirely by barter, you'd still owe on it.

No, if I only conducted business with treasury notes, I wouldn't owe any taxes. You should educate yourself on how the reserve system actually works. It probably isn't what you think. For instance, if you demanded your paycheck in treasury notes instead of federal reserve notes, you wouldn't legally owe any taxes on it. Your bank would protest and probably close your account and you would be harrased to death by the IRS and spend tons of money on lawyers, but you wouldn't legally owe taxes on your income. Federal Reserve notes are credit fractionally based upon treasury notes. Your use of Federal Reserve credit is what requires you to pay interest on that credit in the form of taxes. Look it up.

FPSE, yeah keep trying to pass off that scam. Even Michelle Bachmann didn't buy it.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

Now? Nope, I made the distinction clear from the start, it was purposeful, as I'm just not inclined to state it's not on the Internet at all, since I know there's people who might have scanned it and put it somewhere, or it might be on a database site like Lexis-Nexus or Bloomberg.

I can believe it's not on the Web, but am I going to say somebody didn't post it on the Internet somewhere? Nope.

Sorry, but your petty attempts to avoid the issue are just making your own desperation clear.

Can't admit that the TFP misrepresented the source of their quote. Can't admit that you'll never call the Federal Reserve and ask them for the press release. Can't admit that you'll never even try to contact the journalists and ask them about it.

You'll just try to distract everybody from your faults.

But it just exposes your own.

WARNING!!!! TROLLS FEEDING HERE!! LMAO!!

Let the trolls feed, it shows them for what they are.

They're a lot more insidious when they get to be more subtle.

Not that I'm particularly worried about this crop managing that.