Are you Better Off in 2022 than You Were in 2010?
I can tell you now, I know I am better off now than then. I believe most of us are better off now.
In 2010, I was working out of state after renting a room from Charlie in Cazenovia, NY. I was working for the Germans running a purchasing department. In 2010 and after several years of unemployment, a Republican Congress decided to end unemployment. Basically, they tossed people who were out of work, had no healthcare, or monthly payments for children, etc. out on the street. Tough luck!
A new commenter by the name of TBone made the same comparison between 2008 and 2010 about how people were treated then and now. Joe Biden is responsible for this change. I know it sounds like a political speech. I am not a big fan of Biden after what he did to students and their loans since 1980ish. By his stimulus packages, the wealth of the lowest 50% doubled from 2019 to 2021. I wrote about this phenomenon earlier this week.
Senator Sanders: “In 1989, the bottom 50% held 4% of the wealth. By 2019 the 50% held 2% of the wealth. Let’s get to the real story.”
As detailed in the graph on that post I linked to, the last several years have not been an economic disaster for the bottom 50 percent of U.S. households. We can easily see they were experiencing the best time now than during the past 30 years. No, America’s bottom 50% are not living high on the hog enjoying the best pork cuts as taken from the back and upper legs. What has been experienced under Democrats Biden’s policies is a doubling of the net worth of the poorer 50 percent since the first quarter of 2020. It is now far higher than it’s ever been in U.S. history.
Wages have not been decreasing in real terms due to inflation. Even as prices have gone up, wages have mostly kept pace. Real median wage increased sharply at the beginning of the pandemic. It has since fallen sharply and is now almost exactly the same as during the first quarter of 2020. Guess the Fed Increases have been working. The Fed is increasing the Fed Rate again.
Half the increase in wealth is due to an increase in housing equity. Mostly due to the run-up in home prices and inflation reducing the value of fixed-rate mortgages. The federal government’s fiscal policy provided large amounts of financial support to the bottom 50 percent via the 2020 CARES Act, expanded unemployment benefits, and the 2021 Child Tax Credit, plus more. Together with low unemployment and increased worker leverage, this provides much of the explanation as to why.
After an attempt to overthrow the government in 2020, failing to do so, Republicans are lying about the economy. Many people who do not know better are believing them and trump.
Anyway, pretty good speech by Barack Obama in Phoenix Arizona. About 24 minutes long. You might want to listen to it.
“The Wealth of America’s Bottom 50% Doubled,” Angry Bear.
Oh yeah, Barrack can talk, real well. He governed differently from his talk, unfortunately for poor folks.
Who had control of Congress the second two years of his first term even if it was one part of Congress?
It would seem millionaires & billionaires had control of Congress throughout the past two decades at least.
Yes. Simple answer to simple question. Immeasurably.
And I can spell …
“In 2010 and after several years of unemployment, a Republican Congress decided to end unemployment.“
Both chambers of the 111th United States Congress, which was the one in session in 2010, were controlled by Democrats. Republicans had majority control of the 112th Congress, but it would not convene until early 2011. The author’s recollection of events is skewed and inaccurate.
*Republicans had majority control of the 112th Congress’ lower chamber, not the Senate.
I do not believe I implied majority. A majority vote in the Senate can still be blocked. Sixty votes are required to be invulnerable in the Senate.
Republicans Kill Senate Unemployment Bill The 57-41 vote fell three votes short of the 60 required to crack a GOP filibuster, delivering a major blow to President Barack Obama and Democrats facing big losses of House and Senate seats in the fall election.
The Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday tried to take up a bill under expedited rules to extend federal unemployment benefits which are set to expire on November 30. The vote required a 2/3 majority to pass, but enough Republicans (143) voted against suspending the rules to keep the bill to extend benefits from coming up for a vote.
Did I say Majority-held Congress? Or a majority Republican Congress? Nope, I said a Republican Congress.
As much as I agree with your general take on things in general, your original post and its implications are misleading. Your definition of “Republican Congress” can then be used to label the 111th Congress as “Independent Congress” or “Vacant Congress” (there were multiple occasions where 1 or more seats were vacant during its tenure). Truth is, if the Democrats really wanted to extend unemployment, they could have when the GOP had less than 40 Senators, but they decided not to make the responsible decision. Laws can be codified for extended periods past when a specific Congress is in session, take the Assault Weapons Ban for example.
The Democrat controlled Congress in 2010 decided NOT to extend unemployment, which they could have done through reconciliation once the jobs bill was filibustered. And they really didn’t fight for that 2010 jobs bill, by the way…..
You wish to make this something it is not.
The 111th Congress had many things on its plate which could have happened and did not. It is not so simple to answer why the Senate can be stymied by just one person who refuses to go along with the other 59 when there is a filibuster. We have seen it happen with the ACA. McConnell uses the Filibuster to block legislation repeatedly and can do so because Dems don’t have the 60 votes. In 2008. a move to healthcare other than the ACA was stymied because the Senator from Aetna refused to be the 60th vote. The Public Option died. Kennedy died and the race was on before a Repub replacement from MA could be assigned to replace him. I believe MA had a Repub Governor then.
Lieberman was an ass. To trump, he was shilling for DeVos to become Secretary of Education having become a hired gun.
Your comment on the Dems and the 111th Congress misses some major points as two independents back then voted with 58 Dems. It does not mean they had to do so. Lieberman was more than willing to scuttle the ACA to appease his corporate sponsor the same as Biden would for MBNA on bankruptcy.
How is it the House operates with a different method than the Senate? The previous question is used during the consideration of a matter to terminate debate, foreclose the offering of amendments, and to bring the House to an immediate vote on the main question. It appears to work for them. Why not the Senate?
The Senate did have a motion called the “Previous Question” at one time. It was decided it was not needed since Senators were gentlemen. This was attributed to Aaron Burr at the time.
A rulebook in 1801 by Thomas Jefferson expanded on the use of the “previous question” motion. It was meant to force a decision to a Senate vote. It only needed a simple majority to force the vote which could be won by a simple majority. In 1806 the Senate eliminated the “previous question” motion as part of a rules consolidation. Aaron Burr felt the Senate was full of gentlemen and no motion as such would be needed. No one gave thought to such assholes as Cruz, Scott, Tuberville, etc. It did not take long before debates were used more often to delay or kill legislation. In the Senate then, there no longer existed a way to stop them.
By the 1850s, the tactic had acquired a nickname, the “filibuster,” a word then associated with illegal pirating expeditions.
With two independents in the 111th, the Dems did have sixty votes till one said “no” and Kennedy died. Not quite two years. Your comment lacks some of this detail. Repubs consistently do this loss of detail and the public Carp rise to the surface to feed on the crumbs Repubs toss on it. It is not the full story. The public fails to grasp the deeper and more defined version of the argument consistently.
I retired early. I was about 7 years into permanent retirement in 2010, so I have contributed little additional funding to the Dobbs Index (which is IRA/401k-based), and in fact have withdrawn some. From Jan 2010 to almost the end of 2021, the index more than doubled. In fact it went up by 150%. Sadly, it’s since declined about 20%. But I’ll take it. What choice do I have?