New study: incomes of the poorest 20% of households are much lower than in 2007

Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?
Does Barack Obama’s knowledge of policy match his confidence?

Now, many American voters like to think that if the President expresses concern about things like poverty and income inequality, then that means that whatever he does to “fix” it will automatically work to benefit the poor. Is it true?

Here is an article from Investors Business Daily, which talks about a study from the respected, leftist Brookings Institute.


President Obama’s upbeat assessment of the economy is not likely to sit well with low-income families living in major urban or metro areas. For them, economic decline is a harsh reality, not “fiction.”

In his State of the Union speech, Obama declared that “anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling a fiction.”

But a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution finds that incomes among the poorest fifth of households was significantly lower than it was in 2007. Of the 100 cities it examined, incomes fell an overall average of 12%, according to the report’s data. In some, the drop was huge — 34% in Stockton, Calif., 31% in New Haven, Conn., and 30% in Lakeland, Fla.

At the other end of the spectrum, the top 5% of households saw incomes climb, but not by much. The average income for this group was basically unchanged over those years.

As a result, income inequality has increased, but not — as Obama, Bernie Sanders and the chorus of liberal Democrats would have you believe — because the rich are getting richer.

“It’s really about the poor losing ground rather than these upper-class households pulling away,” Brookings senior fellow Alan Berube told AP.

[…]Added to this, many of the cities that saw the biggest increases in income inequality — like Boston; New Orleans; Providence, R.I.; New Haven, Conn.; San Francisco, Washington, D.C. — have been bastions of “spread the wealth around” liberalism.

Another example of this would be Obamacare. Obama got up in front of his teleprompters and told everyone that he was going to make changes to health care policy. He promised that it would not add one dime to the deficit, that we could keep our doctors, that we could keep our health plans and that our health insurance premiums would go down. Every single one of those promises were lies.

We don’t know if Obama knows that he is lying when he says these things. I prefer to think that he is just too stupid to know what he is talking about. He says things that make him feel good. Things that would have pleased his professors in college. But since he has no practical experience of achieving results in any of these areas, he fails again and again. He is confident because he assumes a knowledge of how to obtain results that he does not actually have, owing to his lack of experience. And yet we elected him, then re-elected him.

He is in his own little world, where the people around him carefully insulate him from a reality where all his confident prescriptions have failed to produce what he intended.

Could it be that the free enterprise system of economics that was “built in” to America at the founding actually works better than the failed systems of socialism and communism that Obama was taught in college? Could it be that if we just stuck with the free enterprise system that made us the most powerful economy in the world, that things would be better for the poor than in places where capitalism is rejected for socialism?

We don’t have to guess at what the economic policies of the left produce. You can see it with your own eyes in socialist countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Argentina, and so on.

8 thoughts on “New study: incomes of the poorest 20% of households are much lower than in 2007”

  1. Barack Obama is a BSer, plain and simple. He has now been in office long enough to make Richard Nixon look honest, and Jimmy Carter look competent. Of all people, Michael Moore got it right the other day when he said Obama would be remembered by history as simply the first black president, not for anything he accomplished.


  2. Americans don’t know what socialism is. Most probably never lived in a socialist country. They have the false idea that with socialism they will all become wealthy like Soros. What they don’t understand is that the majority will live in extreme poverty while the ones running the country live in extreme wealth.

    1. “The only thing that socialism has to commend itself is that it is the equal sharing of misery.”

      Winston Churchill

    2. It’s ironic that the people advocating against “wealth inequality” want socialism, as if that will fix the problem. Have they ever looked at a socialist country? Do they not see that the divide between the poor and the wealthy in a socialist country is larger than anywhere else? Only the few in power have wealth under socialism, and social mobility is difficult, if not impossible, so nobody has a chance to become wealthy by working hard. The common people are all equally poor. Only free market capitalism narrows the gap between the poor and wealthy and gives everyone a chance to better their lot in life. If disparity in income or wealth is a serious problem to you, socialism is not the answer.

      1. That’s exactly right. We have the evidence to know what works, in different times and places. Countries have tried so many different approaches – we know what works. But people insist on doing the wrong things because it makes them feel good, instead of doing good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s