Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: BRCK BM, Data
Democrat Presidential nominee BRCK BM is not telling the truth about American family incomes.
Here he was in Davenport, Iowa, on Monday:
“When Bill Clinton was President, in the ’90s, the average family income went up $6,000. Since George Bush has been in office, the average family income has gone down $1,000.”
He said the same thing a day earlier, on Aug 24: “Under George Bush, it has gone down $1,000. It is not just people’s imagination that they are feeling pinched. There is more money going out and less money coming in.”
On Tuesday, BRCK BM doubled the figure: “Since 2000, since George Bush took office, the average, typical family income has gone down $2,000. Typical family income has gone down $2,000. When Bill Clinton was president, the typical family income went up $6,200.”
That’s change you can believe in.
Er, maybe not so much.
According to the Census Bureau historical income tables, the median family income decreased only $272 between 2000 and 2007, not $1,000 or even $2,000.
And by “decreased only $272,” I actually mean increased by $272. In fact, the median family income has risen to the highest level in American history as of 2007 (the last recorded year), and I’m pretty sure George W. Bush was in office that year, not Bill Clinton.
And since Bush wasn’t actually in office in the year 2000, last time I checked, the median family income has actually risen $1,149 under his Presidency. Pretty remarkable, given that we also weathered a dot-com bust, a major terrorist attack, natural disasters and various other national and global financial disturbances in that span.
Why isn’t BRCK BM telling the truth?
August 28th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Yes I ask the same thing, why isn’t Obama telling the truth?
Under Bush the Mean family income decreased $348
2000-2007
Under Clinton Mean family income increased $13,864.
1992-1999
I think Americans should know the truth.
Also, you mentioned a terrorist attack.
Tell us Mr. Wright, on whose watch did America get attacked while our CiC went on vacation after receiving a string of dire warnings? On whose watch did the attacker bin Laden escape? On whose watch has the Taliban has grown stronger?
August 28th, 2008 at 5:19 am
I appreciate your recognition that BRCK BM is a liar, but are you under the impression that 1992-1999 and 2000-2007 are the respective Clinton and Bush terms? Why did they both assume and leave office a year early?
August 28th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Curiously, the Median increased while the Mean decreased between 2000 and 2007. (In constant dollars. In nominal dollars, both increased.)
BUT, both increased (marginally) between 2001 and 2007.
(If you don’t know how Median and Mean are related, research the difference between mathematical Mean and mathematical Median.)
The best answer is that the perio 2001-2007 contains very little change; almost all the data is statistical noise.
The growth in the economy 1993-2000 changed into a stable economy 2001-2007, despite all the economic shocks that occurred during the most recent decade. Is either event entirely the fault of either President during their respective time periods? What did the technology boom the 1990’s, and the more recent plateau, do to these numbers?
August 28th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I find it amusing that a Clinton presidency apologist would use “On whose watch did the attacker bin Laden escape?” to support his argument.