The median income data for 2006 is up, as is the 2007 median income for households and families. Each of these will be a surprise to anyone who believes what BRCK BM has been saying about average family incomes on the campaign trail.

The Census Bureau has released the poverty rate for 2007, which edged up 0.2%. The 2007 rate of 12.5 is slightly higher than the Bush 43 average of 12.34.

Poverty Average By Presidency (1959-2007):
Ford: 11.77
Carter: 11.93
Nixon: 12.04
GWB: 12.34*
Clinton: 13.29
GHWB: 13.83
Reagan: 14.08
Johnson: 15.60
Kennedy: 20.80
Ike: 22.30**

*(2001-2007)
**(1959-1960)

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?

The U.S. homeless count continues to drop, and the chronically homeless population in America has also continued to decline over the past few years.

The national trend holds up in Memphis and Shelby County, where the number of unsheltered, chronically homeless individuals has decreased more than 57% since 2005.

HUD awarded the area’s homeless agencies with a grand total of $4,865,244 for the year, which works out to about $2,682 per homeless individual.

It will be interesting to see if the Commercial Appeal covers this story as poorly as it did last year, when it failed to include the numbers or link to the HUD report.

Table: Homelessness in Memphis / Shelby County, 2005-2007. Source: U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development.

U.S. Government foreign aid has returned to record highs under the current administration, following a steady downhill trend over the previous three decades, according to the USAID Greenbook on U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants.

According to the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there was a 12% drop in the number of chronically homeless persons “living on the nation’s streets” between 2005 and 2006.

In the Memphis/Shelby County area there were:

• 1776 homeless individuals
• 194 homeless individuals who were unsheltered
• 113 chronically homeless individuals
• 39 chronically homeless individuals who were unsheltered

HUD awarded the area’s homeless agencies with a grand total of $4.6 million for the year, which works out to about $2,600 per homeless individual.

By the way, last year’s local report isn’t loading properly at the moment; otherwise, I would compare the Memphis/Shelby County trend to the national trend.

UPDATE: Are homeless stats cooked?

Is the U.S. headed for an economic slowdown? The Financial Times seems to be expecting one. But Fred Thompson isn’t worried, and AEI’s Kevin Hassett argues the housing bust is just a market correction that isn’t as likely to “spread into the general economy” as the headlines suggest:

The accompanying chart relates real investment in housing by U.S. households to real GDP from 1952 until this year. The chart reveals that housing investment has been volatile throughout the past half-century. By the standards of past booms and busts, the current episode looks tame. By this measure, the boom was not nearly as high as past indiscretions, and the bust has already reversed it.

Here’s the chart:

Since Mr. Hassett hasn’t responded to my email, let me repeat my question here:

Is declining residential investment a fairly reliable predictor of economic recession?

The only exception to that trend seems to be the period of 1966-1967, where there was a sharp decline in housing investment but no recession until the same level was hit a second time in the period of 1970-1971.

If this reading of the data is correct, it would seem to indicate that we are currently headed to a recession. Do I have it wrong?

I find further evidence for this prediction in the October 8 issue of National Review, on the topic of the housing slump and the Fed’s recent action easing monetary policy:

“[P]romoting long-term growth is not something the Fed can do, and therefore not something it should try to do. What it can do is fight inflation. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal have observed, the inflation picture does not justify looser money. Confirming their predictions, the dollar started to fall on the Fed move. If inflation gets out of control, the Fed will have to re-tighten — and at that point we might end up with the recession it is trying to avoid.”

It might be that the housing bust on its own wouldn’t have led to an economic downturn but that the Fed’s resulting action could. It would be pretty incredible if the Fed were responsible for both driving down the dollar and tipping us into a recession simultaneously. Especially if the whole thing would have resolved itself without any intervention.

The weak dollar is already here. Will a recession follow? We shall see.

MEANWHILE: 46% of Americans incorrectly think we’re already in a recession, even as the economy continues to churn along at a brisk 3.9% growth rate.

AND: Larry Kudlow says, “Message to all you worrywarts out there: The U.S. economy remains strong. There is no recession ahead.”

Ok, so here’s the median income chart, not to be confused with the median household income chart, below. I stopped at 2005 because I’m unclear about the 2006 figure, available in a separate table ($30,428 would seem to be too high a jump, but maybe not).

As indicated in the comments, if there is a burger-flipping army invading U.S. households, that could explain the rise in median household income but would probably drag down median personal income. Let’s see if that’s the case:

Nope, doesn’t look like it. But maybe the burger flipping army is really raking it in these days. Hey, and this might be evidence!

More income and info and useful charts are available here.

What you will find if you look at the numbers from an apolitical viewpoint is that median income has taken a hit over the past decade. Okay, so there are more people working as burger flippers and burger flippers are making more money. Big freaking deal!

- John Farmer

Hmm, let’s see about that:

Farmer’s analysis doesn’t seem to fit the data.

UPDATE: Thanks to karrde in the comments, I’ve corrected the graph’s key.

UPDATE II: Added stretchy purple line.

While we’re doing graphs, here’s another chart I’ve been following. Since 2003, the unemployment rate has dropped steadily at a rate nearly identical to that during the Clinton years. The blue line at left (1992-2001) has simply been cloned in Photoshop and nudged right (that’s why the second line extends beyond the border).

UPDATE: Corrected the dates at top.