Interesting chart

[CARLHAYDEN]

http://www.sentierresearch.com/Charts/HouseholdIncomeIndex_UnemploymentRate_11_2011.jpg

[opebo]

This is capitalism, Carl Hayden.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is capitalism, Carl Hayden.

No, its Obama and his allies diverting the economy to benefit their cronies.

[opebo]

...diverting the economy...

Nothing has changed policy-wise since the last president, CH.

[CARLHAYDEN]

...diverting the economy...

Nothing has changed policy-wise since the last president, CH.

Wrong again.

Bush II was a mediocre President, which makes him seem acceptable compared to the scum currently 'occupying' the White House.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

Thanks for disagreeing with me.

Yes, I think, YOU reflexively disagree with whatever I post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

Thanks for disagreeing with me.

Yes, I think, YOU reflexively disagree with whatever I post.

Well, what's your conclusion from this? Try to use actual political, economic, or sociological terminology, if you can.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

Thanks for disagreeing with me.

Yes, I think, YOU reflexively disagree with whatever I post.

Well, what's your conclusion from this? Try to use actual political, economic, or sociological terminology, if you can.

I'll try to dumb this down for you.

Ernest is a thoughtless type who automatically disagrees with whatever I post.

I don't need it dumbed down, and I was referring to your conclusion from the data, not from your bizarre personal antipathy for another poster. There are any number of people who disagree with everything or almost everything that you, or I, or anybody here posts. I should have thought you'd have realized that by now, but wonders never cease.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

Thanks for disagreeing with me.

Yes, I think, YOU reflexively disagree with whatever I post.

Well, what's your conclusion from this? Try to use actual political, economic, or sociological terminology, if you can.

I'll try to dumb this down for you.

Ernest is a thoughtless type who automatically disagrees with whatever I post.

I don't need it dumbed down, and I was referring to your conclusion from the data, not from your bizarre personal antipathy for another poster. There are any number of people who disagree with everything or almost everything that you, or me, or anybody here posts. I should have thought you'd have realized that by now, but wonders never cease.

\
Sorry Nathan, but, its Ernest who has the problem of bizarre personal antipathy to me.

The thing is that he doesn't think, he is merely spiteful.

If you have carefully researched the matter, one would hope that you would not be so surprised.

Finally, the expression if 'you or I,' not 'you or me.' 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

Thanks for disagreeing with me.

Yes, I think, YOU reflexively disagree with whatever I post.

Well, what's your conclusion from this? Try to use actual political, economic, or sociological terminology, if you can.

I'll try to dumb this down for you.

Ernest is a thoughtless type who automatically disagrees with whatever I post.

I don't need it dumbed down, and I was referring to your conclusion from the data, not from your bizarre personal antipathy for another poster. There are any number of people who disagree with everything or almost everything that you, or me, or anybody here posts. I should have thought you'd have realized that by now, but wonders never cease.

\
Sorry Nathan, but, its Ernest who has the problem of bizarre personal antipathy to me.

The thing is that he doesn't think, he is merely spiteful.

If you have carefully researched the matter, one would hope that you would not be so surprised.

Finally, the expression if 'you or I,' not 'you or me.' 

I have not carefully researched the matter of your levels of intelligence and ability to comprehend what is going on around you, no. If somebody was to ask me 'What do you think of CARLHAYDEN's intelligence and understanding of the world?', I would answer, with all honesty, 'I don't'. The fact that you want the matter carefully researched would probably demonstrate some problems with your attitude under normal circumstances, but in this case it is as a drop of oil in the ocean, so we can't really extrapolate much of value from it.

Finally, the words are 'it's' and 'is', not 'its' and 'if'.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nathan

First, thank you for noting my typo.

Second, its too bad you appear to have been unable to comprehend the rest of my post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan

First, thank you for noting my typo.

Second, its too bad you appear to have been unable to comprehend the rest of my post.

You're welcome (by the way, you forgot to insert an apostrophe again). Thank you for noting my misused pronoun.

I comprehended the rest of your post, unless--as is possible, I will admit--you were operating under Hemingway's 'iceberg theory' and there is in fact a seething mass of unstated content that is not apparent on the surface. I shall have to think about this possibility more.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nathan

First, thank you for noting my typo.

Second, its too bad you appear to have been unable to comprehend the rest of my post.

You're welcome (by the way, you forgot to insert an apostrophe again). Thank you for noting my misused pronoun.

I comprehended the rest of your post, unless--as is possible, I will admit--you were operating under Hemingway's 'iceberg theory' and there is in fact a seething mass of unstated content that is not apparent on the surface. I shall have to think about this possibility more.

No, you seem to completely misunderstand the post to which I refer.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan

First, thank you for noting my typo.

Second, its too bad you appear to have been unable to comprehend the rest of my post.

You're welcome (by the way, you forgot to insert an apostrophe again). Thank you for noting my misused pronoun.

I comprehended the rest of your post, unless--as is possible, I will admit--you were operating under Hemingway's 'iceberg theory' and there is in fact a seething mass of unstated content that is not apparent on the surface. I shall have to think about this possibility more.

No, you seem to completely misunderstand the post to which I refer.

I have understood every post in this thread so far, on a very deep, Jungian sort of psychological level. It has not been pretty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

Thanks for disagreeing with me.

Yes, I think, YOU reflexively disagree with whatever I post.

I suppose that's why when you posted the following over in the Constitution and Law board I reflexively came to Obama's defense:

Recently President Obama made some appointments to the NLRB which he called "recess" appointments.

The Senate has been in session, i.e. not on recess.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/obama-chooses-politics-over-principle-in-naming-consumer-bureau-head-view.html

[...]

Apparently the Obamamessiah has decided that whenever the Senate refuses to confirm he choices, that makes them (the Senate) in recess, even if the Senate maintains to the contrary.

Except I didn't:

While the legality of these pro forma sessions is disputed, it won't take long to be settled.

Net result is likely to be similar to what happened in Clinton v. City of New York concerning the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.   As soon as Corday or the NRLB makes a ruling that adversely affects someone, they'll sue, they'll win, and the whatever they did under these appointments will be thrown out.  While the pro forma sessions are political evasion of the crassest sort, they are well within the Article I Section 5 Clause 2 power of each house to determine the rules of its proceedings.

We both agree that Obama is in constitutional error here and his faux recess appointments deserve to thrown out.

While we often disagree CARL, it is not because I always take the opposite position from yours. I don't decide anything based on what position you have taken.  While you act like someone who needs to have an enemy to hate, I don't have that particular quirk.  I don't hate you.  To the degree I feel any emotion towards you, it is pity.

[Wonkish1]

It's interesting, but not in the way you think it is CARL.  It shows that it in both of the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise slightly after the official end of the recession, returning to the level it held at the end of the recession after about 18 months.  It also shows that the trendline in household income was downward for some years after both recessions.  Of course, two recessions is far too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but if forced to make one, I would conclude that the recession Obama inherited from Bush was worse than the one Bush inherited from Clinton, which ain't much of a conclusion.

I certainly hope this isn't the first time you've discovered that unemployment and income are trailing indicators. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But this has been known for decades.