So Biden has a secretly great economy? Yeah not so much, in fact it’s DEPRESSING says … CNN!?

MSNBC and the rest of the dead media have been crying a lot lately about how it’s not fair Americans struggling to buy groceries aren’t giving Biden enough credit for how well the stock market is doing, or something, and CNN has been no exception.

Well they sort of have, but in that way where while they are telling you bad news about Biden they pretend it’s your fault and doubt their own numbers in a “By the Numbers” segment, such as on Friday morning when CNN reported on the bad news over a banner that said Americans “sour” on economy “despite” positive signs.

Even so, though, the actual thing they showed is bad for Biden and crazy to see on CNN.

The anchor asked why Americans think the economy is bad when there’s all this stock market money flowing, and Harry Enten replied that American’s don’t look at the stock market to see how much it’s costing them to live, basically.

Then he talked about disposable income.

“From the first year of a president’s term to now in a term, look at this. We’ve actually had negative growth. We have actually decreased the amount of disposable income we’ve had, 2.7% for the Biden administration. Look at that. The average for the president since JFK, is plus 4.5 percent,” said Enten. “And even in the last few months, the last six months, the growth that we’ve had — just 0.2 percent. The average six months since 1960 [is] 1.1 percent, so we’re even behind on that metric.”

“That’s kind of depressing,” said the anchor as I laughed at her.

“It is kind of depressing,” Enten continued, as the Daily Caller pointed out. “And the one last thing I’ll note — even wages here [are] not going up. Median wage: minus one [percent] since pre-pandemic, minus one [percent] since Biden’s first year. Since last quarter? Zero percent. Wages have been stagnant for a long time and it’s continuing to be so.”

Why do Americans THINK the Biden economy sucks? Because even the “positive indicators” are just it being somewhat less bad than it was UNDER his leadership. Nothing is positive compared to before him.

Now I can’t quite remember but … who was it that was before him?


Consider this an OPEN THREAD.


 


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.