Are we better of than 4 years ago?

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (63 posts)

75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
Five economics reporters say yes.
"It would have been much worse" isn't very sexy.
How about this:
"Bread line worse"
Nuff said.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/06 … e-b/189773
reply report
1. 83
  adjkp25posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wasn't this right after Obama closed the GM plant? That must have been the cause of the crisis
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obama had zero to do with closing the "GM plant." The plant was actually closed while Bush was president. Obama gave a speech in Janesville during the campaign in which he suggested the plant would not have to be closed if he became president, but the plant was closed by General Motors before Obama took office. The GOP's lying VP candidate Paul Ryan recently tried to blame the assembly plant's closure on Obama. Actually it's unfair to blame the closure on Bush either.
  reply report
  83
  adjkp25posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I understand the timing, it was meant to be a joke.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I'm not known for an acute sense of humor!
  reply report
  83
  adjkp25posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No worries, bigger fish to fry.
  
  For me the biggest stat in the story was the job growth in the last 28 months. 4 million is a ton but it reflects how bad things really were at one point.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, that is absolutely incorrect. The plant stopped making SUVs in Dec of 08, but it continued to manufacture other vehicles until April of 09.
  SUVs were the plant's bread and butter - and if you take a look at what Obama said about 'gas-guzzling SUVs' you'll find that there was little incentive for the plant to continue production.
  
  Ryan told the truth - the plant closed in 09. Now, I just wish democrats would tell the truth.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just wish you would tell the truth.
  
  From Wikipedia:
  
  In October 2008, GM announced Janesville Assembly would be largely idled December 23, 2008 when production of SUVs would end.[14] On December 23, workers gathered at a ceremony to take photos with a banner reading "Last Vehicle off the Janesville Assembly Line". The last vehicle was sold in a raffle benefiting the United Way.[15]
  2009
  
  57 production employees continued assembly work at the Janesville Assembly until April 2009, completing the GM/Isuzu light truck partnership and then an additional 40 to 50 "skilled trade employees" worked to decommission the plant.[16]
  
  My comment was accurate. Yours was misleading.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The plant closed in April 09, Ralph. There's no getting around that.
  
  It idled the SUV line in Dec 08. The banner you talk about features the last SUV. The plant did not close then. It closed in April.
  
  That's exactly what Ryan said - and that's what Wikipedia and I both said.
  
  You said, "The plant was actually closed while Bush was president. "
  
  That was completely false as I (and Wikipedia) demonstrated.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What Ryan and your interpretation are misleading and not especially honest. The decision was made to close the Janesville plant by GM while Bush was still president. A few employees remained after the first of the year to close out an agreement with another auto company and mothball the plant. Blaming the closure on Obama is an outright lie.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I simply do not understand how you can read the same source as me (and apparently others) and come up with a completely different conclusion.
  You are quibbling about when the actual last SUV rolled off a plant that was announced to be closing in 2008.
  The decision to close the plant happened under Bush.
  Obama didn't take office until 1/20/09.
  
  How, in the span of 3 months of his term, was President Obama supposed to stop the wheels of a PRIVATE SECTOR company from terminating production in ONE PLANT making SUVs (which are not as popular as they were when Bush incented people to buy them -- remember that?)
  
  One plant, which conveniently happens to be in Janesville, Wisconsin?
  
  The better question is, since that is Paul Ryan's district, whey didn't HE work tirelessly to keep the plant open for his constituents BEFORE 2008?
  
  reply report
2. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely we are better off than we were four years ago when we were on the brink of a deep worldwide depression. Now, although unemployment is still high, the country's economy is slowly recovering. The recovery would have been faster were it not for the Republicans in Congress.
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Six trillion more in debt. Unemployment at 8.3. Obama has broken 90% of his campaign promises spent more than all previous presidents combined. Spent all that money and nothing to show for it. Please don't vote.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unemployment at 15%.
  
  The official rate is broken, we can't use it anymore.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Spent more than all previous presidents combined?
  Source, please.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He hasn't...
  
  If we give him 4 more years though, and get rid of the debt ceiling... maybe
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And for those R's that think all you have to do is cut welfare, think again. if nothing else the present British Government can be thanked for showing you what the opposite of a Keynesian economy looks like. You will contract, feel the pain, and end up borrowing even more money than Keynesian opponents would have when spending. Think long and hard.....
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you aren't worried about the debt, then I have an idea.
  
  Why not eliminate corporate taxes? Make the US look very very attractive to external investment?
  
  If you can increase individual tax receipts by ~20%, then you'll make up the money lost, but you'll have a lot more employed people for the same amount of revenue.
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, we've done that, too. Where are the jobs?
  
  Here's another idea, why not cut corporate taxes in line with their level of recruitment? Corporations pay taxes on a declining basis when their staff levels increase?
  
  Who said I wasn't worried about the debt? My bone of contention is that *just* trying to bring down the deficit with no other master plan for growth, is not only counter-productive, but destructive, too.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We've done that??!?!!!??
  
  When?
  
  Lol, just more of the 'Romney is Bush, everything Romney wants to do Bush did and it ruined America' rhetoric, completely ignoring fact and history. Ugh. Double ugh.
  
  I love your idea. New companies with just the owner will pay the highest tax rates! The companies that struggle most to survive will pay the most!
  
  Let's get rid of corporate taxes then. It's a huge plan for growth.
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't think so. Refer to my original post, I was suggesting, as a Brit, that the US could and should take a look the current UK Government before voting, to gain some insight into the opposite of Keynesian economics and how that might work out for you in reality. When I said, WE, I meant WE as in British. Yes, we've tried that, still no jobs.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When did the UK eliminate corporate taxes?
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When it became perfectly legal to evade tax and for corporations to "dump" their money into corporate tax havens.
  
  http://www.offshorecompany.co.uk/taxhav … porate.htm
  
  Of course, they'd never admit that it was tax elimination altogether. Oh, and then there's that giving money to charity thing, even if the charity is a spin off from the corporation.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gotcha.
  
  Still not the same thing as I'm talking about.
  reply report
  60
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Amounts to the same though, Jaxson. We'd have to *trust* those corporations to create jobs before any tax relief could be considered. Not saying no, but they've got to earn the right first.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, not really. It's about becoming more attractive on an international level. I'm not familiar with UK tax history, but just allowing for loopholes doesn't really increase the attractiveness.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who are these foreign investors that you want to buy America?
  Chinese?
  Saudis?
  Other?
  
  Do these investors care in any way shape or form about putting American people to work?
  I don't imagine that's a top priority.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Buy America?
  
  No, invest in America. Invest in existing businesses. Provide capital for new ventures. Bring jobs here. Things like that.
  report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But why do we need foreign investors to do that?
  Why not domestic investors investing in our own country?
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because more is better. More ideas, more competition, more innovation, more industries, more demand, more jobs...
  
  In an economy, more is better. More money spent is more lifeblood.
  report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  More people with more money. Can't argue with that!
  report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The problem with corporate taxes, Hollie, is that they are double taxes, for the most part and they result in corporations shifting assets to avoid taxation.
  
  There will never come a time when a large corporation willingly gives up its profit to feed the masses. It just won't happen. It's not natural. But corporate taxes are NOT income taxes. Everyone one of the corporate employees that draws a salary is paying income taxes. The shareholders, investors, owners....ALL are paying taxes on what they get from the company.
  
  Corporate taxes are taxes levied against the "profits" in a corporation. This is the amount left over after the cost of doing business is subtracted from the gross receipts.
  
  If the govt. would drop corporate taxes and instead require the business to reinvest the amount in new jobs - unemployment would drop in a heartbeat. But they won't. Because too many people think that the way to a thriving economy is to tax corporations. For goddsake, non-profit hospitals are corporations. The word "corporation" does not immediately mean "rich and evil."
  
  What folks don't understand is that businesses will move their operations or close their doors if it no longer becomes profitable for them to do business. We've had a lot of door-closings in the last few years and more are on the horizon. When that happens, many, many people suffer.
  
  You'll never be able to force a company to stay in business. And you can't force them to stay in the United States. You can make it beneficial for them to do so, however. The US global competitiveness rate just dropped to number 7. Fleecing corporations won't remedy that anytime soon.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ryan and Romney are proposing to cut taxes on billionaires as well.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, their caterwalling about the deficit and debt is a bit hollow. And they're proposing to take it out of the hides of teachers, retirees, Medicare, Medicaid and so forth.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah... not really.
  
  Ryan's plan was approved by CBO as balancing the budget, and eliminating the debt. Yeah, not right away, but nobody else has done that. We're in a mess, as the left always says. It takes time to fix it, right?
  
  Or does only Obama get time?
  
  As for Romney, he balanced his budget as governor... so he has a record. Sorry.
  reply report
3. 0
  Sophia Angeliqueposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, Bill Clinton says so.
  reply report
4. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To put it succinctly, some people are indeed better off. They either have jobs and/or investments which could afford them more than a decent standard of living. There are others who even obtained better and/or more lucrative jobs in this depression.
  
  Then there are the unemployed. Then again, there are a few unemployed people who have bounced back from their condition. They either have found similar jobs and/or better jobs. However, there are many unemployed people who have been unemployed for a long time. I am emphasizing here, those who were downsized, laid off, and/or fired through no fault of their own. These people are in a precarious situation.
  
  Many of them have looked endlessly for jobs but jobs are few and far between. These people are near using their unemployment benefits and unemployment are not about to extend their benefits. Many of such people have no savings and/or investments and must depend upon those unemployment benefits to tide them over until they find another job. When their unemployment benefits are finished, some of these people probably will have to go on public assistance and/or borrow from relatives and/or friends in order to live another day. There are the extremely luckless unemployed who have gone through the socioeconomic bottomless pit.
  
  There are those who are not affected any which way. They are flourishing socioeconomically as I write this. They are not starving, struggling, and below water socioeconomically but they also are not thriving, they are just- well, in the middle.
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
I think we are all super touchy right about now.

We could certainly talk about related topics:
1. Things blamed on Obama that happened before he took office
2. Things blamed on Obama that are due to Republican obstructionism
3. Things Obama should take credit for that no one seems to be talking about
reply report
1. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obama is only responsible for his policies and actions taken while in office.
  
  Obstructionism is a two-way street.
  reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Congressman John Lewis of N. Carolina is giving what may be the most moving speech, among many moving speeches, at the Dem convention. Lewis's remarks brought tears to the eyes of more than one member of the audience.

"We don't want to go back." Wrt the GOP efforts to block voting by minorities, the elderly and children.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Funny thing that. D speeches are moving to D's, and R speeches are moving to R's.
  
  How many times have speakers mentioned equal pay for women at this convention?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I suspect that even you would find his speech moving.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If they put up a transcript, I'll read it. We'll see.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What do you have against equal pay for women?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing.
  
  I have a problem about people lying about inequality of pay.
  
  What's the figure? 70% or 77%? Yeah, that's a big fat lie. Pants on fire lie. You have to be completely dishonest to say it lie.
  reply report
0
HowardBThinameposted 12 years ago
Gas at the pump is an average of $2 per gallon higher than it was this time during the 08 election.

Consumer spending is lower now than when Obama took office.

The national debt has increased drastically.

Health insurance premiums and medical costs are higher than ever.

Utility and food costs are up but wages are not.

The Misery Index went down under GWB, but it's back up under Obama.

More people are on food stamps now than when Obama took office and Obama, himself - gave himself a grade of "Incomplete."
reply report
1. 67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gas was a $1.99 because there was no demand because of that recession thing we keep hearing about
  
  Utilities, food and health care prices rising has nothing to do with Obama.
  
  It doesn't matter though, Obama is going to win so its sort of a moot point what Romney would do.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
  
  How interesting to see that gas prices actually HAVE been this high -- and higher -- and not all that long ago.
  
  People have such imperfect recall when they want to, don't they?
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No demand for gas, Cody?
  
  Fascinating.
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
I can personally say I am much better off than I was 4 years ago.

Just received this email:
"You have hit a pretty impressive milestone—your 4 Year Anniversary on HubPages!"

FOUR MORE YEARS!
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't write those hubs MM.
  
  Happy 4 years. I'm sure you're in the 1% by now
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, Jaxson.
  Big
  reply report
2. 92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Happy anniversary! WOW - you sure write well for a four year old!
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
3. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are near SUPREME, MM! Congratulations to you and many, many, many more years! It could not happen to a nicer person.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, gm williams.
  It's all about COMMUNITY here!
  MM
  reply report
77
sabrebIadeposted 12 years ago
"Are we better of than 4 years ago?"
Personally....no.
And I do not know anyone personally that is, or says that they are.
Everyone I know is struggling.
reply report
96
agilitymachposted 12 years ago
Simple answer - no.
reply report
64
prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago
Macroeconomic indicators, yes the country is better off even though it is sluggish growth.

On a personal level, I think that four years is not enough for the macro to impact the micro - households and individual levels specially after its been in the quagmire. And besides, you can't really blame the government 100% for your financial improvement. Some other big financial aspects, monetary and global economy are impacting the country's financial growth as well.

MM, congrats!! 4 years and more :-) like Obama!
reply report
64
prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago
Oh, I forgot to say that I am better off because I cut back on some unnecessary expenses, I prioritize expenses and I set limit for myself, plus I got another day job, part time
reply report
67
Olivia-Oposted 12 years ago
Let's see, four years ago I was married to a man who had no sense of how money worked. He once talked about a credit card as if it were income. We finally had to refinance our house to pay off his credit cards.

Three years and ten months ago he left, and I found myself unexpectedly single and unemployed. I got some temp assignments discovered that I could make ends meet on approximately half what my ex had brought in.

So, yes, I am better off now than I was four years ago.
reply report
53
ocbillposted 12 years ago
Yes, I am better off than 5 years ago. I had to go through paying for an underwater home, short sold it 1 yr later, and got a job (still have it) so I am better off.
Gas Prices are not good though. There are still no real gas savings vehicles. With the world's population rising out of sight 50 to 60mpg is necessary.
PS - My adsense earnings are worse off than 4 yrs ago (about 60% less) due to algorithm changes.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Are we better of than 4 years ago?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Are we better of than 4 years ago?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies