jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (63 posts)

Are we better of than 4 years ago?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 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

    1. adjkp25 profile image89
      adjkp25posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wasn't this right after Obama closed the GM plant?  That must have been the cause of the crisis smile

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. adjkp25 profile image89
          adjkp25posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I understand the timing, it was meant to be a joke.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, I'm not known for an acute sense of humor!

            1. adjkp25 profile image89
              adjkp25posted 5 years ago in 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.

        2. HowardBThiname profile image89
          HowardBThinameposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 5 years ago in 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.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in 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.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in 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?


                roll

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Unemployment at 15%.

          The official rate is broken, we can't use it anymore.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Spent more than all previous presidents combined?
          Source, please.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He hasn't...

            If we give him 4 more years though, and get rid of the debt ceiling... maybe big_smile

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in 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.....

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in 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.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  When did the UK eliminate corporate taxes?

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in 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.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 5 years ago in 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.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ryan and Romney are proposing to cut taxes on billionaires as well.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in 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.

    3. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, Bill Clinton says so. smile

    4. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago in 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.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 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

    1. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obama is only responsible for his policies and actions taken while in office.

      Obstructionism is a two-way street.

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 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.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in 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?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I suspect that even you would find his speech moving.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If they put up a transcript, I'll read it. We'll see.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What do you have against equal pay for women?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in 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.

  4. HowardBThiname profile image89
    HowardBThinameposted 5 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."

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
      Cody Hodge5posted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in 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?

      2. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No demand for gas, Cody?

        Fascinating.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 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!"

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9W7pNz7U5ig/TrPZvEpcIkI/AAAAAAAAEKA/SiT_blQ3xWc/s1600/500px-wikinews-logo-de-birthday-cake-4svg.png

    FOUR MORE YEARS!

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You didn't write those hubs MM.

      Happy 4 years. I'm sure you're in the 1% by now smile

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, Jaxson.
        Big smile

    2. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Happy anniversary! WOW - you sure write well for a four year old! lol

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/215/2/7/Childish_drawing_by_PrincessCotton_Candy.png

    3. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, gm williams.
        It's all about COMMUNITY here!
        MM

  6. sabrebIade profile image82
    sabrebIadeposted 5 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.

  7. agilitymach profile image98
    agilitymachposted 5 years ago

    Simple answer - no.

  8. prettydarkhorse profile image61
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 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! smile smile

  9. prettydarkhorse profile image61
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 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 smile

  10. Olivia-O profile image81
    Olivia-Oposted 5 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.

  11. ocbill profile image68
    ocbillposted 5 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.

 
working