Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

• BoatShoes

  Tiernan;1261104 wrote:Making more money but my investments and assets have only recently returned to 2008 levels. Overall I'd say I'm not as well off as I was 4 yrs ago and its time to sweep clean (and I voted for Change in '08).

  Be careful what you wish for. In 2010 the Brits' decided to go with a Romney clone in David Cameron as Prime Minister and a Paul Ryan clone in George Osborn as Finance Minister in order 2 get s3ri0us ab0ut teh deficit and get their fiscal house in order so that the private sector might be inspired to grow their economy and it didn't turn out so well. Full blown recession < slow growth out historic recession that is slower than it ought to be thanks to Republican governors firing people.
  
  
  
  (It really is amazing actually how similar Cameron/Osborne are to Romney/Ryan too).
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1261095 wrote:"I am better off than I was in January 2009. (And so are the majority of people who have responded apparently). "
  
  Really? If people were honest I'd be shocked if anyone has a home value worth more than it was in January '09. Even if one doesn't plan on selling it, it is still an asset. But my main point (along with others) is that the debt we took on in no way made us better off with the anemic recovery. If people are looking at future pension or SS payments they'd be quite foolhardy to think they are better off. Undoubtedly if Obama is re-elected SS will be "saved" by taxing our young people more and moving their retirement age up, how does that make them better off? A heartwarming feeling? What about the unfunded pensions? I don't care if a teacher makes an additional $3,000 this year, if their gold-plated pension is destined for doom (which most of them are) they aren't better off. Its a short-term benefit at the cost of a long-term detriment.

  
  You know what amazes me is that you constantly talk about how your home's value has fallen and yet also constantly trash Ben Bernanke for, among other things, promising to keep interest rates low. If you would like to see the value of your house go up you should want Ben Bernanke to credibly promise to keep rates low even after the economy picks up so that inflation is above the ordinary target rate for a couple years so your home's value goes back up as inflation runs a little higher. Instead, you seem to want him to raise rates which would be a disaster just like it was when the ECB decided to do so prematurely...
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "You know what amazes me is that you constantly talk about how your home's value has fallen and yet also constantly trash Ben Bernanke for, among other things, promising to keep interest rates low."
  
  Shouldn't shock you, because the interest rate means #^$% (apologies for the cursing) if people can't afford to pay the down payment. Bernanke's interest rate suppression just screams lack of confidence on our economy going forward, to the extent we're just keeping our currency artificially low.
  
  It is reminiscent of the student loan soon-to-be crisis IMO when the colleges are saying "well we have record low interest rates, so you can afford to pay our exorbitant tuition" - well, don't eventually you have to pay back the principal? Its almost as if we are trying to copy Japan from the 90's. The difference between the housing bubble and the student loan bubble is that the housing bubble was backed by a hard asset. We can (and do) rent it out, and only lose maybe $400/month on it (I'd have to check our taxes for an accurate figure), the unemployed grad owing $1,000/month is paying the full figure, and an income deduction is worth little when you have no income to deduct from.
• Tiernan

  BoatShoes;1261120 wrote:Be careful what you wish for. In 2010 the Brits' decided to go with a Romney clone in David Cameron as Prime Minister and a Paul Ryan clone in George Osborn as Finance Minister in order 2 get s3ri0us ab0ut teh deficit and get their fiscal house in order so that the private sector might be inspired to grow their economy and it didn't turn out so well. Full blown recession < slow growth out historic recession that is slower than it ought to be thanks to Republican governors firing people.
  
  
  
  (It really is amazing actually how similar Cameron/Osborne are to Romney/Ryan too).

  Wow you really had to reach for that one didn't you Stretch?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Stock market is much better than it was 4 years ago. Companies profits are much better than 4 years ago too. If that didn't benefit you, I'll remind you that obviously the Trickle Down Theory is a crock of shit that is still being peddled.
• queencitybuckeye

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1261174 wrote:Stock market is much better than it was 4 years ago. Companies profits are much better than 4 years ago too. If that didn't benefit you, I'll remind you that obviously you made poor personal finance decisions

  fify
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  queencitybuckeye;1261187 wrote:fify

  True.
  Manhattan Buckeye... you're to blame for your poor financial decisions.
• QuakerOats

  http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-voters-think-second-term-undeserved
  "A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
  Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in &#8220;worse condition&#8221; now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance."
  
  Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in &#8220;better condition,&#8221; while 15 percent say it is &#8220;about the same,&#8221; the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
  The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week&#8217;s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
  
  
  
  Most voters understand economic reality. They understand gas prices have dooubled in 4 years; they understand food prices have escalated; they understand their house has much less value; they understand their neighbor doesn't have a job; they understand we have nil economic growth; they understand that 4 years from now they will be even worse off; and they understand that the future holds little hope for their children and grandchildren at the rate the obama regime is enslaving them to government via massive debt and deficits. They understand the incredible failure of leadership we are enduring, and my sense is they will make a change (for the better).
• BoatShoes

  Tiernan;1261153 wrote:Wow you really had to reach for that one didn't you Stretch?

  Well not really. If you've read my posts in the past I have argued for a particular policy approach to an economic wherein there is high unemployment, low inflation and interest rates at the zero bound...which is the world we live in. Republicans argue for a different approach which happens to have been what was tried in the UK and we've seen the results...recession and higher unemployment and even bleaker budget problems. If that is what you want, Romney/Ryan is the ticket for you.
• QuakerOats

  As BS knows, the European model fails because of the lack of pro-growth incentives, and business friendly policy. The Romney/Ryan approach will be to couple federal spending cuts with pro-growth, business friendly policies ....... and as we know from past history in our capitalist economy, it will work.
  
  If you want a burning Europe, then the obama/biden ticket is for you.
  If you want economic prosperity and the reining in of BIG government, then Romney/Ryan is your ticket.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1261360 wrote:As BS knows, the European model fails because of the lack of pro-growth incentives, and business friendly policy. The Romney/Ryan approach will be to couple federal spending cuts with pro-growth, business friendly policies ....... and as we know from past history in our capitalist economy, it will work.
  
  If you want a burning Europe, then the obama/biden ticket is for you.
  If you want economic prosperity and the reining in of BIG government, then Romney/Ryan is your ticket.

  Meanwhile that pro-growth, business friendly administration preceding the socialists enjoyed a September 2008 with a payroll employment number of -432,000. Methinks it's around a +500,000 improvement 4 years later even with all those mean words about teh j0b creat0rz. #AreYouBetterOff LOL.
• QuakerOats

  Prior to the radicals' takeover of congress in '06, Mr Bush presided over much, much greater GDP growth; much, much lower unemployment, and over 5 million new jobs. College grads did not have to leave the country for Australia to find a job, and even though we had 9/11 to contend with, the country was growing, there was confidence, and the job creators were not being assaulted by government agencies on a daily basis. People could afford to fill their gas tanks, BIG government wasn't bankrupting the energy industry, and cabinet positions were held by real Americans who had business experience, not Marxists. Then along came a radical who said he would "fundamentally transform America" ...... perhaps the only spoken truth he has uttered.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• believer

  

  16 TRILLION...woo hoo. Time to celebrate! 4 more years! 4 more years!
  
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html
• Footwedge

  believer;1261406 wrote:16 TRILLION...woo hoo. Time to celebrate! 4 more years! 4 more years!
  
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html

  That is a lotta dough. Probably more than QueenCityBuckeye makes in a full year!! I'm sure he'll stumble by and confirm what I'm saying. Gotta love ole Queen. Only guy I've ever seen relentlessly brag about making the most money on a chat site. Prob been divorced 4 or 5 times by now. LOL.
• Footwedge

  QuakerOats;1261391 wrote:Prior to the radicals' takeover of congress in '06, Mr Bush presided over much, much greater GDP growth; much, much lower unemployment, and over 5 million new jobs. College grads did not have to leave the country for Australia to find a job, and even though we had 9/11 to contend with, the country was growing, there was confidence, and the job creators were not being assaulted by government agencies on a daily basis. People could afford to fill their gas tanks, BIG government wasn't bankrupting the energy industry, and cabinet positions were held by real Americans who had business experience, not Marxists. Then along came a radical who said he would "fundamentally transform America" ...... perhaps the only spoken truth he has uttered.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....

  Bush's cabinet positions were held by people who should be in fuckin jail. Also, your memory blows as to what the GDP, the unemployment rate, the stock market were when Pinnochio limped out of office.
• mella

  Mrs. Mella and I are better off. Our family income has doubled in the last 4 years, everything but the house is paid off. Our daughter's tuition is paid in cash. Our house is worth more today than it was 4 years ago. All this has nothing to do with who is in the White House. We worked hard and paid off debt, rather than increasing it. We've had a financial plan that we've followed for 6 years and we are benefitting from it. Now with that said, I don't think either the Dems or the Repubs would have changed the course we were personally set on and we are lucky that our jobs are fairly recession proof.
  
  I pay more for food and gas now, but I paid more for food and gas in 1992 than I did in 1990.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Our daughter's tuition is paid in cash"
  
  Does she have a job lined up, or do you expect her to move back in?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1261386 wrote:Meanwhile that pro-growth, business friendly administration preceding the socialists enjoyed a September 2008 with a payroll employment number of -432,000. Methinks it's around a +500,000 improvement 4 years later even with all those mean words about teh j0b creat0rz. #AreYouBetterOff LOL.

  Cite, if I even understand that ridiculous post correctly. I don't understand any of it, and the sarcasm is pretty crappy. If you are going to do sarcasm do it right at least, and if you are being direct be direct. Your posts are hard enough to understand as it is.
• gut

  I'm a little better off, but I help failing companies so...
• stlouiedipalma

  Just about what I expected, with Quaker, MB and belly offering up their usual gloom and doom responses.
  
  Some of you thought it was a stupid question, or even the wrong question. Perhaps so, but since it was first brought into vogue by the Gipper it has been a question which is asked in virtually every Presidential election since.
  
  It does depend a bit on your prior economic situation and your geographic location, so we'll forgive those of you who weren't doing well prior to 2009 or chose to live in communities where real estate is doing poorly. My neighborhood has seen recent home sales return to much better levels, so I guess even my situation is better than I expected.
  
  One thing I left out was how much I felt that our current President contributed to my financial well-being. Perhaps not so much, but I have to wonder how bad things would be if the economic genius that is John McCain had won in 2008.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1261648 wrote: but I have to wonder how bad things would be if the economic genius that is John McCain had won in 2008.

  A lot of the same policies. There was really no secret, no genius, or options to navigate the financial crisis. TARP was before Obama, and GM was pretty much teed-up for him, just waiting for him to screw the investors and property rights to buy those union votes. That was the bottom. Hard to imagine a more tepid recovery with anyone else sitting in the chair.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1261625 wrote:Cite, if I even understand that ridiculous post correctly. I don't understand any of it, and the sarcasm is pretty crappy. If you are going to do sarcasm do it right at least, and if you are being direct be direct. Your posts are hard enough to understand as it is.

  More wisdom bestowed upon me by Manhattan Buckeye. Hopefully someday, I will learn.
  
  Is it agreeable that modest job growth is better than massive job loss?
  
  If that is the case, see for yourself in this graph, or, if you'd prefer, there is a chart available in the link.
  
  
  http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
  
  
  So looks to me about 500,000 job difference in the "better than four years ago" category.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1261653 wrote:A lot of the same policies. There was really no secret, no genius, or options to navigate the financial crisis. TARP was before Obama, and GM was pretty much teed-up for him, just waiting for him to screw the investors and property rights to buy those union votes. That was the bottom. Hard to imagine a more tepid recovery with anyone else sitting in the chair.

  Perhaps, but then reality often belies the imagination. Imagine, we could have Gut sitting in the chair and it'd be even worse!
  
  
  
  Feel the confidence being inspired by those cuts to the welfare state!
• Manhattan Buckeye

  stlouiedipalma;1261648 wrote:Just about what I expected, with Quaker, MB and belly offering up their usual gloom and doom responses.
  
  Some of you thought it was a stupid question, or even the wrong question. Perhaps so, but since it was first brought into vogue by the Gipper it has been a question which is asked in virtually every Presidential election since.
  
  It does depend a bit on your prior economic situation and your geographic location, so we'll forgive those of you who weren't doing well prior to 2009 or chose to live in communities where real estate is doing poorly. My neighborhood has seen recent home sales return to much better levels, so I guess even my situation is better than I expected.
  
  One thing I left out was how much I felt that our current President contributed to my financial well-being. Perhaps not so much, but I have to wonder how bad things would be if the economic genius that is John McCain had won in 2008.

  If by doom and gloom you mean correct, I agree with you. Housing rates nationally still haven't hit their '07 peaks. Our national debt is trillions above what it was 4 years ago, we continue to run record setting deficits. Unless someone to describes in a "the interest rate doesn't matter" sense that puts us all in a worse spot. Even the CBO is claiming that young people will have to accept less in SS payments and retire (if ever) later. How does that make us better off?
  
  "One thing I left out was how much I felt that our current President contributed to my financial well-being"
  
  Yeah, you did, and you continue to do so? Are you unemployed and get a bigger unemployment check?
  
  There is no way any sane American can say the country is in better shape now. That isn't doom and gloom, our country has created a toxic business environment and there isn't any plan to get us off the government dole. There's a reason why Singapore has already eclipsed the U.S. in economic stature and most likely South Korea will as well. It shouldn't be so costly to start up a business in the U.S., but with our antiquated regulations and government graft it has become so. What has Obama done to help that out?
• gut

  BoatShoes;1261658 wrote:Perhaps, but then reality often belies the imagination. Imagine, we could have Gut sitting in the chair and it'd be even worse!
  
  
  
  Feel the confidence being inspired by those cuts to the welfare state!

  Funny how many states with "austerity" measures are doing much better than your approach in states like CA and IL.
  
  If you are such a fan of Obama, then you should look "forward" to Europe - UK, Greece, etc... - because that's what the future holds when investors finally say "no mas".
  
  No one, on this board or anywhere, is espousing austerity. Why do you continue to make that strawman argument?