are you better off than you were two years ago ?

[code1211]

Two years ago today I had been living under the Beverly Bridge just west of downtown LA for nearly three months. It would be another 11 months before I was able to get off the streets, hopefully for the last time.

Say what you will about homelessness, there are days when you actually have nothing to accomplish and all day long to accomplish it.

I suspect those who have had families and jobs throughout their adult lives will have a difficult time getting their minds around that one.

Certainly things are much better for me today than June 2008. After a lifetime spent working at minimum wage jobs, my current SSA payment and a part-time job at a local Adult Day Health Care center brings in more money every month than I ever earned before.

However, for whatever it's worth, I believe this country is at an economic tipping point. When the Industrial Revolution began it was claimed at some point the machine would free much of humanity from the need for daily toil.

Judging by the US rust belt that day has come and gone. There are currently too few jobs to pay too much debt.
The gulf between the rich and the rest continues to widen in a "republic" with 200 million private guns.

More war and more debt are all Republicans AND Democrats have to offer.

The homeless and the dead will be the lucky ones if we don't all do better in the next two years.

The way you write indicates a decent level of literacy and understanding. How did you make it through life working only Minimum Wage jobs? I've only worked on one my whole life.

 

[editec]

Yes, I am somewhat better off than I was two years ago.

Life is like that.

Sometimes you're the otter and sometimes you're the hound.

None of it has doodlesquat to do with the government, though.

 

[code1211]

it's too bad that, the republican senators voted down unbuck extension. at some point someone has to be realistic about finance. the democrat congress wasted the money on "the sex life of a college freshman girl" and seven mil for hillary's pollster. we can't stay an uncontolled frivolous spending indefinately. your hard earned tax money isn't monopoly money. so it's time to start asking "are you better off than you were two years ago? as promised? pood pa nub.

Funny, for all the babbling from the right about "Democrats throwing money around" and such, you'd think they'd have an issue with the fact that half the deficit comes from Bush's reckless tax cuts.

A table of tax revenue for the USA for the last several decades:

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

 

[code1211]

Notice how the Henny Penny crowd blames Obama and whines when it is accurately pointed out that the economic shit hit the fan under the Booooooooooosh administration?
Notice how deficit spending was not an issue during the first decade of this new century until Obama took office and saved jobs (such as those in the auto industry), stopping what may have become a second great depression? Notice too that the HP crowd relies on emotion rather than reason to support their ideology, and never, ever posits a practical solution to the myriad of problems left to us by Bush and 'wall street; greed?
Notice the one-line idiotgrams they post, none suggest anything but the usual talking points: Cut taxes, cut regulations and drill baby drill.

Most conservatives don't have the balls to defend their position. That's why they are often reduced to name-calling and posting pictures

Your post differs from your criticism in what way?

 

[Douger]

Absolutely.I got out of the Euro at $1.40 and my fruit trees are more mature and producing perfectly.
My windmill has now " officially" paid for itself.
As the dollar and Euro continue to deteriorate, my other currencies strengthen.
All is well.
Keep up the good work.

 

[code1211]

i still think its hilarious that the same GOP that spent trillions on useless wars and medicaid part D is now getting fiscally responsible over 31 billion....

...or the party which mewled about BOOOOOOSH! blowing holes in the deficit running up one of a trillion dollars their first year holding all the marbles.

Meet the new boss.....

Something tells me during the 90's you probably ran around hollering about Clintooooooon. Now you've got Obamalama or whatever your choice nickname is. What goes around comes around, pal. Deal with it.

Whatever Blue Dress comments you care to attach, Clinton did exactly what the economy needed to have done during his last 6 years in office. His policies were in step with the prevailing econokic conditions and he pretty much allowed the good times to roll.

Bush was a one trick pony: Cut taxes. If there was a surplus, cut taxes to give it back to the people. If there's a recession, cut taxes to stimulate growth.

The Big 0 is just a joke. too. He has a laundry list of pet projects to enact and the people and the reality be damned, he's going to do it.

Bush was not creative, but at least you knew what he was doing. He had one home run swing and used it whenever he could.

Obama is like a bi-polar parent terrorizing his kids with unpredictable behavior.

On balance, I think I'd like a parlimentary system. We'd already have a new administration.

 

[EriktheRed]

Doing about the same.

 

[code1211]

The cost of labor has always been deductible to any business. Exactly what other tax cuts did you have in mind?

Why is obama going to allow the Bush tax cuts to end?

They apply to personal income, not business. And none deals with the deductibility of labor costs...that is so firmly embedded in the tax code, it is sacrosanct.

They do apply to income, but they also apply to inheritance, capial gains and a a couple other items that will affect business.

The Health Care Unknowns are the big pig in the python right now for business.

 

[code1211]

Notice how the Henny Penny crowd blames Obama and whines when it is accurately pointed out that the economic shit hit the fan under the Booooooooooosh administration?
Notice how deficit spending was not an issue during the first decade of this new century until Obama took office and saved jobs (such as those in the auto industry), stopping what may have become a second great depression? Notice too that the HP crowd relies on emotion rather than reason to support their ideology, and never, ever posits a practical solution to the myriad of problems left to us by Bush and 'wall street; greed?
Notice the one-line idiotgrams they post, none suggest anything but the usual talking points: Cut taxes, cut regulations and drill baby drill.

I don't like the Big 0's policies. I wasn't too fond of Bush's policies, either. Neither one is what i would consider to be Conservative. Both were free spending Federalists with no concept of fiscal restraint or future stability and growth.

That said, if Bush's policies resembled a sailor on a 3-day leave, the Big 0's policies resemble a pimp with 3 days to live.

We are not talking about a difference of direction, only of degree. In that Bush was less damaging, I suppose I would prefer Bush, but it's like the preferance between diarhea and polio.

I wish our leaders would stop thinking of us as sheep and our money as candy to be used in bribes.

 

[editec]

Notice how the Henny Penny crowd blames Obama and whines when it is accurately pointed out that the economic shit hit the fan under the Booooooooooosh administration?
Notice how deficit spending was not an issue during the first decade of this new century until Obama took office and saved jobs (such as those in the auto industry), stopping what may have become a second great depression? Notice too that the HP crowd relies on emotion rather than reason to support their ideology, and never, ever posits a practical solution to the myriad of problems left to us by Bush and 'wall street; greed?
Notice the one-line idiotgrams they post, none suggest anything but the usual talking points: Cut taxes, cut regulations and drill baby drill.

I don't like the Big 0's policies. I wasn't too fond of Bush's policies, either. Neither one is what i would consider to be Conservative. Both were free spending Federalists with no concept of fiscal restraint or future stability and growth.

True dat.

That said, if Bush's policies resembled a sailor on a 3-day leave, the Big 0's policies resemble a pimp with 3 days to live.

Couldn't be because Bush II wasn't facing the economic meltdown that Obama inherited, could it?

If a Republican was in office they'd be giving money to the bankers and bond holders, too.

The primary difference would probably be that the average American people wouldn't be getting jack shit in help from the government like so many currently are under the Dems.

We are not talking about a difference of direction, only of degree. In that Bush was less damaging, I suppose I would prefer Bush, but it's like the preferance between diarhea and polio.

More like the difference between PRE economic meltdown behavior and POST economic meltdown behavior , I think

I wish our leaders would stop thinking of us as sheep and our money as candy to be used in bribes.

Yeah, you and me both.

 

[Toro]

it's too bad that, the republican senators voted down unbuck extension. at some point someone has to be realistic about finance. the democrat congress wasted the money on "the sex life of a college freshman girl" and seven mil for hillary's pollster. we can't stay an uncontolled frivolous spending indefinately. your hard earned tax money isn't monopoly money. so it's time to start asking "are you better off than you were two years ago? as promised? pood pa nub.

Funny, for all the babbling from the right about "Democrats throwing money around" and such, you'd think they'd have an issue with the fact that half the deficit comes from Bush's reckless tax cuts.

The final Bush budget resulted in a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. The Bush tax cuts cost the US Treasury $1.5-$2 trillion over 10 years.

Conservatives would be credible if they were wailing about deficits when the Republicans were blowing a hole in the budget. Much of the deficit is structural, regardless of whether it is Bush or Obama in the White House. However, Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, regardless of what it did to the fiscal balance of this nation, instead willing to believe in bizarre fairy tales that tax cuts balanced budgets.

 

[Polk]

it's too bad that, the republican senators voted down unbuck extension. at some point someone has to be realistic about finance. the democrat congress wasted the money on "the sex life of a college freshman girl" and seven mil for hillary's pollster. we can't stay an uncontolled frivolous spending indefinately. your hard earned tax money isn't monopoly money. so it's time to start asking "are you better off than you were two years ago? as promised? pood pa nub.

Funny, for all the babbling from the right about "Democrats throwing money around" and such, you'd think they'd have an issue with the fact that half the deficit comes from Bush's reckless tax cuts.

The final Bush budget resulted in a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. The Bush tax cuts cost the US Treasury $1.5-$2 trillion over 10 years.

Conservatives would be credible if they were wailing about deficits when the Republicans were blowing a hole in the budget. Much of the deficit is structural, regardless of whether it is Bush or Obama in the White House. However, Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, regardless of what it did to the fiscal balance of this nation, instead willing to believe in bizarre fairy tales that tax cuts balanced budgets.

Indeed. I'm not saying the deficit isn't a legitimate concern. It's just dishonest for them to blame it on "Obama's wild spending" even though spending on new policies has been very little in the scope of the entire budget.

 

[code1211]

I'm in pretty much the same position, but my neighbors are hurting. My nephew, who is in his 30's, is living with my brother again and there is no game plan for him moving out -- because the only job he could find pays minimum wage. My across the street neighbor, who relies entirely on meals on wheels for her food, is now getting only 4 out of 7 days' worth. My next door neighbor, who almost certainly has a broken foot, is delaying treatment until she can locate a cut rate medical provider, because she cannot pay full price in cash.

All in all, I don't see the recovery taking hold among people whose lives touch mine.

I don't know where you live. In indianapolis we have Wishard Hospital that treats the poor and uninsured. Encourage your neighbor with the broken foot to research and find a care center like Wishard in your area.

If there are none, your neighbor can go to any emergncy room and they are required by law to treat the foot.

ER's are not required by law to treat a broken foot if the person has no insurance and the injury is not life-threatening.

Your belief is not reflected in current law:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals [citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]

 

[code1211]

Your post is rambling nonsense, but I will answer anyway.

Two years ago, June 2008

Stock market and housing market was in a collapse. I lost 33% of my 401K and my house lost 20% in value. My 21 yr old son was cancelled from my health insurance plan and had to go on the private market to spend too much money on a plan that pays very little.

Today, June 2010

The Stock Market has recovered much of what it lost and my 401K is almost back to where it was two years ago. My house is still below value but has regained 5-10% of its loss.
With the passing of healthcare, I can now put my son back onto my healthcare plan and he can have full coverage again.


So, the answer in my situation is that I am better off than I was two years ago

The question should be, "Are you better of today thqan you were 4 years ago?" We are coming up on a mid term, not a presidential election.

What were your stock holdings, your home value and your insurance situation then vs. now.

Does the health care bill allow you to insure your son again already or is that one of the parts that holds off until 2014?

I am probably about the same as 2006 maybe slightly better. The crash of 2007-2008 took a major bite out of my personal wealth as it did most people. My salary has been roughly the same and has risen maybe $10K.
The healthcare bill will enable me to put him back on my policy in Jan 2011. That will be a major savings in benefits paid and the amount of coverage.

That's terrific.

While i was reading this, I was trying to recall the bite that my 401K's took in 2001 after the 9/11 attack. It was gruesome. I don't know if this was worse than then or not. It "feels" like I had a higher 401K ledge to fall from in 2001, but the effect if not the impact was similar.

Anyway, we've been fortunate to have lived a pretty small c conservative life style and were not so very exposed at either of these times with two incomes and a "live within your means" life style.

Does anyone else wonder if the political elite have any clue what the average American faces day to day?

 

[Toro]

Funny, for all the babbling from the right about "Democrats throwing money around" and such, you'd think they'd have an issue with the fact that half the deficit comes from Bush's reckless tax cuts.

The final Bush budget resulted in a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. The Bush tax cuts cost the US Treasury $1.5-$2 trillion over 10 years.

Conservatives would be credible if they were wailing about deficits when the Republicans were blowing a hole in the budget. Much of the deficit is structural, regardless of whether it is Bush or Obama in the White House. However, Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, regardless of what it did to the fiscal balance of this nation, instead willing to believe in bizarre fairy tales that tax cuts balanced budgets.

Indeed. I'm not saying the deficit isn't a legitimate concern. It's just dishonest for them to blame it on "Obama's wild spending" even though spending on new policies has been very little in the scope of the entire budget.

I think it is fair to ask why Obama is putting on new programs that increase the deficit, given the serious structural issues we face. We face serious fiscal issues, and we should not be adding new programs we cannot fund. We have to be looking at cutting programs because the math simply does not work.

However, the hypocrisy of the right is staggering. When Republicans are fiscally reckless and peddle bizarre theories about tax cuts balancing the budget, they chearlead them on and swallow bromides like "deficits don't matter." Yet, when Democrats do it, its "communism." The fiscal recklessness of the United States began under Reagan and conservatives deify him.

I'm happy that conservatives have seen the light after 30 years after fiscal recklessness. It would be much better for them to acknowledge their own role in this, rather than running on All Tax Cuts All the Time, otherwise this mess will never get fixed. You can't change behavior you don't acknowledge. Drunks know this. Republicans don't.

 

[Polk]

I think it's fair to question the utility of any proposal and that would be true even if we were running a surplus. I would point out that most of the proposals for new spending are short-run measures to prop up the economy. Furthermore, I don't think conservatives have seen the light. They've double-downed on the mantras. Republicans say that ARRA was far too expensive, but their alternative proposal would have cost three times more. They said that didn't matter though, because their proposal was all tax cuts.

 

[Care4all]

i had a 401k account for a previous job that i never moved over to an IRA account....i have not added any money to it, because there have been no payroll transfers to it since i am not working....this account has 25% LESS in it now than it did in the year 2001, before 911....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Republican congress says "no" in high-pitched squeals and offer nothing constructive.

The American public will punish the pubs this fall. Not because BHO is great (he's not) but the GOPs continue to be worse.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The final Bush budget resulted in a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. The Bush tax cuts cost the US Treasury $1.5-$2 trillion over 10 years.

Conservatives would be credible if they were wailing about deficits when the Republicans were blowing a hole in the budget. Much of the deficit is structural, regardless of whether it is Bush or Obama in the White House. However, Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, regardless of what it did to the fiscal balance of this nation, instead willing to believe in bizarre fairy tales that tax cuts balanced budgets.

Indeed. I'm not saying the deficit isn't a legitimate concern. It's just dishonest for them to blame it on "Obama's wild spending" even though spending on new policies has been very little in the scope of the entire budget.

I think it is fair to ask why Obama is putting on new programs that increase the deficit, given the serious structural issues we face. We face serious fiscal issues, and we should not be adding new programs we cannot fund. We have to be looking at cutting programs because the math simply does not work.

However, the hypocrisy of the right is staggering. When Republicans are fiscally reckless and peddle bizarre theories about tax cuts balancing the budget, they chearlead them on and swallow bromides like "deficits don't matter." Yet, when Democrats do it, its "communism." The fiscal recklessness of the United States began under Reagan and conservatives deify him.

I'm happy that conservatives have seen the light after 30 years after fiscal recklessness. It would be much better for them to acknowledge their own role in this, rather than running on All Tax Cuts All the Time, otherwise this mess will never get fixed. You can't change behavior you don't acknowledge. Drunks know this. Republicans don't.

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reaganomics? You fool.