Misery index the highest in 28 years

[editec]

FWIW, the misery index only caputres part of what economically-speaking makes people's lives happy or miserable.

For instance, it does not measure the recent losses most people experienced in the NET WORTH that came as a result of the real estate crash.


Given that for most Americans net worth is in large part tied into the equity position on their homes, I'd say that today's misery index is HUGELY UNDERSTATING the real state of economic misery.

Isn't there also a difference in the way inflation is calculated today compared to 30 to 40 years ago?

Yes there are at least two things that changed as far as I know

1. Fuel and food are NOT included in CPI

2. Subsitution of purchases is now part of the equasion. (they keep changing the theoretical basket of goods, that way, you see?)

Both of these changes tend to statistically significantly understate the REAL rate of inflation that hits the average person.

And by understating the real rate of inflation on real live consumers, social security and other contracts that are have COLAs lose ground in terms of purhasing power Vs inflation.

The simplistic MISERY Index ought to include things like number of prisoners, bankruptsies, and changes in the percentage of people who go on disability.

They might also include suicides per thousand, and crime rates.

And they would, too if anybody in charge of this society actually gave a rat's ass, I think.

 

[mudwhistle]

FWIW, the misery index only caputres part of what economically-speaking makes people's lives happy or miserable.

For instance, it does not measure the recent losses most people experienced in the NET WORTH that came as a result of the real estate crash.


Given that for most Americans net worth is in large part tied into the equity position on their homes, I'd say that today's misery index is HUGELY UNDERSTATING the real state of economic misery.

Isn't there also a difference in the way inflation is calculated today compared to 30 to 40 years ago?

Yes there are at least two things that changed as far as I know

1. Fuel and food are NOT included in CPI

2. Subsitution of purchases is now part of the equasion. (they keep changing the theoretical basket of goods, that way, you see?)

Both of these changes tend to statistically significantly understate the REAL rate of inflation that hits the average person.

And by understating the real rate of inflation on real live consumers, social security and other contracts that are have COLAs lose ground in terms of purhasing power Vs inflation.

The simplistic MISERY Index ought to include things like number of prisoners, bankruptsies, and changes in the percentage of people who go on disability.

They might also include suicides per thousand, and crime rates.

And they would, too if anybody in charge of this society actually gave a rat's ass, I think.

They should call Obama what he is. The President of hopelessness and the President of change for the worse.

Hope And Change gone wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I show that the top marginal tax rate in 1986 was 50%. It's now 35%.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

Sorry, you're right.
The top tax rate after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 fully went into effect was 28%.
Pretty sure 35% is higher than 28%.

It highest marginal tax rate used to be 70% for years. In 1964, it was 77%. In 1963, it was 91%. In 1953, it was 92%.

The greater point is that there is currently a lot of false information being proffered on how current marginal tax rates are WAY too high and must be cut further.

But what really tics me off is all this propaganda about how cutting marginal tax rates further will invariably lead to massive job creation. Really? Why didn't that happen when Bush dropped marginal tax rates when he was president?

There is plenty of misinformation. Like current rates are lower than they've been in decades.

How about the misinformation Congressional Dems gave Reagan and Bush I about promised spending cuts if only taxes were raised first?
I don't think anyone will make that mistake again. Let's cut spending for 5 or 10 years first, then maybe we'll discuss tax hikes.
By the way, the economy boomed when Bush cut marginal rates. Nearly 7% the next quarter, IIRC. If Obama did something like that, he might have a chance in 2012.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One thing is for sure...The Socialists/Progressives aren't gonna get us out this horrific mess. They have no ideas. Keeping things status-quo isn't the answer. The massive $14.5 Trillion Debt isn't just gonna magically disappear. Real ideas and solutions are needed. Just pushing it off on future generations is actually criminal.

Pushing for renewable energy as a way of getting us off our dependence on foreign oil while also putting America in the forefront of the world on green energy (like new battery technology and the production plants that are built as a result of that new technology) is a pretty damn good idea. Do you think former oil men like Bush and Cheney would pursue that path when all republicans seem to understand is tax cuts for oil companies?

That's exactly what we need. Expensive energy that only survives thru massive government subsidies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't there also a difference in the way inflation is calculated today compared to 30 to 40 years ago?

Yes there are at least two things that changed as far as I know

1. Fuel and food are NOT included in CPI

2. Subsitution of purchases is now part of the equasion. (they keep changing the theoretical basket of goods, that way, you see?)

Both of these changes tend to statistically significantly understate the REAL rate of inflation that hits the average person.

And by understating the real rate of inflation on real live consumers, social security and other contracts that are have COLAs lose ground in terms of purhasing power Vs inflation.

The simplistic MISERY Index ought to include things like number of prisoners, bankruptsies, and changes in the percentage of people who go on disability.

They might also include suicides per thousand, and crime rates.

And they would, too if anybody in charge of this society actually gave a rat's ass, I think.

They should call Obama what he is. The President of hopelessness and the President of change for the worse.

Hope And Change gone wrong.

Food and fuel are most definitely included in CPI.

What goods and services does the CPI cover?

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions

 

[Too Tall]

Obama Made Things Worse.

The left regurgitating Boooossshhhh doesn't change this fact.

Obama took alot of tax payers welath and did nothing but make liquid the UAW and the NEA for starters
At no time in GWB career can you point to him GIVING money away
Obama took wealth we had and wealth we did not have and did nothing to help our current place in life
It matters not if your a Liberal or a conservative, its a fact

Medicare Part D, signed by Bush, unfunded, is about half a trillion in a 'giveaway'.

'Liberating' Iraq, for free, was a trillion dollar giveaway to the Iraqi people.

Why didn't Obama with a super majority of Democrats for two years do something about the Part D 'giveaway'?

The TOTAL cost of the Iraq war to date is $784 Billion and that includes all of the bombs, bullets and cruise missiles that we 'gave' them.

 

[Too Tall]

More BS. Congress is far more important to markets because it decides how to, and how much to, tax and spend. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore. I'm tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

BULLSHIT! The president's veto pen is the most powerful because it requires a 2/3 majority IN EACH CHAMBER to override it.

Remember all those spending bills Bush vetoed while the repubs controlled congress?

Ohh wait not a single one.

Remember all of the spending bills Obama vetoed while the Democrats controlled congress?

Ohh wait not a single one.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Man,if things were this awful with a Republican in there,the Democrat nutters would be screeching for Impeachment 24/7. They will of course deny this but they know it's true. So why are they making all these excuses for the Hopey Changey One? He has been a miserable failure. How can they see it any other way? Maybe they should just pretend he's a Republican and then think about how awful things are?

 

[Mustang]

One thing is for sure...The Socialists/Progressives aren't gonna get us out this horrific mess. They have no ideas. Keeping things status-quo isn't the answer. The massive $14.5 Trillion Debt isn't just gonna magically disappear. Real ideas and solutions are needed. Just pushing it off on future generations is actually criminal.

Pushing for renewable energy as a way of getting us off our dependence on foreign oil while also putting America in the forefront of the world on green energy (like new battery technology and the production plants that are built as a result of that new technology) is a pretty damn good idea. Do you think former oil men like Bush and Cheney would pursue that path when all republicans seem to understand is tax cuts for oil companies?

That's exactly what we need. Expensive energy that only survives thru massive government subsidies.

Not subsidies. Investment. Countries actually invest in things that are nationally important.

However, if you want to keep sending American dollars (by the hundreds of millions) to the leaders of ME countries who laugh at our stupidity for doing so while they also stoke the hatred against America (and fund the Muslim extremists, by the way) as a way to distract their population from focusing in on their own domestic problems, then I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that that is a good game plan.

Of course, conservatives aren't really known for analytical thinking, are they? Let me guess what the simplistic model conservatives answer/response would be. How about "drill, baby, drill"? Yeah, it's short, catchy, and is essentially unworkable seeing as how our known oil reserves are so small. But it gets the conservative crowd to their feet, doesn't it?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Batteries are only electricity storage units. You must put electricity into them. Where and how do you get all this massive increase in electricity usage? Battery technology does nothing positive for the Environment,so Gore and his sycophants are just wrong. And i don't think it lessens our dependence on foreign Oil either. That one is debatable though i guess. But using more electricity will not help the Environment. In fact it will only make things much worse.

 

[Too Tall]

Obama Made Things Worse.

The left regurgitating Boooossshhhh doesn't change this fact.

When Obama took office the economy was losing 700K per month.
GDP was contracting at 6%+ per annum.
The NYSE stood at about 7,000
And the financial system was in complete disarray.

Since then, the private sector of the economy has begun producing jobs again.
GDP has grown for five straight quarters.
The NYSE has increased over 50%.
And the financial system is stable.

What exactly are you talking about when you say Obama "made things worse"?

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the misery index was 7.83. In May, 2011 the misery index is 12.67. The misery index is the thread topic and that is exactly what we are talking about when we say Obama "made things worse."

For comparison, when Carter took office the misery index was 14.62. When he left office it was 20.21. The Carter/Obama trend line seems the same, although the rate of increase is considerably higher under Obama.

Carter took 4 years to increase the misery index 5.59 points while Obama has increased it 4.84 points in only 2 years 5 months.

Conversely, Reagan got the 20.21 misery index from Carter and in his 8 years got it down to 9.75 while deficit military spending that brought down the Soviet Union. That was a good thing!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pushing for renewable energy as a way of getting us off our dependence on foreign oil while also putting America in the forefront of the world on green energy (like new battery technology and the production plants that are built as a result of that new technology) is a pretty damn good idea. Do you think former oil men like Bush and Cheney would pursue that path when all republicans seem to understand is tax cuts for oil companies?

That's exactly what we need. Expensive energy that only survives thru massive government subsidies.

Not subsidies. Investment. Countries actually invest in things that are nationally important.

However, if you want to keep sending American dollars (by the hundreds of millions) to the leaders of ME countries who laugh at our stupidity for doing so while they also stoke the hatred against America (and fund the Muslim extremists, by the way) as a way to distract their population from focusing in on their own domestic problems, then I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that that is a good game plan.

Of course, conservatives aren't really known for analytical thinking, are they? Let me guess what the simplistic model conservatives answer/response would be. How about "drill, baby, drill"? Yeah, it's short, catchy, and is essentially unworkable seeing as how our known oil reserves are so small. But it gets the conservative crowd to their feet, doesn't it?

Giving 54 cents a gallon for oil companies to blend an inferior fuel, ethanol, into our gasoline is a subsidy. Forcing utilities to pay well over the market price for solar or wind power is a subsidy. Giving car buyers thousands of dollars to buy a plug in vehicle is a subsidy.

If you can come up with a new idea that we should invest in for energy independence, why don't we reduce the tax on companies developing that source at 0% for 20 years on profits from that great new source?

As far as sending money to the Middle East, I'd prefer to spend that money here, drilling in Alaska and in the Gulf and off California as well as building new nuke plants. Why not reprocess all the fuel mistakenly called nuclear waste and develop thorium reactors while we're at it?
And if we must subsidize solar, lets build it on the moon and place the collectors in Earth orbit to beam the power back to Earth?
The key is cheaper more plentiful energy, not expensive and unreliable energy.

 

[Too Tall]

I show that the top marginal tax rate in 1986 was 50%. It's now 35%.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

Sorry, you're right.
The top tax rate after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 fully went into effect was 28%.
Pretty sure 35% is higher than 28%.

It highest marginal tax rate used to be 70% for years. In 1964, it was 77%. In 1963, it was 91%. In 1953, it was 92%.

The greater point is that there is currently a lot of false information being proffered on how current marginal tax rates are WAY too high and must be cut further.

But what really tics me off is all this propaganda about how cutting marginal tax rates further will invariably lead to massive job creation. Really? Why didn't that happen when Bush dropped marginal tax rates when he was president?

The average Unemployment rate for Bush's 8 years was 5.2%.

 

[initforme]

The misery index is high...for the middle class that is. The ultra rich have never had it so good. They want it all. Might as well just give it to them. When they get that, they'll want our clothes. What middle class voters on both sides of the issue are not seeing is the takeover of this once great nation by the ultra wealthy. They have dems and repubs pitted against each other and each think they are right...meanwhile, the rich are taking the middle class apart because once that is gone, they will have it all. Anyone want to argue this? I didnt think so. If the average person worked 100 hours per week they still wouldnt become rich. That is the fallacy. The whole dang thing is nothing but a mess, and the politicians could care less because they get their pocketbooks well lined from their rich donors. America is becoming a third world country because of this. It isnt taxes, it isnt the public sector workers, it isnt any of that BS which we stupid hard working people are being told by both parties. Everywhere you look the rich are getting the breaks. They will not, repeat, not create jobs with it. But they will laugh all the way to the bank. And americans are dumb enough to believe what they say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama took alot of tax payers welath and did nothing but make liquid the UAW and the NEA for starters
At no time in GWB career can you point to him GIVING money away
Obama took wealth we had and wealth we did not have and did nothing to help our current place in life
It matters not if your a Liberal or a conservative, its a fact

Medicare Part D, signed by Bush, unfunded, is about half a trillion in a 'giveaway'.

'Liberating' Iraq, for free, was a trillion dollar giveaway to the Iraqi people.

Why didn't Obama with a super majority of Democrats for two years do something about the Part D 'giveaway'?

The TOTAL cost of the Iraq war to date is $784 Billion and that includes all of the bombs, bullets and cruise missiles that we 'gave' them.

He never had a supermajority. The cost of the war is WAY more than that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes there are at least two things that changed as far as I know

1. Fuel and food are NOT included in CPI

2. Subsitution of purchases is now part of the equasion. (they keep changing the theoretical basket of goods, that way, you see?)

Both of these changes tend to statistically significantly understate the REAL rate of inflation that hits the average person.

And by understating the real rate of inflation on real live consumers, social security and other contracts that are have COLAs lose ground in terms of purhasing power Vs inflation.

The simplistic MISERY Index ought to include things like number of prisoners, bankruptsies, and changes in the percentage of people who go on disability.

They might also include suicides per thousand, and crime rates.

And they would, too if anybody in charge of this society actually gave a rat's ass, I think.

They should call Obama what he is. The President of hopelessness and the President of change for the worse.

Hope And Change gone wrong.

Food and fuel are most definitely included in CPI.

What goods and services does the CPI cover?

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions

The problem is the media chooses which indexes to report.

Our broadest and most comprehensive CPI is called the All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the U.S. City Average, 1982-84 = 100.

In addition to the All Items CPI, BLS publishes thousands of other consumer price indexes. One such index is called "All items less food and energy". Some users of CPI data use this index because food and energy prices are relatively volatile, and these users want to focus on what they perceive to be the "core" or "underlying" rate of inflation.

Again, while we publish many indexes, our broadest measure of inflation includes all items consumers purchase, including food and energy. In addition, when CPI data are reported, these data can be reported on a not seasonally adjusted basis as well as a seasonally adjusted basis. Often, the media will report some, or all, of the following:

Index level, not seasonally adjusted. (for example, May 2008 = 216.632).
12-month percent change, not seasonally adjusted. (for example, May 2007 to May 2008 = 4.2 percent).
1-month percent change on a seasonally adjusted basis. (for example, from April 2008 to May 2008 = 0.6 percent).
Annual rate of percent change so far this year (for example, from December 2007 to May 2008 if the rate of increase over the first 5 months of the year continued for the full year, after the removal of seasonal influences, the rise would be 4.0 percent).
annual rate based on the latest seasonally adjusted 1-month change. For example, if the rate from April 2008 to May 2008 continued for a full 12 months, then the rise, compounded, would be 8.1 percent.

If the media wants to help Obama they simply omit reporting indexes that include food and energy.

 

[Too Tall]

Medicare Part D, signed by Bush, unfunded, is about half a trillion in a 'giveaway'.

'Liberating' Iraq, for free, was a trillion dollar giveaway to the Iraqi people.

Why didn't Obama with a super majority of Democrats for two years do something about the Part D 'giveaway'?

The TOTAL cost of the Iraq war to date is $784 Billion and that includes all of the bombs, bullets and cruise missiles that we 'gave' them.

He never had a supermajority. The cost of the war is WAY more than that.

Link to cost of Iraq war. Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM


And the idiotic statement was

'Liberating' Iraq, for free, was a trillion dollar giveaway to the Iraqi people'

Do you even know what a super majority is?
Obama Commands Fragile Supermajority | NBC Philadelphia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Medicare Part D, signed by Bush, unfunded, is about half a trillion in a 'giveaway'.

'Liberating' Iraq, for free, was a trillion dollar giveaway to the Iraqi people.

Why didn't Obama with a super majority of Democrats for two years do something about the Part D 'giveaway'?

The TOTAL cost of the Iraq war to date is $784 Billion and that includes all of the bombs, bullets and cruise missiles that we 'gave' them.

He never had a supermajority. The cost of the war is WAY more than that.

In July 2009, there were 58 Dem and 2 Independent Senators who voted with the Dems.
At the beginning of the 111th Congress there were 256 Dem Congressmen, versus 178 Republicans.
How many more do you need to call it a supermajority?

 

[Mustang]

Sorry, you're right.
The top tax rate after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 fully went into effect was 28%.
Pretty sure 35% is higher than 28%.

It highest marginal tax rate used to be 70% for years. In 1964, it was 77%. In 1963, it was 91%. In 1953, it was 92%.

The greater point is that there is currently a lot of false information being proffered on how current marginal tax rates are WAY too high and must be cut further.

But what really tics me off is all this propaganda about how cutting marginal tax rates further will invariably lead to massive job creation. Really? Why didn't that happen when Bush dropped marginal tax rates when he was president?

The average Unemployment rate for Bush's 8 years was 5.2%.

Quoting the average unemployment rate during Bush's term is one way (of many) of trying to obscure that fact that the economy fell apart in the last two years of Bush's presidency -- even WITH those low tax rates. Imagine that.

There are plenty of little tricks that politicians have to make things sound better (or worse) than they really are. They use many of these tricks to make it sound like the opposition is worse than they are or that their side was more successful at managing the economy than they really are or were.

To be honest, they all do it.

One of my early favorites that both sides have historically used to make themselves seem like remarkable stewards of the economy has to do with homeownership. Prior to the housing meltdown (which was partly a result of an extreme over valuation of real estate due to massive speculation), a politician could get on camera and say the following:

"More Americans than ever before own their own homes."
​

Well, even if home ownership number was a constant percentage of the population, the very fact that the population is constantly growing would translate to increased home ownership numbers since 50% (as an example) of 110 million is a higher number than 50% of 100 million. Hell, in some cases, the percentage of people who own their own home could actually drop, and the number of people who own their own homes would still rise if the population increased enough to offset the lower percentage.

See what I mean?

 

[mudwhistle]

It highest marginal tax rate used to be 70% for years. In 1964, it was 77%. In 1963, it was 91%. In 1953, it was 92%.

The greater point is that there is currently a lot of false information being proffered on how current marginal tax rates are WAY too high and must be cut further.

But what really tics me off is all this propaganda about how cutting marginal tax rates further will invariably lead to massive job creation. Really? Why didn't that happen when Bush dropped marginal tax rates when he was president?

The average Unemployment rate for Bush's 8 years was 5.2%.

Quoting the average unemployment rate during Bush's term is one way (of many) of trying to obscure that fact that the economy fell apart in the last two years of Bush's presidency -- even WITH those low tax rates. Imagine that.

Hey dumbass......those weren't tax rates. That was the unemployment rate.

Btw, Who took over complete control of Congress in 07'?

Who badgered Bush into raising the minimum wage?

Who started monkeying with lending regulations?

Who paved the way for the collapse by extending unemployment benefits in anticipation of the expected job losses?