are you better off than you were two years ago ?

[JakeStarkey]

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?

Unemployment was lower, as was average real income.

Would this be anything like the real unemployment numbers of 17 percent?

October 1983: 10.8% unemployment with real unemployment numbers of over 20%.

Stop the comparisons, reactionaries, if you can't take the heat on the full comparison.

 

[Immanuel]

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?
Ireally don't give a shit how toro seems to know his shit. Bernanke is suposed to know his shit but look at what the expert got us.

If economic conditions were the same today as they were when Reagan took and left office, your question might have some validity.

Since economic conditions change all the time, the question is not relevant.

I thought Reagan did a very good job and I thought Bush 43 sucked. As for Obama, many of his policies scare the heck out of me.

Economically speaking Bush 43 was a disaster and things are getting worse not better under Obama. Much of that is because of the condition we are in right now. We have politicians (Congress and the President and both parties) that believe that they can spend money we don't have and spend it on buying votes from lobbyists as well.

All spending is not bad but neither are all tax increases.

I respect you Bigreb, but your, "I really don't give a shit" comment tells me that you are not willing to open your mind and accept that the talking points you have been reading may not be 100% honest.

Immie

First thing coulod you post all of what I said instead of just saying I don't give a shit. That could mean a lot of things.

I really don't give a shit how toro seems to know his shit. Bernanke is suposed to know his shit but look at what the expert got us.
See now isn't that better.

Secondly my talking points? If you say facts from someone who was alive and of an age to understand the economical conditions are talking points then you haven't got a clue. I remember sitting in those long gas lines in 1975 to get 10 gallons of rationed gas for my 69 Gran Torino. Have you ever had to do this?


I am not defending Bush things weren't that great with him but things were better with Bush as President then they were with carter or obama.

You do realize, I hope, that the entire "I don't really give a shit" statement was in the quote of your post and thus it was not necessary for me to retype the entire statement. I made no changes at all to your statement, just highlighted what I was speaking about.

Secondly, your talking points come straight from the conservative message boards that mistakenly claim that "trickle down economics" is the only way to go. Yes, I sat in those lines as well, although I was 14 in 75 and my mom was driving, but yes, I remember those damned lines. Got to do some homework in the back seat of a car while we waited in line after school quite often.

That changes nothing. "All or nothing" statements, which are exactly what you are making, typically are nothing at all and that is the case in this discussion as well.

Thirdly, I think Obama is making things worse not better. I am not one of those "just keep throwing more money on the problem to make it go away", kind of people. My personal belief is that right now we have to raise taxes (I would choose to do it with The Fair Tax and scrap the current tax code) and cut spending, but you guys have not elected me President and even if you did, I could not convince Congress to go along with that idea.

I believe Obama's policies are wrong. Healthcare reform is going to be a disaster, not only in costs, but in services. The Stimulus Package hasn't stimulated me and I don't expect it will.

We're just spending money like there is no tomorrow when we should be refocusing our priorities. As I said earlier, not all spending is bad. People are struggling, me included. I lost my job in January. I had been interviewing for "MY JOB" the last couple of weeks. Just an hour ago, I got an email (yes on Saturday) from the recruiter I had been working with that informed me the Exec. Director chose to hire someone else. Now they say that when my Unemployment Benefits expire at the end of July, I can just fucking rot for all they care.

Yet, we paid a trillion dollars to stimulate CEO pockets last year. Because someone convinced the country that if we just provide more capital (lower taxes) to the rich they will hire the poor and everyone will be happy. Guess what... I'm not happy.

Immie

 

[sangha]

Employers don't hire people because they get a tax break. Employers hire people because they have sold a sufficient amount of their product and anticipate continued high sales and so must increase their staffing levels.

Jobs are created when the general public buys stuff.

A stimulus program that works incents the general pulic to spend money. Give tax credits to buy stuff that starts the econmy moving. If the crooks in Washington had spent the Trillion dollar stimulus on a 20 or 25% tax credit for any improvement to any personal dwelling, it would have pumped 4 or 5 trillion into the economy. Put an individual limit on the rebate of 25 grand.

1) Employers hire for a number of reasons, and not just because their sales are anticipated to rise.
2) Obama and the dems have proposed a bill that does exactly what you want. The republicans oppose it

I have never owned a business. I have managed many.

In every case, I have never hired anyone to stand around and look at others working. In every case, I have hired people to work. Work requires having sold a product of some type that someone else is paying to procure.

I didn't say that anyone every hires someone to stand around. You're just trying to introduce a straw man.

I worked in a bank. When the state passed a law requiring banks to audit their computer security, the bank hired a new full time employee to do so.

If nothing was sold, there is no work to provide it. No work? No employees required.

Why would anyone hire anyone in a for profit business if there was no work to do?

When did people stop saying they need to "find work"? Now people are "looking for a job".

Please kill that strawman. If you want to have a reasonable and HONEST discussion, you're going to have to stop trying to put words in my mouth

 

[sangha]

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]

Umm, your quote says nothing about providing medical care beyond stabilizing the patient, nor does it say that hospitals have to treat EVERYONE that comes into the ER. It only requires that ER's treat "anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment "

Please read that again. Hospitals are only required to treat those who NEED treatment for something that is life-threatening (ie an "emergency")

Someone with a broken foot does not NEED medical treatment and it's not an emergency. You are wrong

 

[MaggieMae]

Some certainly are:

US minted more millionaires in 2009-ET Cetera-News By Industry-News-The Economic Times

Hedging Millionaires Buy Jets, Art, Bling, Give Less to Charity - Bloomberg

 

[Toro]

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.

You are relatively new here so I'll enlighten you on a few things. First, Margaret Thatcher is my political hero, and I generally think Reagan was a good President. Reagan did do many good things, but Bush I was right. Reagan promoted Voodoo Economics. The idea that cutting US income tax rates generates more revenue is bizarre. There is zero empirical of this. In fact, the empirical evidence published by Republican economist Greg Mankiw is that for every $1 in taxes cut, the government loses 83 cents in revenue. It is a discredited theory believed only by extreme partisans.

Tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts is merely Keynes in drag. I'd suggest you read Reagan's old OMB head David Stockman's book inside the Reagan Revolution to get a good glimpse about how fiscal policy was run under Reagan.

As for Carter v Reagan, interest rates fell by over 10% during Reagan's term. It was Carter appointee Paul Volcker who broke the back of inflation

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Not trying to give investment advice, but your 401 K can be used to make a downpayment on a primary dwelling. You may be at the right time with a nest egg if you have a sufficient amount in the 401 K.

Lord knows there are plenty of distressed owners who have to sell short right now. In most transactions, there is a winner and a loser. With the right property, you could post a big win.

I wish. I live in NYC and there is pretty much nothing I could even begin to afford.

 

[topspin]

I used 401k loan as down payment. Interest goes to me. I like the option, especially since the buy back is much lower on the stocks for me.

 

[Immanuel]

I used 401k loan as down payment. Interest goes to me. I like the option, especially since the buy back is much lower on the stocks for me.

I did the same thing. A lot of experts say you should not take loans out on your 401(k). I say they are foolish. Why should I pay someone else for the loan when I can invest in myself and pay myself back.

The same thing goes for credit card debt. If, I am paying 20%+ on my credit card and it is not coming down at all, then it is better for me to pay off my credit card debt and even pay a 10% penalty if I can't do the loan and completely eliminate the credit card debt. Of course, its best if you do that and then cut up the credit cards, but regardless, better to eliminate the debt.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

I used 401k loan as down payment. Interest goes to me. I like the option, especially since the buy back is much lower on the stocks for me.

I did the same thing. A lot of experts say you should not take loans out on your 401(k). I say they are foolish. Why should I pay someone else for the loan when I can invest in myself and pay myself back.

The same thing goes for credit card debt. If, I am paying 20%+ on my credit card and it is not coming down at all, then it is better for me to pay off my credit card debt and even pay a 10% penalty if I can't do the loan and completely eliminate the credit card debt. Of course, its best if you do that and then cut up the credit cards, but regardless, better to eliminate the debt.

Immie

because if you are laid off, the loan is due in full is my understanding, and the money in your 401k can not be used to pay it off when terminated....?

 

[Immanuel]

I used 401k loan as down payment. Interest goes to me. I like the option, especially since the buy back is much lower on the stocks for me.

I did the same thing. A lot of experts say you should not take loans out on your 401(k). I say they are foolish. Why should I pay someone else for the loan when I can invest in myself and pay myself back.

The same thing goes for credit card debt. If, I am paying 20%+ on my credit card and it is not coming down at all, then it is better for me to pay off my credit card debt and even pay a 10% penalty if I can't do the loan and completely eliminate the credit card debt. Of course, its best if you do that and then cut up the credit cards, but regardless, better to eliminate the debt.

Immie

because if you are laid off, the loan is due in full is my understanding, and the money in your 401k can not be used to pay it off when terminated....?

The way I have seen it done, and granted it may not be the only way to do it, is that you can borrow up to 1/2 of the balance of your 401(k) and no more. If you are later laid off, they take the outstanding balance against your 401(k) balance and you get charged the penalty. That happened to me when I lost my job in January.

Some 401(k) companies allow you to make payments on the loan if you so desire and you stay up to date with the payments. That was the case in my former company before the one that laid me off and it is possible that since that was over 10 years ago the laws changed disallowing that portion.

Immie

 

[Polk]

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?

Unemployment was lower, as was average real income.

Would this be anything like the real unemployment numbers of 17 percent?

Well, if we're going to just start making numbers up...

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Anyone looking at my annual Social Security statement would get the impression that I've spent years locked away in prison. I haven't; however, I have had multiple instances of short term homelessness which usually ended when my mother would allow me to move home.

While I did manage a couple of years of junior college and six months at Cal Berkeley in the early 1970s, I would have to say the instrument we are using to communicate with right now best explains any literacy or understanding I've acquired.

As far as surviving on minimum wage, that was relatively simple in the 70s. At that time I could afford a new one bedroom apartment with a single minimum wage job. It's been fifteen years since I could afford a one bedroom, and that gap between the rich and the rest doesn't appear to be closing.

 

[Toro]

I am not defending Bush things weren't that great with him but things were better with Bush as President then they were with carter or obama.

We almost had a repeat of the Great Depression under Bush. Not saying that it was his fault, but to somehow link this economy to Obama isn't even remotely serious.

As for the "real" rate of unemployment, it was just as high under Reagan as it is now.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

As for your "sitting in line to buy gas," feel free to tell us how Jimmy Carter was responsible for declining oil fields and OPEC, and how Reagan was responsible for finding new sources of oil around the world and increasing oil production.

 

[Polk]

I am not defending Bush things weren't that great with him but things were better with Bush as President then they were with carter or obama.

We almost had a repeat of the Great Depression under Bush. Not saying that it was his fault, but to somehow link this economy to Obama isn't even remotely serious.

As for the "real" rate of unemployment, it was just as high under Reagan as it is now.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

As for your "sitting in line to buy gas," feel free to tell us how Jimmy Carter was responsible for declining oil fields and OPEC, and how Reagan was responsible for finding new sources of oil around the world and increasing oil production.

Great info on U6! I was wondering why that data set only went back to 1994.

 

[washamericom]

hey 20 hits, deficit is code for higher taxes. the more they raise (income) the smaller the deficit, with respect to the spending. like "net gain"... i understand that everyone is in for much higher taxes, especialy the folks that make 250 k a year, wait sorry, 200 k / yr.... no that's not right... it's 45 thou per year. people making less than 30,000 annual income. so if you make less than 10,000 dollars per year your taxes are going to sky rocket. and that's why our president of the obama is the captian of the U.S. spending team... steve forbes and mitch mcconnel are the same guy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hey 20 hits, deficit is code for higher taxes. the more they raise (income) the smaller the deficit, with respect to the spendind. like "net gain"... i understand that everyone is in for much higher taxes, especialy the folks that make 250 k a year, wait sorry, 200 k / yr.... no that's not right... it's 45 thou per year. people making less than 30,000 annual income. so if you make less than 10,000 dollars per year your taxes are going to sky rocket. and that's why our president of the obama is the captian of the U.S. spending team... steve forbes and mitch mcconnel are the same guy.

Are you one of those people who speak and everyone turns and looks at you and thinks, "This guy is right there with daveman and Big Fitz and the rest of the goofy team?"

 

[rightwinger]

hey 20 hits, deficit is code for higher taxes. the more they raise (income) the smaller the deficit, with respect to the spendind. like "net gain"... i understand that everyone is in for much higher taxes, especialy the folks that make 250 k a year, wait sorry, 200 k / yr.... no that's not right... it's 45 thou per year. people making less than 30,000 annual income. so if you make less than 10,000 dollars per year your taxes are going to sky rocket. and that's why our president of the obama is the captian of the U.S. spending team... steve forbes and mitch mcconnel are the same guy.

Are you one of those people who speak and everyone turns and looks at you and thinks, "This guy is right there with daveman and Big Fitz and the rest of the goofy team?"

No...he just likes talking to himself