Advertisement

Archive for Friday, September 14, 2012

Not better off

September 14, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

In a letter about whether this country is “better off” today vs. 2008 by Steve Bruner (Public Forum, Sept. 5), I, for one, strongly disagree. Perhaps some individuals are doing better, but certainly not the country and overall economy.

I agree with your statement of what poor memories we have. It seems like it was just yesterday that President Obama would not go along with the Keystone pipeline, a project that offered over 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, and assistance with energy security. President Obama said he will make his decision after the election. It’s disappointing he doesn’t display the courage to put our country’s best interests ahead of his own political agenda.

It also seems like just yesterday that the president was trying to force “cap and trade” on us. He couldn’t get his way with Congress, so he did a quick switch to have the DOE control it. The end result? Higher energy costs for coal-fire states. The Dow has made a significant comeback and let’s hope it continues, but are we better off with the housing crisis that still lingers, high unemployment (42 straight months over 8 percent) and the current soaring gas prices? What about a health care bill that the majority of the country would like to see repealed?

I could go on and on. I almost forgot about the president telling Russia’s Medvedev, “I will have more flexibility after the election,” which is code for no accountability.

Mr. Bruner, you’re entitled to your opinion, but as a country I do not believe we are even close to being better off.

Comments

grammaddy 1 year, 11 months ago

Look around you,idiot. If you believe all the religious hype about going to a "better place" when you die, then even Bin Laden is better off. If you're not,maybe you should take some personal responsibility for that.

2

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 11 months ago

Wow. Did it not cross your mind to report on CURRENT things? Not all this out-of-date stuff that's now pointless?

For example...the inflation rate has been going down. Significantly. For quite a while.

And your "Iran doesn't want to accept US dollars for oil anymore. If this happens..." doomsday warnings? I have a wee bit of information for you. It already happened!!! Yup. Iran stopped accepting US dollars for oil. Happened 6 months ago. And then that ended because none of the other OPEC countries went along, and most of Iran's buyers said "Well, I guess we'll just buy our oil elsewhere". Oh gee, darn. Iran didn't have the power they though they did.

And your whole worrying about India and China buying gold merely shows that you don't understand what what that indicates. Or, should I say, indicated. Because, again, your information is out-of-date.

Now, then there's 'real life'. Of course the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. People TRIED to warn their fellow Americans that thei insatiable desire for more and more "stuff" at lower and lower prices was going to drive jobs overseas. But you didn't listen. Well, guess what. It's the way it is...and the way it will be.

Where America used to excel was in innovation. Unfortunately, our young people are more and more poorly educated. And, no...you cannot blame this on liberals.

It would be really nice if we stopped looking for someone to "blame", and started working together.

3

Trobs 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm making more than I've ever made. The Iraq war which took years of my father's, my wife's and my own life is over. the economy has grown every quarter since Q1 2010. My family, friends and other assorted loved ones has better access to healthcare.

Pretty good improvement in my opinion.

4

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

The war in Iraq is over? Tell that to my step-son who is now on his fourth tour of duty. The war has been officially declared as over, but reality for the troops says otherwise.

The economy has grown, true, but not at a pace that will allow us to recover.

You're making more than ever. Congrats. I've been able to keep my job throughout all of this, but haven't had a raise in 3 years so I am actually making less than I have in a long time. The same can be said for my 300 co-workers, and I can tell you that it isn't going into the bosses pocket either since the company is going to lose money for the 4th year in a row this year.

Better access to healthcare. No change for me, though I do like the ability to be able to help my kids until they get to 25 instead of having them drop off once they finish school.

Now, for items you didn't mention. Unemployment is still up. There are even more that aren't counted because they have fallen off unemployment or they accepted lower level work. More folks are on food stamps than ever before, and that number keeps growing.

That auto industry he saved - Ford is the only company in better shape than when he took office, and they didn't take any government money. GM has lost market share and stock value. Dodge/Chrysler was sold AT A LOSS to you and me.

Housing still has not rebounded. This can be traced directly back to the Community Reinvestment Act, and the government pressuring lenders to be more flexible in their lending policies. (That one happened under Clinton, not either of the Bush presidencies Merrill.)

So many other items that could be mentioned to show how things really aren't any better. Unfortunately, I don't think either candidate has what it takes to make the changes necessary.

1

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

Please don't confuse the Obamatrons with facts. It hurts their little heads.

0

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 11 months ago

But what does it take? It's doubtful any of us know...beyond the fact that it will take time.

0

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

The war in Iraq is over? Tell that to my step-son who is now on his fourth tour of duty. The war has been officially declared as over, but reality for the troops says otherwise.

The economy has grown, true, but not at a pace that will allow us to recover.

You're making more than ever. Congrats. I've been able to keep my job throughout all of this, but haven't had a raise in 3 years so I am actually making less than I have in a long time. The same can be said for my 300 co-workers, and I can tell you that it isn't going into the bosses pocket either since the company is going to lose money for the 4th year in a row this year.

Better access to healthcare. No change for me, though I do like the ability to be able to help my kids until they get to 25 instead of having them drop off once they finish school.

Now, for items you didn't mention. Unemployment is still up. There are even more that aren't counted because they have fallen off unemployment or they accepted lower level work. More folks are on food stamps than ever before, and that number keeps growing.

That auto industry he saved - Ford is the only company in better shape than when he took office, and they didn't take any government money. GM has lost market share and stock value. Dodge/Chrysler was sold AT A LOSS to you and me.

Housing still has not rebounded. This can be traced directly back to the Community Reinvestment Act, and the government pressuring lenders to be more flexible in their lending policies. (That one happened under Clinton, not either of the Bush presidencies Merrill.)

So many other items that could be mentioned to show how things really aren't any better. Unfortunately, I don't think either candidate has what it takes to make the changes necessary.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

It's such a complex question, whether or not the country as a whole is better off now.

I'd say in some ways it is, and in others it isn't.

But, the more relevant question, although harder to answer, is whether or not we're better off than we would have been with McCain/Palin.

3

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

No, actually, that's not the question. Regardless of who would have been better for the PAST four years, in case nobody told you we have a new election coming up, and gee, I haven't seen McCain's or Palin's names on the ballot.

1

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Please don't respond to my posts.

I believe I've asked you that in the past, and it's still my preference.

3

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

You start by saying it's a complex question and end by asking a different question that is impossible to answer.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

But, it's the one that counts.

If it's impossible to answer, then we don't know if we elected the right guy or not, regardless of how things are going.

And, the next question going forward would be "Will we be better off with Obama, or Romney, for the next 4 years?"

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Why do you keep asking questions that are impossible to answer. At a certain point in time, trust is needed. That's why when people call for votes on the rec. center or whatever, I think we've already had that vote when we elected the officials making those decisions. Likewise, however Obama responds today to world events, we elected him to make those decisions. We trusted him to use his best judgement. Not that everyone will agree with every decisions, just that he's the elected leader, now trust his judgement.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

If we can't answer that question, either in hindsight, or towards the future, then we don't know if we have or are making the right decisions when we vote, right?

I don't trust any politician's judgement without question, and I highly recommend nobody else does either.

We have to make an informed, and educated choice, and that involves some sort of judgement call about whether Obama or Romney will be better for the country, going forward.

Simply asking whether or not we're better off today than 4 years ago doesn't get at the heart of the matter, whichever way one might be inclined to answer it.

0

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

He meant he has better access now that someone else is paying for it, of course.

1

Trobs 1 year, 11 months ago

Feel free to pay for my monthly premiums.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

The real question is would we be better off if Republicans had controlled the White House and Congress over the last 3 plus years. Despite a very disappointing performance from Obama and the Democrats, the answer is a resounding "NO!!"

And, sadly, when the choice is between Romney and the petty, mean-spirited plutocracy he and the Republicans would give us, and the centrist Obama who would give us slow, marginal improvements over the status quo, the vast majority of us would most certainly be better off in four years with the latter rather than with the former.

That said, unless we do something really soon to address our use of fossil fuels, the choice between Democrats and Republicans is just a choice between whether the most negative effects of global warming begin to set in in 50 years or in 20 years.

4

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

"The real question is would we be better off if Republicans had controlled the White House and Congress over the last 3 plus years."

Yeah, that's the question. Let's ignore the massive failures of what really DID happen because of your delusions about what MIGHT have happened. At least that explains how the moron got into the Oval Office, with liberals voting on imagination rather than on fact.

And "centrist"? Really? If you're a couple of steps to the left of Karl Marx then Obama might be leaning towards the center. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Maybe you and Jack should get together have a big wet french kiss over how much of an idiot I am.

4

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

"the centrist Obama" - you lost any validity you might have been able to muster with these three little words.

I am a centrist, and the candidates offered by both major parties are so far off center that neither is worthy of my vote.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

He's very clearly governed as a centrist, whether you're capable of recognizing that or not. That's not to say that he hasn't done a few somewhat left-of-center things that have pissed off rightwingers, but they (and apparently you) have adopted such extreme partisanship that they'd accuse him of being a communist for the way he ties his shoes.

5

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

Only as viewed from the Liberal's point of view.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Progressive is a better term for my point of view, but yes, from my perspective, he has definitely been a slightly left centrist, not a liberal or progressive. More specifically, his approach to national security has been decidedly right of center, as has his handling of Wall Street, as well as his signature legislation-- Obamacare.

3

Trobs 1 year, 11 months ago

Far-left: The far left seeks the creation of strong or complete social equality in society and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. It seeks to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly to end unequal distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks the complete equalization of the distribution of wealth, and a society where in theory everyone is to be provided with equal economic and social opportunities in life and where no one will have excessive power or wealth over others.

I must've missed that part when Obama bailed out banks, and automakers. Weird way to equalize wealth and power

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Suggest whatever you want, but throwing around labels is a pretty superficial way of discussing any topic. Regardless, my views range from socialist (i.e., yes, there are things that are best left to government) to libertarian (i.e., there are certain things that should be left up to individuals, not governments or corporations.) I'm also a strong believer in small business, but not the faux kind that Republicans champion.

2

progressive_thinker 1 year, 11 months ago

Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?

My 401k is up 50% since Bush left office.

My nephew is back from Iraq. He is not being deployed to Afghanistan because the war is winding down.

My mom's prescriptions went down over $150 per month because of the affordable care act.

My sister in law will be able to get insurance for the first time in her life. [She has been living with juvenile onset diabetes for 50 years and could previously not get insurance due to the preexisting condition.] Having insurance coverage will allow her and her husband to finally save a little for retirement. This could well end the cycle of financial disasters that they have experienced because of the lack of health care coverage.

Yes, I am better off.

Thank you.

2

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

Congrats.

I'd like to meet your 401k investment person because that is performing much better than most people in the country.

See my post above.

Glad to hear that the prescriptions that fell into that Medicare purgatory category made the list. This is and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions are items that I do like about the act. Now if they will clean up the parts that don't belong...........

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Which parts are those? And if the mandate gets removed, how to the parts you like get paid for?

1

progressive_thinker 1 year, 11 months ago

"I'd like to meet your 401k investment person because that is performing much better than most people in the country."

??????

Even a straight index fund tracking the S&P 500 has more than doubled since the low on March 9 2009.

3

Trobs 1 year, 11 months ago

To take a word from other posters - "Please don't confuse the Neocons with facts"

1

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

no neocon here trobs, but thanks for playing.

0

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

While that is a correct statement according to the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative source, the average is person is seeing something closer to 26% increase from the bottoming out.

Not anything to sneeze at, but I'd still take 40% to 26% (I'm actually closer to 30% from the low in 2009, but still down overall from where I was prior to bottoming out.)

0

progressive_thinker 1 year, 11 months ago

:...correct statement according to the Huffington Post...."

?????

It is a correct statement based on data from either Standard and Poor, or from SPDR regarding their S&P 500 ETF. Nothing from Huff Post here, Just good old fashioned stock market data. Do you really think that Huff Post can manipulate stock market data?

1

Take_a_letter_Maria 1 year, 11 months ago

Sorry, I got distracted while I was responding, failed to proof my response, and left out a comma.

While that is a correct statement, according to the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative source, the average is person is seeing something closer to 26% increase from the bottoming out.

And lest you don't understand that, the Huffington Post reports that the people's 401k investments have bounced back by 26%, not the S&P 500. No I do not believe the HP can manipulate the stock market data.

Try to be a little more progressive in your thinking and you might have been able to understand that instead of leaping in the direction that you did.

0

progressive_thinker 1 year, 11 months ago

That makes more sense.

According to what I have read, most 401 k problems are the results of high fees and actively managed funds. A very straightforward cost averaging buy and hold strategy using diverse index based ETF'S over the course of the financial crisis has produced a very favorable result.

1

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Interestingly, over the long term, actively managed funds don't seem to outperform simple index funds.

Partly because of the management fees, and also because people are extremely fallible.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Am I better off now than I was 4 years ago? Yes. I suspect it's because both my spouse and I have chosen to invest about 80 hours per week each in our small business. Of course, we both did equally well the previous 8 years and again, I suspect it's because of the hours we kept. And we did equally well the 8 years prior to that, again, for the same reasons. If there's a pattern there, it's that if you work really hard, it doesn't matter who is living in the White House.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

So, 80 hours a week is just a little over 11 hours a day, with no days off.

How do you ever find the time and energy to post here?

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

I own the business. I can schedule myself to work 30 minutes, take a 10 minute break, and then work another 30 minutes. As the boss, I can choose to put in my 11 hours, spread out over a 16 hour time frame. It's one of the perks of being the boss.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

I probably do more in a day than 90% of the people on this forum, possibly including you. But having actually worked 80-hour weeks at many periods in my life, I can attest that anyone who's actually being productive in that 80 hours rather than just racking up hours will have little time or energy for much else.

BTW, I can also walk and chew gum at the same time.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Taking a break right now, Bozo. Anything on your mind.

0

KSWingman 1 year, 11 months ago

" If there's a pattern there, it's that if you work really hard, it doesn't matter who is living in the White House."

You didn't build that. The 47% who don't pay income taxes built it.

0

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

For some of us, the measure of "better off" is not limited to our own personal financial situation. If my neighbors are going without necessary health care, if my neighbors are facing poverty in retirement as their pensions vanish, if my neighbors can't find work and can't afford higher education, if my country is mired in a purposeless war and is despised around the world, then how can I consider myself to be better off? Has the Obama administration corrected all the problems that faced our country in October 2008 so that we now live in Paradise? Of course not. But the signs are that we are headed in the right direction--and that the Romney/Ryan ticket would head us backward.

3

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 11 months ago

Except that I responded to your earlier "points"...many of which were outdated and wrong. Whoops.

1

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

And the so-called Libertarians would take us back to the Stone Age: every man for himself.

2

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 11 months ago

Huh??? That's not what capitalism is.

1

Carol Bowen 1 year, 11 months ago

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.[1

0

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, all willing, without coercion. So Marx thought, too.

1

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

You have confused Marx with Lenin, Liberty_One. Marx believed that coercion would not be necessary, once the oppression of government was removed--an idea that Libertarians share. You call it "capitalism" and Marx called it "communism," but it's an identical utopian vision. Pretty in theory, ugly in realization.

0

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

I've done better than read Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist and his complete misrepresentation of Marxism. I know more about Marxism than he ever did. I've read Marx. And Engels. And Lenin. And Stalin. As well as authoritative biographies and analyses of their ideas. And I've taken courses from leading experts at leading universities. I suggest you learn some more about Marx from people who actually know what they are talking about before you start lecturing others on what Marx believed and dispensing misinformation on the internet. As for this so-called "Libertarianism" (really, anarcho-capitalism), it's pure fantasy to believe that unrestrained capitalism is either practical or desirable. Especially in a world of limited resources, a system that encourages whoever is able to gain for himself as much as he possibly can in any way he can, even by depriving everyone else and trashing the resources he can't use for himself, is certain to result in a world in which poverty and violence is rampant.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

I know what you mean-- Barry stepped on a crack and broke my mother's back. What a jerk.

1

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh great. You're going to blame Obama because the company you work for decided to go for the cheapest...to them...private health insurance policy to provide to their employees.

Wanna explain why the heck businesses should be providing frickin' health insurance anyway???? It's in our nation's best interest for EVERYONE to be healthy, for crying out loud...not just certain currently employed people and their families?

Let me call the waaaaambulence for you. Oh, wait. You can't afford it.

1

Carol Bowen 1 year, 11 months ago

Insurance premiums increased at 30% a year before the ACA. Industry has been shifting the burden for quite a while. I wonder if the increases have slowed.

0

Carol Bowen 1 year, 11 months ago

It also means that one position over three years is counted as three jobs. A part time job counts as one job each year. So, twelve proposed positions for a three year project are actually four jobs.

0

gary hamon 1 year, 11 months ago

Jafs, this is off the subject here, but I think I left you with the wrong impression after our last conversation. Actual profit for the year was $60K. After all allowable deductions, which included the deduction for investment in capital equipment, the federal taxable income was $10k. Just thought I ought to clear that up.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Hi - thanks.

That makes more sense, given your other numbers.

So, you'd pay $22K on $60K profit? That works out to 36%, which seems high for business tax rates to me.

0

tbaker 1 year, 11 months ago

Debt: 41 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is barrowed, climbing more than $5 trillion under Obama. The federal debt has increased by more than half and is now over $16 trillion. National debt per person has increased by just over $16,000. More national debt has accumulated under Mr. Obama than all previous Presidents combined crossing $16 trillion for the first time, and is driving the U.S. credit rating down.

Healthcare: In spite of promising ObamaCare would make it cheaper, health care costs continue to rise at a very alarming pace. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.

Median incomes: These have fallen 7.3% since Obama took office, which translates into an average of $4,000. Since the so-called recovery started, median incomes continued to fall, dropping $2,544, or 4.8%. A decade ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. By 2010, the United States had fallen to seventh. Our incomes continue to go down. Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation. To get the same purchasing power that you got out of $20.00 back in 1970 you would have to have more than $116 today.

Unemployment: The unemployment rate today is the same it was during Mr. Obama’s first month in office. The economic recovery has been the worst one since WWII. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for 42 months straight - despite the White House's commitment it would not exceed 7 percent if Congress enacted the president's economic stimulus package. Long-term unemployment has increased from 2.7 million to 5.2 million, with reliable estimates of the total number of unemployed people in American at 23 million once those who have completely given up looking for work are factored in. More than three years into Obama's recovery, 811,000 more still fall into this category than when the recession supposedly ended.

Poverty: The poverty rate climbed to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009, and economists think it may have hit 15.7% last year, highest since the 1960s. In spite of massive stimulus / hand-out spending, the number of Americans living in poverty has gone from 39.8 million to 46.2 million. 1 in 7 people are on Food Stamps. 47 million people (11.8 million more people on food stamps since Obama's recovery started)

Gas prices: A gallon of gas cost $1.89 when Obama was sworn in. By June 2009, the price was $2.70. Today, it's $3.84.

Now for all you folks who think all this was caused by Republican obstructionism please remember – Mr. Obama had two years where all three houses of government were controlled by his party.

His policies haven’t failed because they were blocked; they failed because they were passed. (Paul Ryan)

1

gary hamon 1 year, 11 months ago

Jafs, the 36% is not entirely correct either, since there are other allowable deductions such as depreciation, contributions, taxes, etc. The investment in capital equipment just allowed the company to increase those numbers. That is why I cannot give you an exact percentage of the federal tax liability until all those figures are taken into consideration.
I can tell from your posts that we are probably from opposite ends of the political spectrum but that we could still enter into civil discourse. A rare thing in this forum. When someones MOM calls a poster an "ahole", my post as "binary and worthless", or "making no sense" I think it is time for me to find a better way to waste my time.

1

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

I completely agree - there's no reason for that sort of thing.

And, I don't know whether we're opposite or not - I have a variety of ideas, some liberal, some conservative, some Libertarian, etc.

But, I'm always glad to have civil conversations with anybody, regardless of their point of view.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

If we're shooting to be the greatest 3rd world country then yes we are headed in the right direction. At the rate we're going I believe we could surpass Greece and Spain should Barry do the unthinkable and get another term

0

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

The only way the US could go in the direction of Greece is if we continue to allow the wealthy to get away without paying taxes. That's the primary cause of the Greek crisis.

1

chootspa 1 year, 11 months ago

There's also the inability to print their own currency, which they gave up when they joined the Euro zone.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

Choops and voe, your posts clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding basic economics.

0

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 11 months ago

All the Republicans are at work? Oh, come on. Do you not even read the timing of these posts? No "zing" from you. Just a dull thud. How about some common sense from you, OK?

1

scaramouchepart2 1 year, 11 months ago

Blame Obama for not being ALLOWED to correct 12 yrs of mismanaged business corrupted government. Shovel ready jobs. Really! Republicans destroy the worlds finance and shovel ready jobs is what they offer. And how dare we be offended. Jobs is jobs. The new slave labor should be grateful.

1

Fossick 1 year, 11 months ago

"Are you better off today?" was a stupid question when Reagan asked it, and it's a stupid question today. The President is not your dad. He's not your coach, your sponsor, or your best friend. He's not responsible for your life and despite his grandiose promises, cannot really deliver all that much to you, even if he cared about you personally, which he doesn't.

If you're not better off today than 4 years ago, the person most likely responsible for that stares back at you from the mirror every morning. If you don't think you're better off today than 4 years ago, do something that will make that assessment change 4 years from now.

4

riverdrifter 1 year, 11 months ago

"If you're not better off today than 4 years ago, the person most likely responsible for that stares back at you from the mirror every morning. If you don't think you're better off today than 4 years ago, do something that will make that assessment change 4 years from now."

And therein hangs the tale! Thank you! I haven't worked regularly for 3 years but I've been living off the fat of the land and I'm doing fine. The bottom line: work. And, I'm cheating Brownback to death as in he expects slaves like me to pay income tax. Cash, boys, cash. I'm like the rich boyz: ain't paying no income tax; gone underground. One exception: I work.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

When Reagan ask that question what republican mentality has followed? About 20 million fewer jobs and people owing more on their mortgages than their properties are worth.

How?

This ENTITLEMENT - TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist = Grab Your Wallets! http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

This ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

This ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

This ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

RECKLESS Tax cuts = THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again. Bush Tax Cuts aka THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

In the end big debt and super duper bailouts HAVE BEEN the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

This ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

This ENTITLEMENT - Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

This ENTITLEMENT - Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

This ENTITLEMENT - Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative".

Also through the destruction of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch.

Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to take on debt in order to restore the economy.

http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/CalculationDetails.aspx

0

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

Yeah the country is in great shape now - for freeloaders

2

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

right 1200 days - no bugdet. I want what your taking

1

JHOK32 1 year, 11 months ago

Clinton said it best "Bush left Obama & this country in one hell of a mess" between the two wars that Bush started costing $Trillions looking for Saddam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - (we all know now this was an outright lie), coupled with Wall Street & the Huge Banks raping the country until they almost brought the entire economy to it's brutal death - all while Bush & company looked the other way (& the GOP still says de-regulate everything & let the chips fall where they may? - oh really! - yeah that's really worked!) - Now the GOP says "Obama hasn't cleaned up Bush's mess fast enough" all while the GOP fought Obama every step of the way while he tried the only things within his power to jump start the economy back to some form of normality. Why is the Dow back up to 13K? Why is GM back in business? Why is Bin Laden dead, why are the terrorists who hijacked the U.S. merchant ship all dead now? Why is it that for the first time in U.S. history EVERY American will have access to health care?, & not just the rich & people who are lucky enough to have health insurance through their employers (which is getting more scarce every day). I think considering the monumental mess that Bush & company left for Obama he has done one hell of a job & Dr. Bruner is a very wise & respected person for telling it like it is - good for you Dr. Bruner! Keep up the good word! Especially now that we have our nutcase Governor raping Kansas - We need you now more than ever.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 11 months ago

Of course we as a country are better off. There are individuals who are not, but as a country and an economy, we certainly are.

Anyone with any investment in the stock market is better off (retirement plans included).

We are all better off because of the end of the Iraq war of choice that was not paid for but put on the credit card.

We are better off both in safety terms and in morale terms because Obama got bin Laden.

Contrary to Mr. Flitcraft's assertion, Americans know they are better off health-wise because of Obamacare.

It is inconvenient for the GOP and their feckless candidate Mitt Romney, but we as a country are far better off than four years ago.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.