Are You Better Off?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    You might have another week or two of voters anwering 'no' to this question, but pretty soon we'll be into the fourth anniversary of the days when you would swallow hard and feel a pit in your stomach before checking the value of your 401K.  This seems like an argument Obama would win - run some campaign ads of nothing but footage of guys like Jim Cramer and Larry Kudlow losing their minds.  I remember a lot of talk about "Armageddon" - just run the footage, and at the end, a black screen with the words "Were you better off 4 years ago?".


     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    The "reply to" for specific posts is difficult to keep up with, so I'll reply to some things here.

    Greg..nowhere in my post did I suggest this question was anything new. I am simply asking if the reason to pick one person over another is really that simple? Or should our vote be cast based on what is best for us as individuals or should it be cast based on what we perceive is best for society as a whole?

    Firewind..good point about would you want to go back? For me, the answer is no. Good or bad, I never  repeat the past. I prefer to move forward.

    Jmel...as far as your response to Firewind ( at least I think it was to Firewind)...you make a good point about wanting to go back to the days where your house and stock portfolio were worth a lot more...but the housing market was a house of cards( excuse the pun). It wasn't sustainable and even I, who am no expert in economics was saying that very thing at least a couple of years before the housing market crashed. The most reputable economists were warning us all that the housing market was a bubble and that it was going to pop. In the year before the crash, I told a family member who was looking to buy a house to hold off for a couple of years because the high prices were not rooted in reality.
    The housing crash along with fighting two wars led to all the other economic problems, including the dwindling stock market and portfolios. The scenario you described just wasn't sustainable.

    Like Greg, I am in a much better position than I was 4 years ago, but I don't credit government with that either. I am very conservative with investments and my portfolio is just fine. In fact, because I am so frugal ( some of my friends call me cheap), I was able to continue saving, pay my bills and pay my tuition at a private college and help my nephew in his family financially. The earnings on my investment account have risen steadily and when I get the quarterly statements, I feel good. I also understand that I am lucky that my job was essentially recession proof and therefore remained secure. I also understand that my health remained relatively stable ( and in some areas drastically improved) so that I didn't not face the same issues as those who lost their jobs or their health.

    So were I to vote on that basis, my choice would be easy. However, when I look the question of are you better off? from the standpoint of our whole society, then the answer is less clear. Most of my friends and family who lost their jobs have since found new ones. The agency I work for has doubled in size over the last 2 years. However, I also recognize that Massachusetts is recovering at a faster rate than many other states, so I am lucky enough to live in a state where those conditions exist.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    Answer is all the takers are better off under this president.

    Everyone working the system loves this guy.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    So now the wingnuts think we still live in a pre-Iron Curtain world with a beligerent Russia?
    -------------------------------------

    Ah, the incalculable Reagan Peace Dividend.

    Thanks




    Apparently you idiots haven't informed Mittens of this 'peace dividend' because he's still walking and talking like it's 1978. The guy is lost in space.


    You'd think that with him being a wingnut and you being a wingnut that ya'll would be more in sync.
    But that's okay, you nose-to-buttocks lemmings will vote for him anyway.
    Heck of a job Brown-nose.

     



    Angry is so on the defensive.  I think he has usedthe word "idiot" in each of the last 108 posts. 

    I say we vote for Angry.  Just write him in. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    The "reply to" for specific posts is difficult to keep up with, so I'll reply to some things here.

    Greg..nowhere in my post did I suggest this question was anything new. I am simply asking if the reason to pick one person over another is really that simple? Or should our vote be cast based on what is best for us as individuals or should it be cast based on what we perceive is best for society as a whole?

    Firewind..good point about would you want to go back? For me, the answer is no. Good or bad, I never  repeat the past. I prefer to move forward.

    Jmel...as far as your response to Firewind ( at least I think it was to Firewind)...you make a good point about wanting to go back to the days where your house and stock portfolio were worth a lot more...but the housing market was a house of cards( excuse the pun). It wasn't sustainable and even I, who am no expert in economics was saying that very thing at least a couple of years before the housing market crashed. The most reputable economists were warning us all that the housing market was a bubble and that it was going to pop. In the year before the crash, I told a family member who was looking to buy a house to hold off for a couple of years because the high prices were not rooted in reality.
    The housing crash along with fighting two wars led to all the other economic problems, including the dwindling stock market and portfolios. The scenario you described just wasn't sustainable.

    Like Greg, I am in a much better position than I was 4 years ago, but I don't credit government with that either. I am very conservative with investments and my portfolio is just fine. In fact, because I am so frugal ( some of my friends call me cheap), I was able to continue saving, pay my bills and pay my tuition at a private college and help my nephew in his family financially. The earnings on my investment account have risen steadily and when I get the quarterly statements, I feel good. I also understand that I am lucky that my job was essentially recession proof and therefore remained secure. I also understand that my health remained relatively stable ( and in some areas drastically improved) so that I didn't not face the same issues as those who lost their jobs or their health.

    So were I to vote on that basis, my choice would be easy. However, when I look the question of are you better off? from the standpoint of our whole society, then the answer is less clear. Most of my friends and family who lost their jobs have since found new ones. The agency I work for has doubled in size over the last 2 years. However, I also recognize that Massachusetts is recovering at a faster rate than many other states, so I am lucky enough to live in a state where those conditions exist.



    mscricket:  I am definitiely a fan for voting one's self interest, on a level playing field, of course.  I don't see it as really that complicated. 

    Democrats have not been good stewards on the economy.  Not saying repbulicans are that great either, but obviously better.  you can't get much worse than Obama on the economy.

    So, it is really simple.  What do you value?  Freedom, economically and otherwise, or do you value the government giving you money ( that they take from others), crimping your economic self-sufficiency and thereby  your economic freedom?

    One candidate is promoting greater dependency on government, and a larger government to manage this dependency.  One candidate is promoting less government, and greater independence.

    You choose.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?


     



    You suggest that the housing bubble was destined to crash......why?  If it wasn`t for Barney, Fannie, and Freddie, and the loans to people that had no income, no money, and no means of repayment, there wouldn`t have been a crash.  Also, how could we have 42 months of economic growth despite 2 wars going on?  It wasn`t until the Democrats got control of the House and the Senate in 2006 that anyhting started "going south".  We need to stick to facts.  When we do we find that Democrats screw everything (economically) up.



    [/QUOTE]

    They are all guilty of screwing the economy . I will agree that without the huge growth in the subprime lending market we wouldn't have had the crash. Housing prices would have leveled off instead of growing at a faster than healthy rate. Demand would have slowed down and the market would have corrected itself before it crashed...but that didn't happen. Instead, our government relaxed regulations because they wanted to increase the market..and because a lot of people were making a lot of money.
    No one will argue Barney Frank was a huge part of the problem...but let's not forget that Bush Jr. wanted everyone in America to experience "the dream of home ownership" and was willing to do whatever it took to make that happen.
    The 42 months of growth was not based on a sustainable plan either. America was operating on a credit card issued by the Bank of China. Individuals were spending based on credit lines....the savings rate was abysmal. Continuing the Bush tax cuts was irresponsible. No administration in the history of the US has cut taxes while fighting one war..let alone two.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?



    mscricket:  I am definitiely a fan for voting one's self interest, on a level playing field, of course.  I don't see it as really that complicated. 

    Democrats have not been good stewards on the economy.  Not saying repbulicans are that great either, but obviously better.  you can't get much worse than Obama on the economy.

    So, it is really simple.  What do you value?  Freedom, economically and otherwise, or do you value the government giving you money ( that they take from others), crimping your economic self-sufficiency and thereby  your economic freedom?

    One candidate is promoting greater dependency on government, and a larger government to manage this dependency.  One candidate is promoting less government, and greater independence.

    You choose.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeter..I get what you are saying...but from my point of view, the republican platform seems to want to limit my freedoms. They seem to want to be involved in my healthcare choices...they seem to think it's okay that men get paid more money for doing the same job. The republican platform in social issues is misguided..so if by my logic and Greg's logic, I can handle my own finances just fine..then the only thing left to vote on are social issues and national security.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    I'm certainly better off.

    4 years ago, as the economy was slipping off the deep end as a result of 8 years of mismanagement by the republicans,



    Who was in charge of the house and senate 4 and 6 years ago??

    be honest!!
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    In response to miscricket's comment:



    mscricket:  I am definitiely a fan for voting one's self interest, on a level playing field, of course.  I don't see it as really that complicated. 

    Democrats have not been good stewards on the economy.  Not saying repbulicans are that great either, but obviously better.  you can't get much worse than Obama on the economy.

    So, it is really simple.  What do you value?  Freedom, economically and otherwise, or do you value the government giving you money ( that they take from others), crimping your economic self-sufficiency and thereby  your economic freedom?

    One candidate is promoting greater dependency on government, and a larger government to manage this dependency.  One candidate is promoting less government, and greater independence.

    You choose.

     



    Skeeter..I get what you are saying...but from my point of view, the republican platform seems to want to limit my freedoms. They seem to want to be involved in my healthcare choices...they seem to think it's okay that men get paid more money for doing the same job. The republican platform in social issues is misguided..so if by my logic and Greg's logic, I can handle my own finances just fine..then the only thing left to vote on are social issues and national security.

     



    How are the Republicans getting involved in your health care choices?

    Is not Obama care and mandatory coverage of contraceptives getting involved in your health care choices?

    Do you have any evidence that Repulbicans want to pay women less for the same work?


    This is the problem:  People buy into the rhetoric of the left, war on women and the like, without thinking about how the democrats have waged that war, to limit the freedom of women for example, to a far greater effect than the Republicans ever could.

    War on Women? 

    Are you as a women more or less free today than you were four years ago?

    Are you as a women being paid less than a comparable man as a matter of government policy?

    Are your health care choices your own, or are they now a matter of government policy?

    The democrats are driving these decisions out of your hands, and into the hands of government bureaucrats.

    Not good.

 
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Are You Better Off?

    I was struck by VP Biden's retort to Romney/Ryan this weekend ask the tough question (as Obama did  in 2008), are you better off now then you were 4 years ago?  We know the truthful answer of most who claim to be middle class or wanting to be and the answer in general is no and even if they are technically better off,... it just doesn't feel like it due to the uncertainty of the Obama years economy.

    Biden proclaiming his answer as a bumpersticker to a partisan labar day crowd; "Bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive".  I always thought Democrats were about justice and abhor violence, but they rejoice Bin Laden's death as opposed to his trial and then they claim vistory on GM as it saved union jobs without realizing that most Americans are not big union supporters.
     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share