Are you better off than you were a year ago?

[Gamakatsu]

How's you life going and what's better or worse?

[Gamakatsu]

This poll is not intended to be callous to those who have lost their jobs. My heart goes out to those who have been caught up in the wave of layoffs that began in 2008. I was more curious to see what is causing the hand wringing by those who are gainfully employed, yet declare that America is a failure.

[dena]

My life is about the same. Still in the same job, same house, same bills etc.

I have noticed a lot of empty store fronts that are empty now that were also empty a year ago not sold yet. Once a business closed, a new one has not filled the space.

The homes in my neighborhood that emptied out when the bust hit, are still empty and unsold.

If times were booming, these houses would be off the market, and empty store fronts full.

[Joe]

YES! I got my old salary back.

[Little]

With regards to what?

[TBRegime]

How's you life going and what's better or worse?

 

I made more money in 2008 and 2009 than anytime during the Bush war-mongering years!

 

 

Times are tough only for the lazy who refuse to work and are government dependent.

 

 

The educated are not complaining!

[lichum]

 

 

One way to do that objectively is to measure the change in U.S. public debt, starting with when he took office, and now.

1/22/09: $10.6 trillion

 

3/10/10: $12.5 trillion

The difference is over $1.9 trillion. That amount represents the net borrowing that the fed.gov had to do (spending in excess of receipts).

So BHO and Congress spent more than $1.9 trillion since BHO took office.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

 

(click on the green button in the middle of the page that says "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny")

If Baby Debtor could read and understand simple arithmetic he'd be crying.

 

Poor Baby Debtor, poor in two senses:

 

 

__________________

 

Political correctness is the antithesis of virtue.

 

Last edited by lichum : 03-17-2010 at 11:14 AM.

 

10-14-2009, 12:52 PM #1 lichum v

Future Generations Will Be Poorer.

 

From Robert Samuelson :

 

Samuelson | Newsweek Web Exclusive

 

Updated: 11:30 a.m. ET Oct 13, 2009

 

Every generation of Americans should live better than its predecessor. That's Americans' core definition of economic "progress."

 

But for today's young, it may be a mirage. Higher health spending, increasing energy prices and stretched governments at all levels may squeeze future disposable incomes-what people have to spend-and public services. Are we condemning our children to downward mobility?

 

Good question. Considering how health spending could threaten future living standards, it ought to be center stage in the "reform" debate. Instead, it's ignored. An oft-stated view is that the growth of the U.S. economy will make the young so much richer than their parents that they can afford a bigger health-care sector and still enjoy large increases in their living standards. Complaining about providing more generous health care is selfish. This is a powerful argument; unfortunately, it isn't true. (Click here to follow Robert Samuelson)

 

Look at the table below. It portrays the U.S. economy from 1980, with a projection for 2030 from Moody's Economy.com. The projection assumes that the recession ends and growth revives. Superficially, the table suggests that economic growth can easily pay for more health care. In 2007 the economy's total output-gross domestic product, our national income-was $13.3 trillion. In 2030 it projects to $22.6 trillion, up 70 percent. (All amounts are in 2005 "constant" dollars to eliminate inflation.)

 

 

Year Total GDP Per Capita GDP Per Capita Health Spending 1980 $5.8 trillion $25,700 $2,300 1990 $8 trillion $32,100 $3,900 2007 $13.3 trillion $43,900 $7,100 2030 $22.6 trillion $60,600 (see below)

 

Surely that's ample. Not really. First, the economy's growth is projected to slow in the future, reflecting an aging population. Lots of workers retire; the labor force doesn't expand much. From 1980 to 2007, GDP grew an average 3.1 percent annually. From 2007 to 2030, Moody's projects 2.4 percent annually.

 

Next, it's necessary to adjust for population. In 2007 there were 302 million Americans; in 2030 there are expected to be about 375 million. As a result, per capita GDP-the average amount of income for every American, though (obviously) some receive more and some less-grows even more slowly. From 2007 to 2030, it's projected to rise from $43,900 to $60,600. That's a 38 percent increase or 1.4 percent a year, down from 2 percent.

 

Unless controlled, rising health spending would absorb much of that gain. The increase in per capita GDP from 2007 to 2030 is $16,700. If health spending continued to grow at past rates, it would go from $7,100 per person in 2007 to $15,300 in 2030. This rise of $8,200 is half the overall gain ($16,700) in per capita income. (For policy wonks: This assumes health spending grows 2 percentage points faster than GDP per capita, the 1975-2005 trend.)

 

Downward mobility is possible. Expanding health spending would raise taxes (to pay for government insurance), lower take-home pay (to pay for employer-provided insurance) or increase out-of-pocket medical costs. Other drains also loom: higher energy prices to combat global warming; higher taxes to pay for underfunded state and local government pensions and repair aging infrastructure; higher federal taxes to cover deficits and payments to retirees (much of which reflect health spending). The pressures will undermine private living standards and other public services (schools, police, defense).

 

The young's future has been heavily mortgaged. Taken together, all these demands might neutralize gains in per capita incomes, especially if the economy's performance, burdened by higher taxes or budget deficits, deteriorated. One study by Steven Nyce and Sylvester Schieber of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a consulting firm, examined just health spending. The continuation of present trends would result in "falling wages at the bottom of the earnings spectrum and very slow wage growth on up the earnings distribution. These dismal wage outcomes would persist over at least the next couple of decades."

 

To be sure, extra health care enhances our well-being. Some care extends life and improves quality of life. But the connections between being healthy and more health spending are loose. The health of most people reflects personal habits and luck. They get few benefits from high spending. The healthiest 50 percent of Americans account for just 3 percent of annual spending, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation; the sickest 15 percent represent nearly 75 percent. Half of spending goes to those 55 and over, a third to those 65 and over. Any expansion of health care tends to be a transfer from young to old.

 

The road to downward mobility is paved with good intentions. The health debate has focused on insuring the uninsured and de-emphasized controlling runaway spending, much of which is ineffective. The priorities should have been reversed. The chance to reorder the medical-industrial complex to restrain costs and improve care

 

[fishinambition]

Better for me but I dont expect it to last more than a couple more years, due to the dynamics of the business I'm though but it depends. If the RE market really picks up Im screwed, if it tanks worse, Im golden.

[Aquacide]

I'm a lot better off, stock accounts are double, business is strong, bought a house, furnished it with the tax credit and looking to renew the car lease at the end of the year at a lower cost.

 

Oh, and only 13 months to Citizenship

[2d]

I have a little girl on the way in october, so anything else is dwarfed by that. def. much better

[TheSpaniard]

Things are better for me and my family. Nobody was layed off but of course when things looked the darkest last year we were all nervous as hell what was going to happen. For the most part my nerves have been 100x's better and business has been good.

 

John

[goldenmember]

Better here, but that is not saying much since 08 sucked, 09 was waaaay worse but 2010 is better, BUT things will get worse before they get better in 2012, IMO. I sell real estate in CT, btw.

[HatterasJack]

no better, no worse

 

bills go up, pay stays stagnant

 

[what the heck is lichum's post doing in this thread ?]

[Gotcow?]

All things considered I am still ahead of the curve. I still have a job, for now.

My income decreases while the costs of everything else spirals out of control. Another furlough week this year, frozen wages, rising taxes at all levels and a mountain of goverment debt with no end in sight.

 

Our future is cloudy at best with a destructive major storm on the horizon.

[Fish Hunter]

I made more money in 2008 and 2009 than anytime during the Bush war-mongering years!

 

Times are tough only for the lazy who refuse to work and are government dependent.

 

The educated are not complaining!

 

Well lets see. I am educated, I own my business, working more than ever for less money, due to the layoffs in the state.

 

I for one, feel your comment is callus and wrong.