Ask Me Help Desk - Are you better off than you were 4 years ago??

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago??

Hello:

Although, I'm NOT a fan of Obama, I'd have to say YES, for the following reasons:

GM is alive, and Bin Laden is dead. I'm PROUD that EVERYBODY can serve this great nation WITHOUT respect to their sexuality. Jobs ARE being produced, whereas four years ago, they weren't. I cannot be denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition. War is over in Iraq, and ending in Afghanistan.. Banks are lending, whereas four years ago, they weren't. Gold is up.

So, yeah. I'm better off. You?

excon

I am better off with the extra 80 bucks from two years ago, and a hundred would make me even happier.

No ex the stuffing about you fellows have done over there has made things worse for me. It is very hard to make money and stock values have been eroded. You would have to be part of the 1% for things to be better

No, I'm not better off. My husband has lost his job and my family has lost a million dollar business. Four+ years ago we had a two income family, now we are struggling to live on my income alone.

I adapt . IS the country better off ? Nope . We were headed towards a cliff and he put his foot on the accelerator .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I adapt . IS the country better off ? Nope . We were headed towards a cliff and he put his foot on the accelerator .

Oh, I adapt as well. Luckily my income is high enough to keep us from robbing Peter to pay Paul. However, we would be much more comfortable if my husband were working and we still had our business.

Agreed . This President has no clue about things like employment . We should be at very least a 5-6 % growth rate in a typical recovery after 3 full years . It is his polices at this point that is preventing it. We are barely treading water and he touts that as a major achievement .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

We should be at very least a 5-6 % growth rate in a typical recovery after 3 full years .

Hello tom:

Were this a typical downturn, you'd be right.. But, it wasn't, and you ain't.

excon

If he adopts more policies like FDR he can extend it another 4-8 years .

I'm slightly better off than I was 4 years ago. Now my husband has a job. Back then he didn't. So we still have our house. But since I still don't have a job I don't know how much longer we'll have the house.

I can without a doubt say, no sir I am not. Oh I'll be fine because I take responsibility but, Obamacare has driven up the cost of health insurance premiums so much that my current coverage is so bad I may as well not have coverage. He promised if I liked my insurance I could keep up, but that's not possible.

No, changes in medicare has reduced payments, caused layoffs in medical supply fields. They are now paying much less, than 4 or 5 years ago. The job that paid 20 dollars a hour 4 years ago now pays about 12 to 15 if you can find them.

I had to drop medical health insurance last year, Could not afford it, for just my wife and I, it went to over 800 dollars a month.

Eating more tuna and chicken with food costs up about 15 or 20 percent.

Don't go on trips with gas prices double what they were.

You are seeing an amazing thing this year. The President knows he can't run on his record.. So on the campaign trail... he is concocting a fictional economy ("the economy built to last."....."An America where we build stuff and make stuff and sell stuff all over the world." )that he is running on and acting as if he is the outsider running against the existing economy.

He's still playing that hopey changy card . It doesn't matter who the Repubics nominate . He will go the rest of the year bellowing "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain ". He will still blame Bush.

Of course the only one left for the Repubics who has a clue is Santorum. But he struggled to find any support this weekend in NV ;so he is probably toast. Elitist Romney is running away from the grandious Newt ,and the crazy uncle Ron Paul . Perhaps the President will get away with it as he continues to appeal to the emotions (that empathy thingy ) of the populace instead of their brains .

They certainly didn't vote with their brains last time around.

You mean 2010?? I agree.

We are discussing the president, Tal. The people came to their senses in 2010, let's hope they do so again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The people came to their senses in 2010, let's hope they do so again.

Hello again, Steve:

Voting in the Tea Party radical right wasn't sensible at all. They're ALL Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, and the people are figuring it out.

I'm looking at a LANDSLIDE.

excon

Be careful you don't get buried ex.

Quote:

GM is alive

After taking $50 billion in taxpayer money they did an IPO that raised $20 billion . But their stock has tanked by a third since the IPO and the company is barely on life support and Treasury changed it's estimates... Now it looks like the taxpayers will absorb a $23 billion loss .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Voting in the Tea Party radical right wasn't sensible at all. They're ALL Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, and the people are figuring it out.

I'm looking at a LANDSLIDE.

You think Rubio is a Christine O'Donnell?

Or Gov. Nikki Halley ,or Gov Paul LePage... or Sen Kelly Ayotte,or Sen. John Boozeman ,or Sen Rand Paul ,or Rep Mike Lee ,or Sen Ron Johnson ,or Sen Pat Toomey...

Maybe Rep. Alan West is a Christine O'Donnell too ?

If you enjoy the fantasy of going backward.

Back to thread, things are going to get worse before they get better, recent employment statistics not withstanding.

Recent employment stats don't reflect overall jobs lost and people who dropped out of the workforce... or maybe I'll use the line the libs used before 2008... alot of McJobs .

In measuring unemployment we use the wrong statistics we should use the ratio of available jobs to unemployed persons. It is clear that currently there are far more unemployed persons than there are jobs available

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

In measuring unemployment we use the wrong statistics we should use the ratio of available jobs to unemployed persons. It is clear that currently there are far more unemployed persons than there are jobs available

Absolutely agree!!

Let's see, prices on every day items are up 8 percent over last year, gas prices are at record levels and this regime isn't interested in lowering gas prices.

Nope, still not better off than I was 4 years ago.

Both the President and Steven Chu made it clear in 2008 that they had no interest in lower prices of energy . In fact ,it was just the opposite . Chu pined for European prices ,the President boasted he would put traditional energy companies out of business. His only gripe was that the price spikes back then were happening too fast and that in his ideal world they would've rose a tad slower.
The President's chickens coming home to roost . This is likely to stall the slowest recovery since the end of the Great Depression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Nope, still not better off than I was 4 years ago.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, it sucks out there..

But, the DOW did close above 13,000 for the first time since BEFORE the crash.. The technical heavy NASDAC exchange hit 3000 for the first time EVER... If you own 401k's, you're getting RICHER...

Ain't Obama great?

excon

I locked my 401 k in a guaranteed return fund. Very conservative ,slow but steady growth .I'm a bit risk adverse these days. I found I was logging in and adjusting the percentages too much .I was almost acting like a day trader .

That should hold me over for a while... at least until that plan to confiscate them and consolidate them into a government managed annuity gets snuck into law.

I survived Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Another Bush, and I will survive Obama. So will you!

I had my fun, and still on a roll. Being afraid of what if... I don't think so. You righties love to scare yourself, and tell us to be scared too! Now the speculators are at it again, and instead of hollering about them, you holler about it's the presidents fault. They have never drilled and sold more domestic oil in history, yet you say we don't drill enough. You say the government should build a pipeline, but nobody but the oil companies can make the profits from refining it, or shipping it.

You don't want the government to build bridges and schools, but you want the church to tell us what to do, and be above the law. You holler religious freedom, but you don't want a mosque near ground zero.

You guys are screwy!

Yep Tal, not on my turf is the cry. Pipelines are something they build in other places and you don't want to build bridges because those nasty people from the other side of the river might take some of your trade and as to mosques they belong in the middle east don't they, along with those towel headed camel drivers So what I suggest is you accidentally burn a few more Korans and see who you can upset this week

Clete no one has even addressed the displaced people that building this pipeline creates. From Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. And nobody here remembers the Super highway they wanted to build until the farmers said not on my land.

But the righties don't tell you about the people being pushed aside, just the tree huggers. And the millions of jobs being created. And all that oil they can send us. You believe this? Now Canada think it can rob us and the republicans are in on this scheme too.

The beat goes on.

Why would Canada rob you Tal, they just want a market for their oil. There is no doubt some of these projects can be a big ask. Don't you have laws over there about acquisition on just terms?

You can expect the right wing to get upset with people who say no, but it's part of life. There is always someone with a different idea on how the play book works. I gather this project is government funded benefiting the oil companies but the justification is a boost in demand for steel, etc and some new jobs in a time where a boost is needed. I hear there are environmental issues

The government can use eminent domain to acquire land for the public use, but this is a private company, big oil wanting to use this same law to profit from. Basically a private company taking publicly own land for their own purpose. Now putting the facts of the process of moving MUD through a pipe line, the bigger issue is a company not having to pay market price to a landowner, or being able to force him to give up his land in the first place.

You listen to a conservative, it's the environmentalist who are protesting, but in reality it's the land owners joining the environmentalists to oppose big oil. This was the same argument that nixed the super highway from the gulf to Canada a few years ago, the landowners to be displaced were not going for it, and the plan was modified to change a highway to a pipeline.

But its an election year, and you will get all kinds of distortions of the FACTS!

Facts I've heard the definition of a fact, So you have laws and courts or is your government going to get involved in the national interest

The whole midwest is crisscrossed with pipelines ,utility easments etc. This is no different . They already rerouted the pipeline plan from the areas the envirowackos were concerned about... I note they don't show similar concern with a Buffet owned railroad bringing the crude down.
There is a utility easement on my property . That's the price of progress. Tal would not be making the same objections to transmission lines from windmills through the same property owner's lands that he is making this bogus argument about the pipeline .

Yeah I've noticed your utilities appear to be a little untidy with their inferstructure, so I don't get it what's one more pipeline and why doesn't it parallel an existing route. If it were here we would probably run it parallel to a rail line or major highway but then we have more vacant land than you do.

I made no argument one way or another, just presented the facts of the issues. The issue is does a private company have the right of eminent domain. I say NO, and the state of Nebraska agrees, even though they had legislated that it did years ago. But they did leave an out for themselves in the concern for their environment, and that triggered a review that has delayed the final leg of this process until the end of the year.

Transcanada doesn't want to wait that long to get their oil to Texas. Nor do they want to pay the asking price of the landowners who are affected by this pipe line. So they will build one going east as the process works itself out.

Keystone XL Oil Pipeline: Today's Most Explosive Environmental Debate - Yahoo! Finance

Landowners organize against Transcanada, Keystone XL pipeline in East Texas | Andrew Ottoson

There are many issues to be ironed out yet, so I say let the process work. That's why it was denied a permit pending a review of the issues. Its hardly a dead issue, just on hold for more FACTS.

Now transmission lines by utilities is a whole different universe, and doesn't compare, or have the same jurisdictions or issues.

Quote:

The issue is does a private company have the right of eminent domain.

They do it all the time . Most utility companies in the country are privately owned entitites. Same with things like cell phone towers.

Do I think it should happen beyond essential services ? No . But SCOTUS ruled otherwise .