Compare your standard of living and situation with that of 8 years ago (Pre George Bush). This is the Ronald Regan test...

ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE EIGHT YEARS AGO?


I am! I have a job and live in a safe country. How about you? Are you, gross, better off than you were 8 years ago?

I am better off. But I happen to live in a part of the country that benefited most from government spending. Why don't you ask people in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania if they are better off? I believe they provided their answer on November 4, 2008.

Ronald Reagan's test was actually 'are you better off than you were four years ago.' It is a true feat to screw things up over an eight year period. But by either standard, the country is certainly worse off...

sk8ter bOI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compare your standard of living and situation with
> that of 8 years ago (Pre George Bush). This is the
> Ronald Regan test...
>
> ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE EIGHT YEARS
> AGO?
>
>
> I am! I have a job and live in a safe country. How
> about you? Are you, gross, better off than you
> were 8 years ago?

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
>> Why don't you ask people in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania if they are better off? I believe they provided their answer on November 4, 2008.


Haha, ya srsly. He's posed his question to a forum representing one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Haha, ya srsly. He's posed his question to a
> forum representing one of the wealthiest counties
> in the country.


Maybe in sk8tr b0i's america, only Westchester County NY, Orange County Ca and Fairfax County Va are part of the country?

By his own standards, though, of having a job and living in a safe country, this shouldn't be his first choice of places to live. There are many safer countries to live in. I know it's that whole apologist thing they've been doing on Fox News for the past 4 days about how Bush leaves office with a great legacy of protecting the country and all that, but that is all hyperbole and revisionism. There really are countries that are much safer than here.

What's the crime rate in Luxembourg? Switzerland? How many terrorist attacks have occurred in either of those countries? Let me go get my latest copy of the eoconomist and look on the back page to see what their unemployment rate is... hang on... well, luxembourg isn't listed, but Switzerland's unemployment rate is 2.7%. Looks like Denmark's is even better, 1.7%!

Let's all chip in and buy sk8tr b0i a one way ticket to one of those countries where he is even more likely to have a job and live in a safe country.

sk8ter bOI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compare your standard of living and situation with
> that of 8 years ago (Pre George Bush). This is the
> Ronald Regan test...
>
> ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE EIGHT YEARS
> AGO?
>
>
> I am! I have a job and live in a safe country. How
> about you? Are you, gross, better off than you
> were 8 years ago?


Actually, I'm only slightly better off now than I was 8 years ago.

Financially, I'm doing better, but not nearly by the same rate as I was between 1996 and 2000. My salary is higher than it was in 2001, but not as much as I had projected in 1998 based on the increases I was getting then. I'm actually in a deficit, based on those projections. Plus, I haven't even bothered to calculate it against the increased cost of living (even though that has dropped precipitously in the last 6 months).

Am I better off as far as my future prospects? No. Not right now, not with the mess left behind by a tax-cut and spend administration, and an administration that allowed deregulation of the financial services sector and created a crisis that hasn't fully played out yet.

Am I better off as a citizen of a country that holds its constitution as the central organizing principle? Definitely not.

Am I better off in knowing that my privacy is something my government respects? No.

Am I better off in terms of having a government that is representative of the people instead of large corporations? NO (and in all fairness to that one, the trend for this one has been going on for years, regardless of who was in office)

I've been plowing money into retirement savings for the last eight years. My balance is higher now than it was eight years ago, but not by as much as I've contributed. Am I better off?

I've been working hard at my job, learning new skills, and advancing my career. My income is higher than it was in 2001 but adjusted for inflation it has actually decreased. Am I better off?

I've improved my home by remodeling the kitchen and bathrooms. My home's value is higher than it was in 2001 when I bought but worth significantly less than it was just a few years ago yet I pay nearly twice in property taxes what I did in 2001. Am I better off?

The cost of traveling is probably as cheap as it ever has been but standing in long security lines, taking off half my clothes, and unpacking my luggage while dealing with rude agents has made flying such a hassle that I don't want to do it anymore. I can't tour the White House, climb up the inside of the Statue of Liberty, or take in the panoramic views from the World Trade Center. There are many places in the world I wouldn't feel safe travelling to as an American. Am I better off?

Our government has taken on so much debt that I can't imagine how we'll ever dig out from underneath it and begin spending on the future instead of the past. I wonder what changes will need to be made to Social Security to make it sustainable even as I've watched my retirement savings plummet by nearly 40%. Am I better off?

In 2001 401k matching was considered a "must have" benefit at nearly every company. Now, employer contributions to retirement plans have pretty much ceased and I feel lucky to just have a plan I can contribute to. Am I better off?

Health care costs have nearly doubled over the last eight years. Employers have swallowed most of those costs but my employer has passed on some of the increases to me. I worry that employers will stop offering health care plans soon and that my income will take a serious hit when I have to pay the entire cost. Am I better off?

Many of the independent businesses in my neighborhood have closed their doors because they just couldn't make it in these economic times. Most of the choices we have now are national chains. Am I better off?

I drive through a sea of "for sale", "for rent", "for lease", "auction preview", "bankruptcy sale", and "prevent forclosure" signs as I drive to work each morning. Am I better off?

That's my short list.

Way worse off. My retirement is half the value, I lost my job and my daughters son was killed in Iraq.

I think one needs to take a global look at our long term standard of living. I believe it is a fact that more people throughout the world expect a larger piece of the economic pie then they have in the past. Countries such as India and China have a large unmet demand for a better standard of living...that will need to be met. So, the question is...will their demands be met by our deminished standard of living? The answer is..it depends. It depends on how much the world global economy grows. If the world ecoonomy can grow at a rate fast enough to meet world demand for a middle class life. If it does...an increased standard of living in this country is possible...if not...well if not...?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2009 09:16AM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think one needs to take a global look at our
> long term standard of living. I believe it is a
> fact that more people throughout the world expect
> a larger piece of the economic pie then they have
> in the past. Countries such as India and China
> have a large unmet demand for a better standard of
> living...that will need to be met. So, the
> question is...will their demands be met by our
> deminished standard of living? The answer is..it
> depends. It depends on how much the world global
> economy grows. If the world ecoonomy can grow at
> a rate fast enough to meet world demand for a
> middle class life. If it does...an increased
> standard of living in this country is
> possible...if not...well if not...?

Vince, as a supporter of Obama, which noble action did you undertake today to honor Dr. King as Pres-Elect Obama called for? I wonder where Washingtonelocian volunteered his time.

sk8ter bOI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compare your standard of living and situation with
> that of 8 years ago (Pre George Bush). This is the
> Ronald Regan test...
>
> ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE EIGHT YEARS
> AGO?
>
>
> I am! I have a job and live in a safe country. How
> about you? Are you, gross, better off than you
> were 8 years ago?

About the same. Like everyone else, I've lost my ass in stocks.
Fortunately, my retirement pay and benefits are quite safe.
We are cash strapped, but now we have two kids in college at
the same time.(Ouch!) The value of my home is way down from what
it was two years ago, but then again, its still worth a lot more
than I paid for it. We have some land in the country which has
lost value too, but we never planned on selling it anyway. One
thing this recession has done though, is make people think a lot
harder about what they're spending their money on.

Eight years ago we weren't at war, we had a $1 trillion surplus and nobody was talking about 10% unemployment and soup lines.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eight years ago we weren't at war, we had a $1
> trillion surplus and nobody was talking about 10%
> unemployment and soup lines.

Eight years ago, we were at war. Those nutjobs have been attacking us since the early 90s. Simply because the previous administration didn't recognize a war against the USA doesn't mean we weren't at war. Tell the sailors of the USS Cole, the dead in the 1993 WTC bombings, the dead at the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the dead at the Khobar towers we weren't at war.

Also, this so called trillion dollar surplus was a phantom surplus it was a PROJECTED surplus. In case you can't figure it out, projected means predicted, not actual. In 1998, the Clinton administration projected this surplus would occur in 2008. It assumed all factors would remain constant. Since the Clinton administration predicted that number, there was the tech meltdown, accounting scandels, 9/11, Katrina, the complete reorganization and augmentation of the federal government to respond to the increased demand for security. We also had the Bush administration warnings go unheeded by Congress regarding the GSEs. Simply put, the trillion dollars existed in the minds of Clinton's OMB. Not even the CBO at the time predicted the trillion.

Light Shedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eight years ago we weren't at war, we had a $1
> > trillion surplus and nobody was talking about
> 10%
> > unemployment and soup lines.
>
> Eight years ago, we were at war. Those nutjobs
> have been attacking us since the early 90s.
> Simply because the previous administration didn't
> recognize a war against the USA doesn't mean we
> weren't at war.

Actually, the Clinton Administration recognized Al Qaeda was a threat. That's why they stopped the Millennial bombing in 1999. You know, the plot to blow up LAX? Bush, on the other hand, didn't do shit to stop 9/11 even though he had ample warning of an impending attack.

> Tell the sailors of the USS Cole,
> the dead in the 1993 WTC bombings, the dead at the
> embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the dead at
> the Khobar towers we weren't at war.
>
If you want to use that definition of War, then we are at war with Cuba and Iran for blowing up their civilian aircraft and killing hundreds of people. Is that true? Are at war with those countries? We are also at war with Israel for its killing of U.S. sailors. Do you believe we are at war with Israel?

> Also, this so called trillion dollar surplus was a
> phantom surplus it was a PROJECTED surplus.

Funny. Bush said we had a $1 trillion surplus. He never said anything about it being "a phantom."

> In
> case you can't figure it out, projected means
> predicted, not actual. In 1998, the Clinton
> administration projected this surplus would occur
> in 2008. It assumed all factors would remain
> constant. Since the Clinton administration
> predicted that number, there was the tech
> meltdown, accounting scandels, 9/11, Katrina, the
> complete reorganization and augmentation of the
> federal government to respond to the increased
> demand for security. We also had the Bush
> administration warnings go unheeded by Congress
> regarding the GSEs. Simply put, the trillion
> dollars existed in the minds of Clinton's OMB.
> Not even the CBO at the time predicted the
> trillion.


Things would have stayed more constant if Al Gore had been President and not the Bush Family's answer to Gilligan.

-
Attachments:

As if I have to explain myself to you!!!