Better off today than 4 years ago

[a777pilot]

This country and most families are worse off now than when obama took office. That's clear.

That's just history. The real question now is, where to go from here and who is best suited to take us there?

In every way, it's Romney.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm better off personally. I make about $20K more a year, and have over $250K in stock that I didn't have then.

Believe me you are not the norm. But I am happy for you anyway.

 

[shortylickens]

This country and most families are worse off now than when obama took office. That's clear.

That's just history. The real question now is, where to go from here and who is best suited to take us there?

In every way, it's Romney.

Going from top to bottom I am sure you are just trolling.

 

[blackangst1]

Personally, Im better off than 4 years ago. The country, however, isnt.

 

[MovingTarget]

Am I better off? Yes. Am I where I thought I would be by now? No. Such is the plight of many in my generation. Many of us thought that if we worked hard at our education and then at our jobs that we would be successful enough to start families by now. Most of us have put that off because those opportunities have not materialized. Most of my peers that have families by now were of the "oops" variety instead of the responsible planned kind. Very few feel financially secure enough to do so.

Is this Obama's fault? No, he inherited the problem and has been hamstrung in his efforts to reverse it. When we look at what Romney and the GOP have to offer all we see is extremism and the same warmed-over economic policies that created this mess over the course of our lifetimes. No thanks.

 

[Ryan]

Who was president 4 years ago? Oh yeah...it was Bush....and we were in the beginning of the 2nd greatest economic downturn in our country's history. Between Jan and Aug 2008, we lost 605,000 jobs. So far this year, we have gained 1,017,000 jobs.

4 Years ago, I worked in a restaurant and delivered pizza just to get by. Now, I have graduated college and found a well paying job.

Fuck yeah it's better.

 

[a777pilot]

Going from top to bottom I am sure you are just trolling.

The classic definition of a troll is one that posts an opinion that you do not like.

A question was asked and I answered it. If you don't like my answer then you must be a racist. How sad that you would judge me on skin color. You should be ashamed.









LOL!

Yes, I use to be a Democrat.

 

[umbrella39]

Better off than 4 years ago? Hell yes. Better off than 8 years ago, FUCK yes. Have to go back to 2000 to find a time when I had it better, back to a time when one party wasn't hell bent on destroying the country (yet).

 

[a777pilot]

Who was president 4 years ago? Oh yeah...it was Bush....and we were in the beginning of the 2nd greatest economic downturn in our country's history. Between Jan and Aug 2008, we lost 605,000 jobs. So far this year, we have gained 1,017,000 jobs.

Fuck yeah it's better.

Instead of blaming Bush(43), you just might want to check to see what the Congress (controled by Democrtas) was doing.

 

[Ryan]

Instead of blaming Bush(43), you just might want to check to see what the Congress (controled by Democrtas) was doing.

You live in a fucking fantasy world. Deny it all you want, but Republicans caused this clusterfuck, and every Republican in office has made it their number one priority to boot BO instead of actually trying to turn the economy around.

You and your kind are the cause of this - you have failed this nation.

 

[a777pilot]

You live in a fucking fantasy world. Deny it all you want, but Republicans caused this clusterfuck, and every Republican in office has made it their number one priority to boot BO instead of actually trying to turn the economy around.

You and your kind are the cause of this - you have failed this nation.

LOL!

Talk about living in a fantasy world.

Romney and a Republican controlled Congress will lead this nation out of this
Democrat mess. Eight years from now we will be in the middle of the greatest growth and advance this nation has ever seen.

6 NOV 2012
Time to take the trash out.

 

[Screech]

Better off? Yep.

Rich? No, but I make enough for me to live comfortably and enjoy life, so I ain't complaining.

 

[a777pilot]

I'm retired and living well on a fixed income.

I am worried greatly at the path my nation seems to be on. We get another change to correct our mistake this coming 6 NOV. Let's get it right this time.

 

[Infohawk]

In terms of society at large, if you say yes you're pretty much a partisan hack who sees what you want to see. Sure the stock market is higher but employment is a bigger factor for most of the population. The real question should be, are you better off four years ago than you would have been had McCain been in office. Nobody can prove that either way, but considering Obama is still competitive in a down economy he's doing well.

 

[a777pilot]

He's doing well??????

Talk about living in a fantasy world and being a partisan hack.

 

[Ackmed]

You'd have to be an idiot to think we're better off than 4 years ago. I see plenty of them around here.

 

[mshan]

Perhaps you are, in reality, voting against your own best interests?:

Stock market returns (T. D. Ameritrade's "Enlightened Investor" magazine (fall 2008 edition), page 3):


Average Annual Returns:
- Democrat: 9.0%
- Republican: 5.8%


Cumulative Return on $10,000:
- Democrat: $315,449
- Republican: $73,536


Average Annual Returns (individual administrations):
- FDR 7.5%
- Truman 8.3%
- Eisenhower 10.9%
- Kennedy 6.5%
- LBJ 7.7%
- Nixon -3.9%
- Ford 10.8%
- Carter 6.9%
- Reagan 10.2%
- H. W. Bush 11.0%
- Clinton 15.2%
- George W Bush -0.8% (through 8/25/08)



(in reconciling average annual returns with the cumulative gain on $10,000 statistic above, I'm guessing that Republican administrations have represented giant boom and bust cycles where lots of money was made, lots of money was lost, but the net overall effect was simply transfer of wealth, rather than gains that hold significantly over time?)

Average Annual Cumulative Return:

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/73...our-wallet-dems-outperform-republicans-by-far




** Obviously you won't have 40 years of continuous Democratic (or Republican) rule, so the sequential compounding above is only hypothetical and most likely very grossly exaggerates the actual pot of money you would end up with in reality ** (second chart, which looks like lump sum investing, and third chart, which is dollar cost averaging and probably what most people with 401k would relate to, then extrapolating cumulative return over time by using average annual return over 40 years of Republican rule (5.8% average annual return) vs. 40 years of Democratic rule (9.6% average annual return)

But it does seem to reinforce my impression above that 1) Republican cycles end up being massive boom and bust cycles where Wall Street (very savvy and active traders, employing judicious amounts of leverage and a healthy respect for risk (i. e. permanent loss of capital, not short term volatility in price), can get incredibly rich, while Main Street gets put in the poor house and pundits on tv say that buy and hold investing in a low cost, total market index fund (VTSMX) no longer works, even though that strategy requires a time horizon of decades, not a few years or even a decade) and that 2) significant negative returns at some point can seriously damage your accumulation of long-term wealth (i. e. the actual pot of money you are left with, not average annual returns or relative performance metrics):

Especially if you are drawing down retirement funds, or even getting close to those years, I don't think wild volatility is something you should seek out or even desire (don't have time to wait out volatility if you have to continually draw down funds before market recovers to sell at an acceptable price point).

Another wild boom and bust cycle will make Wall Street incredibly rich all over again, but be nothing more than another transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street (another lost decade, with government of, for, and by the corporation, as Jim Cramer used to like to crow)

 

[ITJunkie]

Ryan is partially right he just forgot to include the Democratic ilk along with a777pilot's ilk.
a777, "partisan hack"? Geez, pot meet kettle! good luck with your "fixed income" in the coming years...

 

[PrinceofWands]

I know exactly 2 people who are better off now than 4 years ago. Everyone else is worse off. In my opinion the overall picture is equivalent (as bad, or worse, than 4 years ago). The only broad category of people/sector better off are the wealthy (top 10%). Otherwise it's sparse and random. They're better ONLY because they're concentrating what everyone else had to be their own.

 

[Lemon law]

Why not simplify the question and ask are we better off than we were 2 years ago?
Because 2 years ago the American voters swung enough votes in the house to see it pass into republican hands. Along with all those tea partiers who promised us they would improve the economy. And all we got is another 2 years of the GOP sabatoging the democratic agenda to regulate the financial chicanery that got us in this mess in the first place. And since budgets originate in the house, the GOP and the budget Paul Ryan submitted offered only a few billion in cuts and not the 100 or 200 billion we would need to even slow the defecet spending. And on the income side, the GOP opposes tax increases even to only the very rich.

If the GOP congress we the American people elected in 2010 has made things even worse, why should we American voters believe the same warmed over GOP lies in 11/2012?

 

[a777pilot]

Ryan is partially right he just forgot to include the Democratic ilk along with a777pilot's ilk.
a777, "partisan hack"? Geez, pot meet kettle! good luck with your "fixed income" in the coming years...

I am possitive that under a Romney Administration this nation will be on the road to recovery. I will be happy with that. I love this country and those that have made it great. We can be great again.

6 NOV 2012
Time to take the trash out.

 

[a777pilot]

If the GOP congress we the American people elected in 2010 has made things even worse, why should we American voters believe the same warmed over GOP lies in 11/2012?

The 112th Congress would have been a work horse of accomplishments if only the people had gotten rid of Harry and his band of chocks.

 

[Retro Rob]

I

Time to take the trash out.

..then in 2016, you'll be saying the same thing.

It has boiled down to picking which is the best-tasting pile of dog crap.

 

[a777pilot]

..then in 2016, you'll be saying the same thing.

It has boiled down to picking which is the best-tasting pile of dog crap.

If Romney and the Republicans don't get the job done, then, YES. I will be saying it's time, again, to take the trash out.

 

[Tom]

This is the heart of the issue. Do we all take a haircut and get our fiscal house in order or do we declare it just too difficult and spend, spend, spend and let the next guy worry about it? It's a simple proposition. Do we act like adults or act like children?

Unfortunately, austerity suits neither party.

here's the thing..anyone who actually cares about the deficit, like Alan Simpson, knows we aren't going to fix it without increasing revenue, and I don't mean wishful thinking like cutting tax rates will raise revenues.

So the real choice is, the fiction of Romney that we can afford even more tax cuts, versus the partial reality of Obama that some tax rates need to go up.

And as far as cuts, neither party will ever make meaningful cuts on their own, the cuts will be painful and to protect their backsides they will do what they have to make it bipartisan, or do nothing. Look what the Republicans did when they controlled Congress under Bush.. vast spending increases.

Romney's starting place is much much farther from any real action on deficits, Obama will make cuts if the Republicans will compromise on taxes.