Better off today than 4 years ago

[mshan]

I think it is a little bit of both (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/growing-paychecks-boost-americans-purchasing-142407952.html), but burst to new record highs seems more like pent-up demand.

I realize the following statistic is probably skewed and doesn't really fully reflect underlying reality, but a day or two ago someone on tv showed graph of median home price at beginning of Obama term and now:

Then was around $175k, now $185k.

Forgot how much of home price decline took place during Bush's term, but I think the really low drop of home price sales was also skewed because when there was so much fear, only things that sold were short sales and foreclosures. Now that it is more broadly known that housing market has bottomed and mortgage rates are so low, a more normal mix of homes, and possibly even greater percentage of mix being high end homes selling (IIRC, Morningstar economist Bob Johnson said existing home sales was up 10% year over year, but that dollar amount of those sales is up 20%), has skewed number upwards to a more normal mix of home sales.

Morningstar economist Bob Johnson has previously mentioned something called the financial obligation ratio (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/), which may be trickle down to consumer of the Fed's program of financial repression. It is also probably letting people keep more of their personal income after expenses, so they can spend more or save or invest.

 

[Ryan]

So without Obama in office you'd not have graduated college? For a college grad, your reasoning skills are the suck and I've just got to say it, you've found a good paying job.

The question that spawned this whole thread was "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago", and from my experience...I am. As it's already been pointed out, I never inferred that Obama was directly responsible for my success....but since you brought it up...I will indulge the idea:

-I got hired by a Federal Agency that encouraged me to finish my degree. With a combination of student loans and federal employee assistance...I did. Had someone like Mitt Romney been in office, I am certain that I most likely would not have been eligible for the job due to a substantially worse hiring freeze/deeper Defense Dept. cuts, that my access to student loans would have been limited, and that I would be paying substantially higher interest rates on those loans (if I could even get them).

- I drive an electric vehicle (Chevy Volt), which may not have been possible for two reasons: Mitt Romney would have let GM fail and go bankrupt, and Republicans are actively seeking to eliminate the tax credit that makes these vehicles affordable for average Americans. In a time where gas prices are skyrocketing, my transportation costs are fairly insulated from the price of fuel (haven't used gas in nearly two months).

- I bought my first house this year, in a fairly new subdivision that has only just recovered from the housing crisis. I am an active member of our neighborhood association, and know quite a few of our neighbors that were able to keep their homes due to loan modifications. I don't believe their lenders would have been as willing to modify had they not had the modification incentives the Obama Administration has offered to banks. I also know of three military homeowners who were able to take advantage of the federal HAP program, which was expanded under the Obama Administration during the housing crisis. These steps all helped buoy the home values in my neighborhood.

- I also don't think my accessibility to a home loan would have been as easy under Romney. Considering he now believes that the bank bailouts and TARP were a bad idea, if we had someone like him in office for the past 4 years, the credit markets would be MUCH tighter. I most likely would not be a home owner if someone like Romney was in office.

So, when you ask me if things are better off today than they were 4 years ago...fuck yes they are. Our economy is no longer in a Republican induced free fall, and the Obama Administration has been taking steps to move us in the right direction (which not only benefitted me, but also the people around me).

On a side note - here's the correct usage of "well' vs. "good" - I was clearly using the term to modify the verb "to pay" : http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/goodwell.html . The correct critique would have been to point out that I didn't hyphenate "well" and "paying".

 

[brandonb]

I'll put trolling aside for a bit. I'm neither Republican or Democrat, so I have no need to be a cheerleader.

If I was going to grade since I remember in the 80's.

80-84
Better off (I don't remember much as it was either too long ago or I was too young but I remember some really run down areas and cars all over the place, it improved during this time period. The common person I beleive was getting more wealthy.)

84-88
Better off (I believe during this period, alot of people were genuinely happy. It was reflected in Music, Movies, etc. Almost what I'd describe as a Golden Age if I was playing Civilization video game. Personal wealth I believe increased during this era as well. Things were less run down.)

88-92
No difference (Things were really stagnant during this time period. A time of war.)

92-96
No difference (Things were improving but I started noticing alot of our civil rights were being violated. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Wiretapping laws, things like that. Had both positives and negatives.)

96-00
Better off (All Clinton nonsense aside, this was a period of growth. Nothing he really had to do with, as he was just there at the right time for the dot com growth.)

00-04
Worse off (Dot com bubble burst. People moved into fix and flips and investing in property, but this period hurt for alot of people except those who were capitalizing on housing. A time of war.)

04-08
No difference (Housing market crumbled, but it hurt those who were capitalizing on the property, the common person was probably just as hurting due to this as they were when the dot com bubble burst. Double whammy, and our leaders on both sides did nothing. A time of war)

08-12
No difference (I don't see any more hope nor do I see any more change. Sorry folks. Honestly really stagnant during this period like the GWB Sr era. A time of war.)

12-16 (prediction)
Worse off (I can see a powder keg ready to blow. That being personal liberties, polarizing between views, foreign policy that is going to get us into trouble, debt, etc)

16-20 (prediction)
Worse off (I believe at this point people will be so apathetic about their lives that only those on the extreme sides of the political spectrum will care, and therefore will make a power play one way or another. I see alot of this "brewing" today but at this point there just isn't enough people defeated. It will take another 4 years at least. )

(It doesn't matter to me who is elected. It's just a puppet show to me. Now we have the mormon puppet or the half black puppet, but they both just dance around and waste my time)

 

[Exterous]

Forgot how much of home price decline took place during Bush's term, but I think the really low drop of home price sales was also skewed because when there was so much fear, only things that sold were short sales and foreclosures. Now that it is more broadly known that housing market has bottomed and mortgage rates are so low, a more normal mix of homes, and possibly even greater percentage of mix being high end homes selling, has skewed number upwards to a more normal mix of home sales.

I'm not so sure we are seeing an unusual bottom to housing prices as they do now seem to be in line with historical expectations since the upward swing began in 1998.
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

It's my guess that we are pretty much at the bottom and we won't have an over-correction due to the inelastic properties of real estate and pent up demand

 

[Fern]

That first link got me actually reading the JOBS act and I have a question that hopefully someone (I bet Fern can answer) could explain this to me better.

The jobs act includes the following legislation:




And the summary of section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is:




My first question is, can you break this down into plain English for me so I can make sure that I properly understand this.


My second question is, if I do properly understand this why in the world would it be a good thing to remove regs on financial reporting from publicly traded companies? The JOBS act mentions that smaller companies are already exempt so it seems that this would be aimed at rather large companies that should be able to easily comply.

Is compliance with section 404 that difficult and/or expensive? What are the true ramifications of being exempted from section 404, do we have to take a companies word that there books are good with no actual "proof"?

[/SIZE]

Well, I'll try to be as helpful as I can. Bear in mind I'm a tax CPA and this stuff is more for auditors.

IN general SarOx has been far more costly than originally estimated by the CBO. IIRC, they estimated compliance at $1M and it has averaged closer to $5M. IDK how costly the section 404(b) is, nevertheless, it is going to be costly in terms of fees to outside CPA firms, attorney fees, employee costs (dealing with outside auditors etc.), and take a good bit of time to comply with.

I'm not sure the relaxation of 404(b) is all that big of deal. Management must still comply with internal control filings etc with the SEC, it's just that the outside auditors don't have issue a report on it. The outside auditors will still have to thoroughly study the internal controls etc,. this is a standard part of any audit etc.

Note that companies covered under this new relaxed rule must still submit audited financial statements. So, no we don't have to take companies' word on anything.

There are quite a few different provisions in this Jobs Act. Most are designed to help allow growing companies raise more capital a little faster and at a reduced expense. The older limits on capital were set a long time ago and needed to be recalibrated. E.g., a Reg A offering has been raised from $5M to $50M. Frankly, $5M won't do much these days, and given the expense and time required it was hardly worth it.

IMO, the older limits were too narrowly spaced and had become too expensive and time consuming. E.g., the 1st limit was $100K, the next $1M, then $5M and so on. The 1st $100K was not that bad, however, you need to plan to use that 1st $100K to pay for the the next level of $1M. And the legal and compliance fees to be able to get to the $1M cost considerably more than $100K, so you must persuade a law etc firm to extend you credit. Then as the $1M starts coming in the lawyers nab pretty much all of it until your bill is paid in full. It took us about a year to complete the requirements to be able to go after only $1M.

This creates a vicious cycle where all management's time, and all money raised goes into the process of meeting eligibility requirements for the next level of fund raising. It a treadmill where you're mostly raising money to feed professionals. What you should be doing is developing your product/patent/process, test marketing and creating a biz plan etc.

I don't see what type of "fraud" the new relaxed rules might enable. As we can see from the Madow incident, fraudsters are just going to lie on their SEC reports etc.

If there is a problem with fraud etc it has to do with easing requirements on brokers etc so they can 'market' the company/stock. What those relaxed rules have to do with the other stuff, or why we need it or why it's a good idea I just don't see. For more on that read the below link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2012/03/21/jobs-act/

Hope that helps.

Fern

 

[Nemesis 1]

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.

Lol Really you forgot the 2 million baby boomers who retired in the mean time . So instead of 1, million new jobs We had 1,000,000 replacement workers while losing another million real jobs . You can't add in new jobs without subtracting retirees. As for me I see no differance were I live . As I live in a good place

 

[lotus503]

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.

Yet you have no discernible way to quantify this. How is it going to get better what is Romney going to do?

You appear to apply a faith based metric to the discussion, absent of fact you have faith on the outcome.

We certainly know there is no fact based logic to your contention that Romney will fix everything.

 

[Todd33]

Pretty obvious, that we are worse off today.

-John

Speak for yourself.

 

[a777pilot]

Yet you have no discernible way to quantify this. How is it going to get better what is Romney going to do?

You appear to apply a faith based metric to the discussion, absent of fact you have faith on the outcome.

We certainly know there is no fact based logic to your contention that Romney will fix everything.

ROFLMAO!

You mean like.....Hope and Change?

With a Republican controlled 113th Congress I would expect Romney to lower taxes, encourage companies and individuals to bring their money back to the USA, greatly reduce regulations, encourage the exploration of oil and gas, and start to build nuclear power plants. Then to end all this profligate spending.

I could be totally disappointed but this nation can not survive with four more years of obama's incompetence.

 

[lotus503]

ROFLMAO!

You mean like.....Hope and Change?

With a Republican controlled 113th Congress I would expect Romney to lower taxes, encourage companies and individuals to bring their money back to the USA, greatly reduce regulations, encourage the exploration of oil and gas, and start to build nuclear power plants. Then to end all this profligate spending.

I could be totally disappointed but this nation can not survive with four more years of obama's incompetence.

Thats fine as long as we are starting at the point this is what you think and want them to do. Romney certainly hasnt indicated what he plans to do.

 

[a777pilot]

Thats fine as long as we are starting at the point this is what you think and want them to do. Romney certainly hasnt indicated what he plans to do.

Yes, that is true, but neither did obama. I have my hopes for real change. I might be disappointed. The bottom line is obama has been a failure and we need a change.

 

[lotus503]

Yes, that is true, but neither did obama. I have my hopes for real change. I might be disappointed. The bottom line is obama has been a failure and we need a change.

Yeah I didnt buy the hope and change bullshit either, for the simple fact that the entire system is corrupt and as such, no change no hope.

a romney presidency will be more of the same, until we can stand together and get money out of the political system who you vote for has very little impact on the direction fo the country as the direction is always going to be to the benefit of lobby and the folks who fund the election cycle.

While I disagree with conservatives on idealogical principles, I think those principles dont matter at all until we have a system that can represent those values.

 

[emperus]

I think this may be a good question for the Democrats. It allows Obama to talk about what he inherited and talk about what he has done. And I think noone can honestly argue, they would rather be economically where we were when Obama took office then where we are now.

Yes, things aren't amazing. But yes they are better.

 

[a777pilot]

I think this may be a good question for the Democrats. It allows Obama to talk about what he inherited and talk about what he has done. And I think noone can honestly argue, they would rather be economically where we were when Obama took office then where we are now.

Yes, things aren't amazing. But yes they are better.

When are the Democrats going to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming Bush?

We are not, repeat, NOT better now than when obama took office.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, the Dems really need to orchestrate a better response to this than either yes or no. Preface any answer with something like "an out of control bus doesn't stop the moment you hit the brakes."

That's a great analogy.

 

[woodie1]

There has been no improvement in my situation. Everything has pretty much remained static. Guess that is better than going backwards but I see some looming tax increases coming with the new health care law and that isn't an improvement.

 

[soundforbjt]

When are the Democrats going to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming Bush?

Didn't repugs blame Clinton for about 8 or more years? Some still blame him. So, I guess around 8 years would be about right.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, that is true, but neither did obama. I have my hopes for real change. I might be disappointed. The bottom line is obama has been a failure and we need a change.

Yeh, let's go back to the same policies that created this mess, the Repub policies of GWB. That'll fix everything!

There's not a dime's worth of difference between R&R economic policy & GWB policy. Anybody with more than a few grey cells to rub together realizes that.

 

[a777pilot]

Yeh, let's go back to the same policies that created this mess, the Repub policies of GWB. That'll fix everything!

There's not a dime's worth of difference between R&R economic policy & GWB policy. Anybody with more than a few grey cells to rub together realizes that.

But the great fiancial meltdown didn't start till the Democrats took control of the Congress.

 

[Jhhnn]

When are the Democrats going to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming Bush?

We are not, repeat, NOT better now than when obama took office.

Looting sprees can be accomplished rather quickly. Rebuilding takes time.

Any questions?

Four years ago, we were on our way down. Today, we're on our way up, and we'd be further up if Repubs' weren't nailing our feet to the floor.

Rich people love debt deflation spirals of balance sheet depressions, because every dollar they collect from debtors is worth more than the last one, and their money gains value stuffed into their mattresses at no risk.

Don't worry, though, because uncle Mitt is here to drive you home in ways you never imagined. Oh baby! Oh, Squirt!

 

[Jhhnn]

But the great fiancial meltdown didn't start till the Democrats took control of the Congress.

Your obfuscations are tedious, and lame in the extreme. Crashes don't happen from honest economic fundamentals. They can't.

The Bush era wasn't founded on such principles, but rather flimflams & looting-

Your trolling is pathetic.

 

[Vic Vega]

Are we better off? Depends on who you ask. The Democrats on this very forum tell us the world is ending almost daily - and they want to give this guy another 4 years?

I am not opposed per se to a Democrat President but surely they have someone else or is Obama the BEST option they have? Sad.

 

[blackangst1]

Your obfuscations are tedious, and lame in the extreme. Crashes don't happen from honest economic fundamentals. They can't.

The Bush era wasn't founded on such principles, but rather flimflams & looting-

Your trolling is pathetic.

Almost as your pathetic defense of Democrats.

 

[Jhhnn]

Almost as your pathetic defense of Democrats.

Thank you for yet another bitter zero content post.

 

[chucky2]

The charts are odd...you're posting about Bush, but the takeoffs happened before Bush during Clinton, continued under Bush w/ Rep Congress, still under Bush with Dem Congress, then started the plunge with Bush and Dem Congress.

WTF are you going on about "Bush" in the singular for? It looks like every party at every level screwed the pooch, along with the US Public. Congrats, Everyone is responsible. What again is your message in light of all that?