kallend 2,027 #1 October 3, 2004 According to the US Census Bureau: Median Household Income 2000 $44,853 2003 $43,318 Change Under Bush -$1,535 (-3.4%) Persons in Poverty 2000 31,581,000 2003 35,861,000 Change Under Bush +4,280,000 (+13.6%) According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has been a net LOSS of payroll jobs under Bush of over 911,000... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #2 October 3, 2004 it doesnt really affect me as i do not live in the states. However, the WHOLE world would be better off without Senor Bush. sorry if i hijacked anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #3 October 3, 2004 Than what? If Gore had been elected, damn straight! How many jobs did the tech bubble burst cost? Incomes? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #4 October 3, 2004 I dare to say all that stuff had a lot to do with Sept. 11, 2001. Economy kinda took a shit then as I recall. At least in the airline industry and my 401K. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #5 October 3, 2004 I forgot this was a question. Yes, I am better off now. About 20 grand a year more than I made then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #6 October 3, 2004 I am. financially at least, but then i work in the defense industry, so while my paycheck has gone up my quality of life has gone down.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 October 3, 2004 I'm much better off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #8 October 3, 2004 QuoteI am. financially at least, but then i work in the defense industry, so while my paycheck has gone up my quality of life has gone down..... I always get a good laugh at liberals who work in the defense industry . . . shouldn't you be out selling flowers or something? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #9 October 3, 2004 In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 5.5%. In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the inflation rate was 2.6%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 1.9%. In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the 30 year mortgage rate was 7.81%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 5.86%. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #10 October 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am. financially at least, but then i work in the defense industry, so while my paycheck has gone up my quality of life has gone down..... I always get a good laugh at liberals who work in the defense industry . . . shouldn't you be out selling flowers or something? to bad i'm not a liberal... shouldnt you have your head in the sand? i care about our nations defense a great deal, my family has a military history that goes back more than 150 years. Our current administration has its head up its 4th point of contact in the way it is conducting this conflict. The purpose of a strong military, of studying and perfecting the ways and means of warfare, is NOT to have to fight. When war IS required, those who KNOW what they are doing should conduct it not civilian officials with personal agendas.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 October 3, 2004 Quote I always get a good laugh at liberals who work in the defense industry . . . shouldn't you be out selling flowers or something? Pretty ignorant comment.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 October 3, 2004 Quote In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 5.5%. A meaningless comparison. Why? "Employment" is counted differently now in some states. For instance, at this time in California, you're only counted as "unemployed" for one year. Quote In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the 30 year mortgage rate was 7.81%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 5.86%. Uh huh . . . Looking only a few months into the FutureCam™(1), regardless of who wins in November, in January, nobody in the housing market is going to win. This country is mortgaged to the hilt and if you thought the internet bubble bursting was fun . . . watch this. (1) The FutureCam™ is a tachyon imaging device. Since tachyons can only travel faster than the speed of light, they travel backward through what we perceive as time and therefore reveal the future not as we wish it to be, but rather the way it will be unless some action can be taken to change the timeline of history.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #13 October 3, 2004 Quoteif you thought the internet bubble bursting was fun . . . watch this. Well, while I agree with you to an extent, I really don't think it will be as bad as you seem to think. I actually think it will be a slow fizzle, especially if Kerry gets in. People will be terrified that the interest rates will go up, and will be jumping into the buying market. Sellers will be asking enormous rates, and getting them...and then, once the interest rate goes above 7% (which probably won't happen 'til earliest mid year, more likely about a year from now), the buyers will vanish. This will stop the market dead in it's tracks. But as for it popping/rupturing, I think more likely we will start to see a higher level of HUD repos and foreclosures overall in about 18 months to 36 months. This will be good for investors and won't bother those who plan on living in the house for the next 10 years. Just my thoughts, and really only applies to the local Southern California market, which is the only one I know intimately. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 October 3, 2004 Ahhh, but there's more to it than just the commission you're going to make Michele. Quote Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust, has noted that U.S. banks are heavily exposed to the housing market, with about 60 percent of their assets tied up in home financing of one sort or another, the highest since World War II. "If the U.S. housing market goes bust, the U.S. banking system is likely to fall on very hard times as the value of all that housing collateral drops," he wrote in a recent note. "History suggests that as goes a nation's banking system, so goes its economy." http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/housing_bubble/quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #15 October 3, 2004 Quote Ahhh, but there's more to it than just the commission you're going to make Michele. I didn't say anything about my earnings, did I? If you are meaning it in a national sense, consider that there are places that the "boom" never got to. These communities can't give homes away. The banking info you gave, while accurate, does not necessarily reflect all areas of the US... If one keeps an eye on the HAI (Home Affordability Index), you can see that while we here in the Southland do indeed have a larger chunk of the mortgages, it is because of the cost of homes, and our affordability rating is still at about 28%. In the late 80's/early 90's, when the last "bust" occurred, the affordability index was about 22% (IIRC). We have a ways to go here locally before that happens. Interest rates affect everything... Another thing to be aware of is that banks lend w/ PMI on LTVs <80%. Further, the gov't guarantees the loans (doesn't lend, but does guarantee) for some (rather many) purchasers out there. And don't forget the vets who will be (and are) returning...they get guaranteed loans, too. 100% I believe. And then add in what the census says will be happening in the local communities for a long time to come; something along 1,000,000 people will be coming into the area per year (again, IIRC), and that's a whole lot of people who will need a place to live. That influx will support the local communities very well, if it proves true. On a national level, the NAR is not looking to worry about things until the interest rates increase again. Their confidence is high that we will either maintain current levels, or, if not maintain it, the downturn will be relatively small as a percentage of the whole...maybe 5-7% of the total sales price of a home. Should banks tighten up their approvals? Absolutely. Should they be too tight? Nope...because then it chokes the economy in a very different - and big - way. It's a tightrope, to be sure, but I still think it's a wide enough one that most can navigate without having issues. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #16 October 3, 2004 To answer your general question... Yes... My income is up over 15%, I bought a house, and my investments are up over 30%... not to mention I still have money for jumps... Edit to add... Oh yeah, and my taxes are lower, so I have more money to spend, which helps boost the economy. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #17 October 3, 2004 "Are you better off" does NOT mean "are you making more money." Or did you only have that in mind? I guess most Americans only judge the worth of their lives by the amount of money they take home. Sad really. In four years my earnings potential has gone to "adequate". The industry I chose to be in that had great earnings potential because of the long apprenticeship required to reach "the top" has been pulled apart supposedly by "market forces" (which is BS). We have a government that promised help after a terrorist attack but did not deliver to the industry that it handcuffed from acting in the beginning. We are not safer in the industry than we were before 9/11. (Don't ask me for specifics. I won't give them as that could be a security risk.) No, I am not better off. In fact, I actually fear more attacks because of this administration. I don't expect them to try to take the cockpit again. I figure they will just take us out with a big boom. But, I have a loving wife and family. My efforts now are to be a good husband and protect their future. Skydiving has taken a major backseat and I'm ok with that. I am happier now than any other time in my life. So, in that respect, yes, I am better off now than I was 4 years ago. But it has nothing to do with the President. (I assume since we are in the midst of election season that your post was inspired by it.) Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #18 October 3, 2004 Kallend is only displaying statistics which fall in line with his argument. You might scare some liberals with such facts, my friend. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #19 October 3, 2004 [tongue in cheek] Yeah, damn all those people that show us information that supports their position. Much better is to simply make a statement without any information to back it up. Damn, I know that if I just blindly listen to a fair and balanced source, I'll be all right. [/tongue in cheek] I am not better off today than I was 4 years ago. I do not feel safer from terrorist attacks. It appears as if there are more terrorists in the world and we, the US, gave them a very good and legitimate reason to be really pissed at us. It appears as if they have more access to a wider range of nasty ways to attack us. Our borders are not secure. When I fly commercially I am put through a dog and pony show of security while cargo flying on the same aircraft isn't even casually looked at. At least 90% of all shipping containers that arrive at our ports aren't looked at. If a terrorist wanted to send two shipping containers, with a nuke in each, there is a 99% chance that one would arrive uninspected. The odds are in their favor, not ours.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #20 October 3, 2004 QuoteIn 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 5.5%. In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the inflation rate was 2.6%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 1.9%. In 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected by a 220 electoral vote landslide, the 30 year mortgage rate was 7.81%. Today, under George W. Bush it is 5.86%. The % unemployment rate is a fictitious figure because many people without jobs are excluded from the count for various whimsical reasons. The number of actual payroll jobs in the country is a hard count that is very accurately known. That has decreased under Bush by over 900,000, the first decrease under any US president since Herbert Hoover. The interest rates are manipulated by the Fed and have been lowered deliberately in an attempt to energize the economy. Nothing to do with Bush. Have you taken a look at the value of the $US recently?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #21 October 3, 2004 QuoteI dare to say all that stuff had a lot to do with Sept. 11, 2001. Economy kinda took a shit then as I recall. At least in the airline industry and my 401K. 9/11 - The Universal Excuse for Bush's failures. Why was Bush predicting AFTER 9/11 that the deficit "will be small and short term"? Incompetence or Lie? Why was Bush predicting AFTER 9/11 (and as recently as February 2003) that there would be a net gain in jobs? Incompetence or Lie? Has it occurred to you that maybe $138 Billion in costs already, with set-asides for future costs bringing the total to over $207Billion, for an unnecessary war might just have something to do with it? "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, General of the Army (5-star) April 16, 1953... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #22 October 3, 2004 Quote Oh yeah, and my taxes are lower, so I have more money to spend, which helps boost the economy. J That seems to be an illogical statement. If you have more money when you pay lower taxes, than doesn't the government have less tax revenue? Either you are spending the money or the government is spending the money. There is no "surplus" of money to boost the economy. I suppose it can be argued that the government will spend the money whether or not they generate the tax revenue. This is evidenced by the enormous budget deficits that the Bush administration has created and continues to create. This irresponsible fiscal policy devalues the dollar; however, and necessitates higher taxes in the future! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #23 October 3, 2004 QuoteI suppose it can be argued that the government will spend the money whether or not they generate the tax revenue. This is evidenced by the enormous budget deficits that the Bush administration has created and continues to create. This irresponsible fiscal policy devalues the dollar; however, and necessitates higher taxes in the future! "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #24 October 3, 2004 QuoteEither you are spending the money or the government is spending the money. You are absolutely right... And I can best determine how best to spend my money. Quotethan doesn't the government have less tax revenue? Not necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed (and on the tax roles)... so the government takes less from each person, but from more people... more tax revenue. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #25 October 3, 2004 QuoteThe interest rates are manipulated by the Fed and have been lowered deliberately in an attempt to energize the economy. Short term rates, yes. Long term rates are not tied directly to acting by the FED... How exactly are the 900K jobs that you point to tied to a Bush action or policy? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
