Is the USA Better Off Today Than We Were Two Years Ago?

[Jill]

Are Americans better off today than they were two years ago? Numbers don't lie, and these numbers help to illustrate the impact on our Nation's people:

Just take this last item: In the last two years, the USA has accumulated debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH! Hopefully, that comparison helps to bring the point home.

Sources:(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

 

[little lady]

Thanks Jill for posting this info, very interesting, and something most of have been feeling, but now to get a translator to translate this into a language our heads of state can understand.

 

[ohmt]

Sorry this is from last year-from one of my political classes that I was forced to take.

 

[Jill]

Thanks Jill for posting this info, very interesting, and something most of have been feeling, but now to get a translator to translate this into a language our heads of state can understand.

I thought it was interesting, too.

Sorry this is from last year-from one of my political classes that I was forced to take.

The table I posted is very timely and is not from last year. It also reflects more items than your older table.

 

[little lady]

If I am not mistaken, the table Jill posted was not just in regards to national debt but the overall climate of various categories. I don't see where it was picking on any president and or party lines.

 

[Katiean]

All I know is two tears ago the gas cost around $2.50 a gallon. Today we are paying just over $4.00 a gallon. I do blame this on the current administration. At least when gas was going beyond reason when JWB was president, he did something about it. All Obama does is go to another party, play golf or color in his coloring books (in other words does nothing).

 

[love_casper]

It appears we have established that we are in a recession. So here, you fix the budget!

You fix the budget

The puzzle does not have a political bias. It proves that if America applied all the democratic tax raises, we'd still have a huge deficit. If we applied all the republican spending cuts, we'd still have a huge deficit. I don't usually talk about politics, but I do find this little app quite entertaining.

 

[Jill]

So what is the point? A way to slam our president that the majority of U.S. citizens voted on?

Sometimes it helps to look at the bigger picture. here is a few examples just by researching the facts

I think the point is clear, if you look at the chart I shared. To be honest, I rephrased the material I initially found to remove a party bias. Do you dispute one of the figures I shared?

The second chart you posted, if it were at all recent and reflected the current president's time in office, it would take a much taller piece of paper to print. When it comes to looking at the bigger picture, I think it's crucial to consider the developments from past couple of years when you gather information.

However, since you mentioned it, it's not a secret that I never fell for the Hopey / Changey sugar coated spin on socialism. I know the reality has not unfolded to be what many had in mind when Obama got 52% of the popular vote. The spectator in chief's approval ratings back up that perspective.

 

[ohmt]

I know yours was more recent, but I was just trying to give some numbers for previous years as well. It's nice being able to look at a bigger picture.

Wanted to add that what some of these charts/graphs don't show is the spending that was started under Bush ( Bailouts 2 wars and tax cuts) that were continued under Obama. I don't agree with a lot of what Obama has done so far, BUT what he was given to work with was ridiculous and Bush should thank him for having to take the fall for a lot of his screw ups.

 

[Jill]

Bush should thank him for having to take the fall for a lot of his screw ups.

I totally disagree but wanted to share why reading this made me smile

What popped into my mind was that even if Bush did want to thank Obama, he probably couldn't get a word in edgewise because Obama's been too busy blaming him for everything

 

[ohmt]

Ahhh and I knew that was coming as I typed it out-same old liberal vs conservative debate

 

[Shari]

The Gov fudges the unemployment rate numbers so it seems better than it is. How they do it,, Unemployment in this County in Oregon is 19.3%... if we played with the real numbers it is close to 30%. And these are people that want to find jobs.

Just going by, what is going on it this area, things are not getting better. Add that,, the price of everything going up, people are hard pressed to put food on the table.

The last paper mill in this area just shut down because it can't compete with paper made in China. So there goes a large number of jobs. Making the economy in this part of the US, worse.

And the number of foreclosers in this area is staggering. And it is not people that over bought. These are small basic houses in this area, ranging from 900sq ft to 1400sq ft on average.

As far as Gov is.. there is no Pres, no congress. Dem/Rep...are the same thing. Greedy high paid rich people that shouldn't be in office. There is just big business and lobbyist's calling the shots. Congressmen are filling their pockets with under the table deals so the big business gets what it wants.

 

[ohmt]

Shari, they don't fudge with the unemployment rates and I don't really get how they could. There are states with lower unemployment rates that offset those with the higher. Here in North Dakota it is about 3.7% and most of the other midwest states have the lowest rates. Not all counties/states have really high unemployment rates.

Here is a good website for you:

Unemployment rates

 

[Carriage]

Liberty,... Anyone?

Bb

 

[Carriage]

"Shari, they don't fudge with the unemployment rates and I don't really get how they

could."

The reporting system is set up in such a way as to not include those that have used up their unemployment and or are otherwise out of the system. The numbers are and have been considerably higher than reported for quite some time.

I'm just certain "free trade" has had no hand in this.....

Well said Miss Shari,

Bb

 

[Shari]

Shari, they don't fudge with the unemployment rates and I don't really get how they could. There are states with lower unemployment rates that offset those with the higher. Here in North Dakota it is about 3.7% and most of the other midwest states have the lowest rates. Not all counties/states have really high unemployment rates.

Here is a good website for you:

Unemployment rates

They do fudge the numbers...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx

I had a good web site posted on my FB page, Charts and everything for those that do not think the Gov has Spin Doctors to make things look better than they are. When I find it, will post it.

Thanks Bob.

 

[ohmt]

Well yes, they have to set a definition for unemployed so depending on what you're counting is going to depend on the numbers you get which is why you can find a bunch of different numbers depending on where you're looking. A job is a job so I agree that a part time job but looking for full time should not be counted and if a person isn't looking then they shouldn't be counted either. It's still not fudging with unemployment rates. Their methods are in my economics and political books that I had to buy for my various college classes the past few years; the government isn't trying to pull a fast one.

 

[Shari]

Well yes, they have to set a definition for unemployed so depending on what you're counting is going to depend on the numbers you get which is why you can find a bunch of different numbers depending on where you're looking. A job is a job so I agree that a part time job but looking for full time should not be counted and if a person isn't looking then they shouldn't be counted either. It's still not fudging with unemployment rates. Their methods are in my economics and political books that I had to buy for my various college classes the past few years; the government isn't trying to pull a fast one.

They should be counted if their unemployment runs out and they are still looking,

They should be counted if they had to take an part time job but still looking for a full time job

They should be counted if they were forced to take a min wage job and still looking for a fair paid job ( IE like Intel trying to hire an Engineer with a master's degree normally with a 5 or 6 figure pay, and has to take a contract min wage job.)

They should be counted if they decide to go back to college but still looking for good work...

The Gov does fudge the unemployment rates.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[ohmt]

That's not fudging, that's called not counting what you believe should be counted. Criterias have to be set, they can't do personal interviews with everyone.

 

[Shari]

Either count all or not at all. Other wise it is spin doctoring/fudging or what ever. Not Honest.

Again, we can agree to disagree.