Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. standard of living declines under Bush

Sarek

Vuhlkansu Wihs
Almost two-thirds of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Almost half say that no matter how hard they work, they cannot get ahead.

"For most Americans, the traditional American Dream is a pipe dream." — Richard Oden, who lost his job at age 54

Except for the very wealthy, Americans in all income categories have experienced a decline in their living standard since 2000. The normally upbeat PARADE magazine, which comes as a weekly supplement in many newspapers across the country, commissioned a survey of what Americans though of their lives. The results, as many of us might guess, were not optimistic. Here are some of the findings:

56% think things will be worse for their own children or for future generations.
Nearly 57% say they believe that the middle class in America is decreasing.
51% of employed members of the middle class have experienced either increased health-care costs or a cut in health benefits, and 39% have experienced cuts in overtime, raises or bonuses.
66% say they tend to live from paycheck to paycheck.
47% say that no matter how hard they work, they cannot get ahead.
Nearly 83% say that there is not much money left to save after they have paid their bills. ("Is the American Dream Still Possible?" by David Wallechinsky)

The article also cites evidence of how much the American standard of living has declined since the Republicans took charge of both the White House and Congress:

The real median household income declined 3% from 2000 to 2004.
The percentage of households earning $25,000 to $99,999 (roughly middle-income range) shrank 1.5% from 2000 to 2004.
Last year, real average weekly earnings actually fell 0.4%.
The savings rate for Americans is the lowest it has been in 73 years.
Credit-card debt is at an all-time high, averaging $9,312 per household.
The average cost per year of a public college (in state) is $12,127, a 25% increase since 2001. ("Is the American Dream Still Possible?" by David Wallechinsky)

Interestingly, what is not mentioned in the article are the runaway health care costs that have grown unchecked since 2000. For example:

Workers are now paying $1,094 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 2000.
Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 73 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 14 percent and cumulative wage growth of 15 percent during the same period.
Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising five times faster on average than workers' earnings since 2000 (Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, from National Coalition on Health Care).
The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 143 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period (Hewitt Associates LLC, from National Coalition on Health Care).
50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem (Himmelstein, D; E. Warren; D. Thorne; and S. Woolhander; from National Coalition on Health Care).
Many Americans think that this country has the highest standard of living in the world. If standard of living is measured as the per capita share of the gross domestic product (GDP), the U.S. ranks at best 7th behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland ("Big and Bad," Sierra, May/June 2006). Remember when the Irish used to come to the U.S. for a better way of life?

Perhaps Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht (MN 1) said it best when quoted in a recent Wall Street Journal article: "Why is there still economic angst in the United States? The answer is the average working American hasn't had a real pay raise."

Amen.


Bingo.

Thanks George, for giving the average American working man a memorable 6+ years worth of ass fuckings.
 
Best thing to do is not run up a ton of credit card bills. Save your money, don't rely on the government to be there when you retire. I get my Social Security statement every so often, showing how much the government will "give" me when I'm old. No one can live on that, and anyone who tries didn't pay attention to their grandparents who learned to scrimp and save through the Great Depression. Self-sufficiency, learn it.

-Ogami
 
Yes, instead of considering ways to reshape a society where the natural urge is to screw someone else before you get screwed, just keep screwing, and feel pride in the gains you make at the expense of others. Don't try to make things better, just get yours quick and the one who dies with the most stuff wins.

There's a reason we have thumbs and less hair than apes. It's so that we can learn to live better than animals. "Dog eat dog" means it's OK for dogs, not for civilized men.
 
Sorry - those stats don't apply to me. I lost my job to NAFTA under Clinton. I worked 70+ hours every week for more than a decade at that job - one day it just went to Mexico. Nice. But, it worked out. Under Bush I got a new job. Work only 40 hours and still make more money, closer to home, better health insurance, paid sick days, more vacation time.

If you've got a better idea on how to raise the standard of living for everyone, let's here it.
 
Well, I got laid off and was broke during Daddy Bush's administration, finally found a good fulltime job in mid-93, and flourished there and doubled my salary over the next decade...and this year I find myself struggling again after the company spent the last 5 years downsizing to death in Li'l Bush's idea of a "global economy".

The math works for me.
 
To listen to the ideas of people whose names don't end in "ush" for the next few Election Days.

I'm not a politician, I'm not an economist. I'm a dissatisfied customer.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
To listen to the ideas of people whose names don't end in "ush" for the next few Election Days.

I'm not a politician, I'm not an economist. I'm a dissatisfied customer.
How will you know a good idea when you hear it then?
 
What are you getting at? Do you have the solution? Neither do I. We're not supposed to. The people who run for and take office are. We're supposed to elect the people whose outlook or vision represents ours, or at least is one we can stand behind.

Don't ask me for the answer. Ask the people running in your town, district, and state. Then ask yourself if it makes sense and is something you can believe in.
 
Ogami said:
Best thing to do is not run up a ton of credit card bills. Save your money, don't rely on the government to be there when you retire. I get my Social Security statement every so often, showing how much the government will "give" me when I'm old. No one can live on that, and anyone who tries didn't pay attention to their grandparents who learned to scrimp and save through the Great Depression. Self-sufficiency, learn it.

-Ogami

That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard yet. Even if you did "scrimp and save" as you put it, it's gotten to the point in this country where the cost of living has risen far faster than wages of the average American. So people are forced to use credit and depleat savings as a stop gap to try and stay even.

And before you spout any more shit, both my parents have been forced back to work because of it. My father was a cop and has been retired for 15 years. But they cut his retirement benefits and slapped him with an increase in his health care premium. 72 years old, he planned for retirement, he "saved and scrimped" as you put it. But when Bush's government started cutting funding to state and federal programs, the trickle down effect hit all the way down to the county and city levels. They divert money to cover other programs that took a hit. And who do they screw? The retired, health care, local social service programs, public transportation, schools, public facilities and so on.

The oil companies are a fine example of the greed that big business in this country is guilty of. 46 billion dollars in profit doesn't mean the cost of buying and refining oil has increased, it means some fatcats found a way to pad their retirement accounts and buy luxery yachts on the consumers dime.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
What are you getting at? Do you have the solution? Neither do I. We're not supposed to. The people who run for and take office are. We're supposed to elect the people whose outlook or vision represents ours, or at least is one we can stand behind.

Don't ask me for the answer. Ask the people running in your town, district, and state. Then ask yourself if it makes sense and is something you can believe in.

That is a better answer than:

To listen to the ideas of people whose names don't end in "ush" for the next few Election Days.

Just because a politician isn't named Bush doesn't mean they have the solution to the problems we have.
.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
Yeah, because that's exactly what I've believed my entire adult life.

WTF?

According to you, you were flourishing up until 2003 at least - which was during the Bush administration and 2 years after 9/11, an event that caused immediate economic hardship for many people throughout the country. The company you work for is downsizing. Why is that the fault of the "Bush global economy" and not the business practices of the company you work for?
 
And coincidently, Bush announced the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003. And history has shown, the hardest economic time are usually those times when a country goes to war….

I better call Bush, seems I have a better knack for cause and effect than his whole fucked up administration.
 
eloisel said:
According to you, you were flourishing up until 2003 at least - which was during the Bush administration and 2 years after 9/11, an event that caused immediate economic hardship for many people throughout the country. The company you work for is downsizing. Why is that the fault of the "Bush global economy" and not the business practices of the company you work for?
I was flourishing until 2000, when our biggest client decided to acquire another major corporation and had a spending freeze for 6 months on vendors in my field. "Over the next decade" was a relative term, I hadn't had a raise since Jan. 2001. Our downsizing was surprisingly not tied to 9/11 at all.

It is tied, however, to the easy shipping of service jobs overseas by large corporations, one of the many trendy aspects of the current economic environment, and the "hands-off" economic philosophies of both Bush administrations. Letting corporations regulate themselves is like letting convicted sex offenders go free on an honor system.

Bush Sr. didn't bring the Berlin Wall down. And Bush II was ready to invafe Iraq before 9/11 ever happened, and the reasons had less to do with terrorism or WMDs as it did with oil and an old family grudge.

Get oil barons (and their asskissers) out of politics and you'll see changes that you never imagined.
 
Well, here's a quick'n'dirty analysis and a solution:

Economy that wasn't "global" was okay. "Global" economy hurts Americans. Solution: Bring American jobs, and American money, back to America. And ditch the 12-20 million Mexicans illegally leeching income and benefits. Get our military deployments out of Iraq, they're not accomplishing shit there anymore.

Our government gives one country billions, lets another steal billions and gets us all trillions into debt to prosecute a military campaign that no longer yields tangible results -- wonder why we're all starting to feel the pinch?
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
It is tied, however, to the easy shipping of service jobs overseas by large corporations, one of the many trendy aspects of the current economic environment, and the "hands-off" economic philosophies of both Bush administrations. Letting corporations regulate themselves is like letting convicted sex offenders go free on an honor system.
I agree about the sending jobs overseas, only that isn't just a Bush or Republican policy. Clinton was big on that - hence my job going to Mexico in 1998. The Democrats have the same problem with selling our industry to foreign interests. Other countries have policies that they come first and I think we ought to adopt the same attitude. The current big consolation is that call centers have discovered they aren't saving any money by sending the work overseas so are bringining the work back to America. Big deal. Call center wages aren't the best. The biggest trend in the country now is "Economic Development." While it is something I work in and for the most part agree with, I find it disturbing that corporations are allowed to play this game. This is how the game goes. City X has an Economic Development Policy to give incentives to employers to bring their industry to City X. Usually, the incentives are a package of tax abatements and fee waivers. The industry is not actually given any money but taxes and fees waived for a period of time. As consideration for these incentives, the business is supposed to increase the tax base for that City with improvements to a property, and create a certain number of jobs in specific types of industry with a specific salary range. That is the part I agree with. However, businesses are playing cities against one another to get incentives that are ever increasingly bordering on the unfair. I understand negotiating to get the best possible deal but the current practice is cut throat. Sometimes I'd like to tell my leaders that when a company reaches a certain level of cut throat negotiating, we tell them to take a hike. There are other businesses out there that would be interested in a reasonable incentives package and be glad to get it. I'd also like to see smaller businesses get incentives too. It takes all kinds of employers to employ all kinds of people that make a city prosperous.

Bush Sr. didn't bring the Berlin Wall down. And Bush II was ready to invafe Iraq before 9/11 ever happened, and the reasons had less to do with terrorism or WMDs as it did with oil and an old family grudge.
I think that is one of those catch phrases, much like "Bush lied, people died." Iraq was a threat. I don't necessarily agree it was a direct threat to us, but it definitely was a threat to the Saudis. Iran is more of a threat to the Saudis than to us as well. Personally, I had hoped fuel cell technology and other alternative fuels would be further advanced at this point so we could tell the Saudis to eat their oil. Then, the middle east would have to learn to get along with each other or they'd kill each other off and not involve the rest of the world in their crap. The good news on that front is several ethanol stations have opened up within a 100 mile radius of where I live. It has to start somewhere and the market has to be developed with infrastructure and clientele. Hopefully, in my lifetime, oil will be of the vegetable variety.

Get oil barons (and their asskissers) out of politics and you'll see changes that you never imagined.
Agreed, and not just in America.
 
The Question said:
Well, here's a quick'n'dirty analysis and a solution:

Economy that wasn't "global" was okay. "Global" economy hurts Americans. Solution: Bring American jobs, and American money, back to America. And ditch the 12-20 million Mexicans illegally leeching income and benefits. Get our military deployments out of Iraq, they're not accomplishing shit there anymore.

Our government gives one country billions, lets another steal billions and gets us all trillions into debt to prosecute a military campaign that no longer yields tangible results -- wonder why we're all starting to feel the pinch?
Global economy isn't a bad thing. Unfairness is. Business is good when it is good for all parties involved, not one sided. An example of that would be our import/export policies where we allow some country to import more to us than we are allowed to export to them. An exchange of goods is a good thing. It is the unbalance in the exchange that is the problem.

I don't think we should leave Iraq until Iraq's military and police force can maintain order in that country. If we do leave too soon, I think we will put ourselves in a position where we will have to do something about Iran and probably Syria as well. We should demand that the UN do more to resolve the nuclear issues instead of allowing the collective UN members to sit around threatening wrist slaps until we have to protect ours and their interests with military action. I'd like to know what country is best served by allowing terrorism to flourish. It isn't just a problem in the US or in the UK so why is it left to us to tackle that problem? Of course, we could just sit back and when crap happens, do like they do and say "you deserved it."
 
Top