Are You Better Off? Well Are Ya, Punk?

[Econoline]

This is from the blog Stonekettle Station, whose owner seems to be pretty touchy about people quoting too much of his writing. Still, I think the following opening lines of a recent post give enough of the flavor of the piece to make it well worth your while to click on the link and read the whole thing:

Are You Better Off? Well Are Ya, Punk?

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!
- President John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address, 20 January, 1961

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

That's the question, isn't it?

That’s the question both sides are asking.

Are you better off today than you were when President Obama took office four years ago.

Are you better off?

Depending on your political affiliation, it’s pretty obvious what the correct answer is.

If you’re a Democrat and you want President Obama to have another four years, the answer is, yes, of course I’m better off. Look, here’s a list of all the things Obama has done in the last four years. See? Totally better off.

And if you’re a Republican and you really, really hate the idea of Obama stinking up the White House for another four years, the answer is, hell no, I’m not better off. Here’s a list of all the things that suck giant donkey balls about my life right now. See? Worse off. Also, Nazis.

People don’t use that question to determine who to vote for. They already know who they’re going to vote for - and that determines how they answer the question, that determines whether or not they think they’re better off.

If they’re liberals, they’re better off. If they’re conservatives, they’re worse off. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

But, you know, it’s the question itself that bugs me.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are- ... -punk.html

[dales]

no.

[dgs49]

Well, look at this way: Four years ago, the national debt was 10T. Now it's 16T. And we have nothing to show for it.

If my personal debt had gone up by 60% in four years and I had nothing to show for it, I would be rather bothered by it, I should think.

The only thing that keeps be calm about the state of the U.S. Government is the belief that I probably won't live long enough to see it collapse. But collapse it will; it's just a question of time.

[Econoline]

Any chance I could get you to click on the link and read the whole article, rather than just the subject line of my (and Jim Wright's) post? (Hint: the above line is NOT the real question.)

[Sue U]

What better question than “Am I better off?” to summarize an intellectual and morally bankrupt worldview?

He's got a point there. (Although I think he meant to say "intellectually." [/grammarnazi])

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmm I'm not sure, Sue. You are of course correct if he was indicating an "intellectually .... bankrupt worldview" which does seem most likely.

But perhaps he's more subtle and wants to suggest that the banal question reflects the worldview of self-identified 'intellectuals'. If so, the sentence might better be expressed: "...to summarize an intellectual (and morally bankrupt) worldview"

OTOH, in the general sense all worldviews are intellectually comprehended but only some (well, all except one) are morally bankrupt. Even a dim bulb sheds light. So on balance, I would agree with your correction.

Der fuhrer

[rubato]

In January 2009 almost everyone at work was afraid they might lose their jobs in the next 6 months, everyone had forced unpaid leave that year, and the 401k match was cut in half. Retirement accounts invested in equities had lost ca 30% of value.

Today we have not had a layoff in 2 years most people feel secure in their near-futures, no furloughs, most of the 401k match has been restored. The S&P is back where it was before.

(And they've been paying for us to fly to conferences; I flew to Chicago to go to Argonne last week ).



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

What better question than “Am I better off?” to summarize an intellectual and morally bankrupt worldview?

He's got a point there. (Although I think he meant to say "intellectually." [/grammarnazi])

I don't think its 'bankrupt' just phrased to induce an emotional answer in the guise of an analytical answer. The question is asking people to 'vote' by giving their individual answers to the question and then compiling the result via the ballot box or poll. Few people when asked that question will go back and recall all of the important parameters to 'better off' then and now and answer systematically; most will just give a crude "how do I feel about it" answer.

Unthinking and dishonest people will take something like dgs's answer without considering what portion of the increase in debt was a direct result of the collapse*and what part was 'part of the cure'. dgs would complain that firemen are wasting water when they put the fire out.

Obama did not cut taxes on the rich, increase spending, and create a huge deficit during good economic times like Bush did. He inherited a fire and did something to help put it out (before the Republicans decided to block all effective methods like turning off the hydrants during a fire).

yrs,
rubato

*More people losing their jobs = more people on welfare, medicare/medicaid, foodstamps.
More people losing their jobs = more people on unemployment.
More people losing their jobs = lower sales = less economic activity = lower tax collections
House prices collapsing = reduced state and local tax base = deficits = greater need for federal support.

[rubato]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849
Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits
Economic Recovery Measures, Financial Rescues Have Only Temporary Impact

By Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney

Updated October 10, 2012

Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficit over the next ten years — according to this update of our analysis, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent ten-year budget projections (from August) and congressional action since we released the previous version of this analysis in May 2011. (For a fuller discussion, see the technical note that begins on p. 6.)

The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II. * At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficits in 2010 and 2011 were only slightly lower. If current policies remain in place, deficits will likely exceed $1 trillion in 2012 and 2013 before subsiding slightly, and never fall below $700 billion for the remainder of this decade.

The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1] The stimulus measures and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time. ... " (see link for further)
_______________________________________





You may need to see this again.


A few times.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

I think we might have more fruitful discussions here if the rube-ster and others would actually present cogent thinking rather than cutting and pasting political talking points, regurgitated from the pens of those who are paid to write them. These articles and studies presented here are garbage, with equally idiotic garbage available from the other side of the political aisle. Who gives a shit? Who takes it seriously?

The policies in question are no more "Bush43's" policies than they are any other individual's.

The disastrous decision in Washington to facilitate "home ownership" to the exclusion of all other goals was entirely BI-PARTISAN, and that single policy - along with its progeny - was the biggest reason for the collapse of the economy, which COINCIDENTALLY happened during the end of Bush's tenure. it could as easily have happened a couple years earlier or a couple years later.

And any serious observer is aware that the lack of "regulation" on Wall Street was not due to a lack of diligence on the part of Congress, but the creativity of the Financial community in devising investment vehicles that took advantage of the mountains of dubious paper that were being negotiated, as well as the willingness of rating agencies to turn a blind eye to what should have been gigantic warning signs. (For the record, the "housing bubble" is about as big now as it was then in the most populated areas of the U.S. And it's worse in D.C. than anyplace else).

As for the wars and the "temporary" tax cuts, these were indeed promoted by Bush43, but he cannot spend a single dime, or reduce taxes by a mil without Congress, and the Dem's in congress were right on board with all of it, as the public record clearly shows. Even the illusive WMD's. We had such luminaries as the Clinton's, John Kerry, even Ted Fucking Kennedy speaking on the floor of the Senate with complete confidence in the (non-partisan) "intelligence" about the WMD's.

If you really think that these pointless wars can be hung on the lapel of Bush43, then shut the fuck up: you are an idiot.