Are Americans better off today than 4 years ago?

[Hebrew Hammer]

I happen to think he did. He got us through a massive economic disruption healthy. Maybe it could have been done better, but even with hindsight that's not a clear call. He made a gutsy call on GM and Chrysler that turned out very well.

Wtf? He made a call on GM and Chrysler that most politicians would have made, and it was a call based on nothing other than politics. Taxpayers are looking at tens of billions in losses with little to show for it.

Any idea how much did taxpayers kick in, what's been paid back, what's still owed, and whether US gov't still owns stock?

[Protobuilder]

It's funny how we ask these questions. The same people who will argue that the 1950s were the best time in American history will then ask if things were better four years ago. In my history classes, I used to give four models of looking at history and teens universally would think that either this was the best time ever ("because I am here!") or EXACTLY two decades before. So, I think Americans are now whimsy for the Clinton years of prosperity and peace.

Every year, sportswriters ask if this year's champion, be it in individual or team sports, is the "best ever". When some site opens a poll, they inevitably lose to a team that played.......twenty years ago, or, in the childhood of people likely to vote in the poll.

[Turdacious]

He made a gutsy call on GM and Chrysler that turned out very well.

Personally I think that's an open question-- not about the bailout itself but how he handled it. What effects screwing over senior bondholders on the economy is a real unknown.

With health care, I'm glad we did something. It's sickening to me that so many die and suffer because of lack of insurance. Whether it's the right plan, or the best plan, I really can't figure out. But he got it done, and Presidents since Truman have tried.

At this point, all the bill has really accomplished is raising private sector insurance rates-- which reduces net income for workers directly, drives down wages, reduces the likelihood of fulltime employment, and delays hiring decisions. All of these changes primarily effect the working class. None of the cost cutting benefits of the bill have gone into effect, and it's anybody's guess whether or not they'll actually work. And whether or not more people will actually get the insurance depends on the states, 18 of which (including Texas and Florida) are unlikely to accept participating in the Medicare expansion in the short or mid term.

It could turn out to be a good thing, but at this point I think the best that anyone can say is that the bill has potential to be a good thing. If it can't reduce private sector insurance rates it fails. And IMO the president's decision on birth control coverage is exactly the kind of thing the bill was designed NOT to do-- it covers something that people already buy anyway.

[Turdacious]

Everything is great for me....but it was great under W as well. They must both be great presidents.

HH and I will both be dead before O's crushing debts come due (me from old age, him from obesity) so fuck the next generation. It'll be OK, it always is right?

[DrDonkeyLove]

He made a gutsy call on GM and Chrysler that turned out very well.

Personally I think that's an open question-- not about the bailout itself but how he handled it. What effects screwing over senior bondholders on the economy is a real unknown.

With health care, I'm glad we did something. It's sickening to me that so many die and suffer because of lack of insurance. Whether it's the right plan, or the best plan, I really can't figure out. But he got it done, and Presidents since Truman have tried.

At this point, all the bill has really accomplished is raising private sector insurance rates-- which reduces net income for workers directly, drives down wages, reduces the likelihood of fulltime employment, and delays hiring decisions. All of these changes primarily effect the working class. None of the cost cutting benefits of the bill have gone into effect, and it's anybody's guess whether or not they'll actually work. And whether or not more people will actually get the insurance depends on the states, 18 of which (including Texas and Florida) are unlikely to accept participating in the Medicare expansion in the short or mid term.

It could turn out to be a good thing, but at this point I think the best that anyone can say is that the bill has potential to be a good thing. If it can't reduce private sector insurance rates it fails. And IMO the president's decision on birth control coverage is exactly the kind of thing the bill was designed NOT to do-- it covers something that people already buy anyway.

I just got a love note from my friends at Aetna today. My health insurance is going up 10.7% to 13.7% as it has every year since 2008. That's not exactly true, I got a slight lowering of monthly rates the year they doubled my deductible and further reduced my coverage. Every penny of any salary raises I've received in the last four years has gone directly to healthcare. In this regards, Obamacare is a giant FAIL and does nothing but further dampen the jobs market while decreasing any disposable income I can contribute to the economy.

The good news is that some portion of my increase may be going towards the $10/month it takes to keep Sandra Flucke in birth control pills. Anything I can do to keep that self-righteous bitch from reproducing is money well spent.

[Holland Oates]

My health cost were going up way before Obamacare.

[Blaidd Drwg]

My health cost were going up way before Obamacare.

for shizzle....I always had pretty good coverage but mine have been going slowly steadily downward since the Clinton Admin.seriously considering running only the wife and kids and dropping me. I hate doctors anyway.

[Batboy2/75]

Personally I'm making just as much as always. I've structured my lifestyle to weather economic shit storms. The Business climate sucks. Has been this way since 2008. Almost everyone is staying pat until after the election. I've had to serious up my game to pull down business.

I have a brother and a sister in-law that are out of work. Chances are pretty good, I'm going to to have to take in my wife's sisters family (shes out if work too) for a short period of time. I personally know a lot of people that have lost their jobs and are now underemployed; working any job they can find or with severely reduced hours.

My healthcare coverage use to be pretty damn good; covering 100% of hospital visits, no deductible, and co-pays of $30.00. Those days are gone. For the last ten years, the cost of healthcare has gone up every single year by double digit percentages. Last year coverage was downgraded to 90% and this year to 80%. Plus, I now have a pretty hefty deductible. All this and I'm still paying more out of pocket every single month.

Having seen the end results of ganster socialism up close and in person in 3rd world hell holes, I prefer the slow slide into anarchy we were heading towards before our current socialist organizer in chief showed up. I will be voting for Mitt only to buy time. The dye was cast over 100 years ago when the progressives circumvented our Republic's founding principles and perverted our constitution. Everything else is polishing the brass the on the Titanic. Our only choice is how fast we are going to hit the ice burg.

It will warm my heart though, when our day of reckoning finally does come, if I'm lucking enough to read the report that HH was dragged from his house, shot in the back of the head, and hung from the nearest a lamp post along with all the other greedy scum bag lawyers and politicians.

[AF1]

Followers of the party of Reagan and Bush always bring the lulz when they complain about debt.

Exactly.

[powerlifter54]

Obama had his chance. He didn't produce.

Next guy up.

[Andy83]

Anybody saying they're better off now doesn't have a grip. Better off when you go to the gas pump, grocery store, pay property taxes, rent, electric bill, car insurance, medical insurance and any other bills for basic needs? I don't think so.

And then there are all the other taxes. And Democrats promising to raise them all higher!

[Turdacious]

I happen to think he did. He got us through a massive economic disruption healthy. Maybe it could have been done better, but even with hindsight that's not a clear call. He made a gutsy call on GM and Chrysler that turned out very well.

Wtf? He made a call on GM and Chrysler that most politicians would have made, and it was a call based on nothing other than politics. Taxpayers are looking at tens of billions in losses with little to show for it.

Any idea how much did taxpayers kick in, what's been paid back, what's still owed, and whether US gov't still owns stock?

Depends on how you look at it. If either of them go broke, the taxpayer, through the PBGC, has to pay the pension costs-- and they both got a better than normal deal because of the bailout.

[Yes I Have Balls]

Anybody saying they're better off now doesn't have a grip. Better off when you go to the gas pump, grocery store, pay property taxes, rent, electric bill, car insurance, medical insurance and any other bills for basic needs? I don't think so.

Um, you'll be dead soon. I, on the other hand, am 43 and easily 3-4 times as well off since the last Democrat was in office.

My job (which stays basically the same, only the employers change) pay for my rent, utilities and medical. I drive a hybrid, have never been in an accident and I get a per diem for food. The last real estate crash has allowed myself and my family to rake in dozens of cheap holdings in the commercial and residential market.

I also have enough airline miles to fly you to the moon and leave you there if that would finally shut you up.

[kreator]

Well 4 years ago at least it wasn't official that the military can arrest and detain me right here right now. Or that they could assassinate me anywhere, if they please. Now it's official.

And we're still hated abroad. And fat.

So no, I'm not better off. And I care about that a lot more than a few extra dollars in my pocket. That's just me.

[Pinky]

I happen to think he did. He got us through a massive economic disruption healthy. Maybe it could have been done better, but even with hindsight that's not a clear call. He made a gutsy call on GM and Chrysler that turned out very well.

Wtf? He made a call on GM and Chrysler that most politicians would have made, and it was a call based on nothing other than politics. Taxpayers are looking at tens of billions in losses with little to show for it.

Any idea how much did taxpayers kick in, what's been paid back, what's still owed, and whether US gov't still owns stock?

Depends on how you look at it. If either of them go broke, the taxpayer, through the PBGC, has to pay the pension costs-- and they both got a better than normal deal because of the bailout.

The last estimate I heard from the Treasury Department was a loss of $25 billion, mostly from GM. My guess is that their estimate is more likely to be biased downward than it is to be biased upward. The fact that GM and Chrysler relied more on the government relative to private capital than Ford suggests that anything the companies know that we don't know is not likely to be good news.

There's an argument http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/13/auto-b ... w-bailout/ that these losses basically amount to a transfer to the UAW. It's claimed that standard bankruptcy concessions, which the union was protected from, would have saved Detroit over $26 billion.

[Turdacious]

From Pinky's link:

The extra UAW subsidies cost $26.5 billion—more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Administration did not need to lose money to keep GM and Chrysler operating. The Detroit auto bailout was, in fact, a UAW bailout.

What the evil W subsidized:

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR, is America's initiative to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and is now part of the Global Health Initiative.

Since 2004 PEPFAR has committed more than $30 billion to funding for the AIDS epidemic.1 PEPFAR continues to represent the largest financial commitment by a single country to responding to HIV and AIDS worldwide.

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm

[buckethead]

The past four years have been just fine for these men of the cloth:

the average salary for a lead pastor in a megachurch in the 2010 report was $147,000

http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-r ... ors-81092/

[Blaidd Drwg]

The past four years have been just fine for these men of the cloth:

the average salary for a lead pastor in a megachurch in the 2010 report was $147,000

http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-r ... ors-81092/

[Pinky]

At this point, all the bill has really accomplished is raising private sector insurance rates-- which reduces net income for workers directly, drives down wages, reduces the likelihood of fulltime employment, and delays hiring decisions. All of these changes primarily effect the working class. None of the cost cutting benefits of the bill have gone into effect, and it's anybody's guess whether or not they'll actually work. And whether or not more people will actually get the insurance depends on the states, 18 of which (including Texas and Florida) are unlikely to accept participating in the Medicare expansion in the short or mid term.

My guess is that only the expensive parts of the bill will survive. Costs savings from Medicare have never been likely to survive, and I think people who voted for the bill knew that. That's why those parts of the bill aren't taking effect sooner.

It could turn out to be a good thing, but at this point I think the best that anyone can say is that the bill has potential to be a good thing. If it can't reduce private sector insurance rates it fails. And IMO the president's decision on birth control coverage is exactly the kind of thing the bill was designed NOT to do-- it covers something that people already buy anyway.

I agree the birth control decision was moronic. The problem is that the minimum plan allowed in the exchanges is being determined by bureaucrats will little thought as to what efficient insurance policies might look like. They're then getting together with insurance companies and coming to agreements about what sorts of plans can be offered at which prices in the exchanges. This amounts to price fixing that rules out low-cost, high-deductible insurance.

Obama's biggest failure of leadership as this bill went through Congress, might have been allowing the "Cadillac Tax", which wasn't actually a tax, to be gutted. Rolling back the tax subsidy employers receive for policies with high premiums was viewed as the next best thing to simply eliminating the employer tax subsidy, which damn near every health or labor economist will tell you needs to happen. (Obama's closest economic advisers on health care are big advocates of removing this subsidy.) The unions, however, don't like the Cadillac Tax because they tend to have expensive health care plans.

Worse still for the labor market, the bill includes a "play or pay" provision which fines employers that don't provide health benefits. This raises the per-worker cost of hiring people. Furthermore, because it's a per worker cost it shifts employers' demand toward hiring fewer employees to work longer hours. (E.g., four people working 50 hours per week becomes cheaper relative to five people working 40.)

Obama picked a bad time to expend energy on a bill that is bad for employment.

[Turdacious]

Worse still for the labor market, the bill includes a "play or pay" provision which fines employers that don't provide health benefits. This raises the per-worker cost of hiring people. Furthermore, because it's a per worker cost it shifts employers' demand toward hiring fewer employees to work longer hours. (E.g., four people working 50 hours per week becomes cheaper relative to five people working 40.)

Obama picked a bad time to expend energy on a bill that is bad for employment.

This.

As I understand it, there were loopholes written into the bill that allow employers to get around these pretty easily. And the uncertainty about the legality of these loopholes will hinder hiring further.

[seeahill]

I'm better off. Four years ago I didn't have Social Security and Medicare. (also my screenwriter's pension).

I don't know how to attribute that politically, but I'm definitely better off.

[Pinky]

Worse still for the labor market, the bill includes a "play or pay" provision which fines employers that don't provide health benefits. This raises the per-worker cost of hiring people. Furthermore, because it's a per worker cost it shifts employers' demand toward hiring fewer employees to work longer hours. (E.g., four people working 50 hours per week becomes cheaper relative to five people working 40.)

Obama picked a bad time to expend energy on a bill that is bad for employment.

This.

As I understand it, there were loopholes written into the bill that allow employers to get around these pretty easily. And the uncertainty about the legality of these loopholes will hinder hiring further.

At least some of those loopholes involve knowing members of Congress.