Thread: Change you can believe in: US 'Misery Index' Rises to Highest Since 1983

I'm miserable and exhausted, this Green Movement, tax credits for solar and high oil price thus raising our electric bills has me on 70 hour weeks, I worked 14 hours on a Saturday! And my pay has doubled in the last 3 months....

defiit hawks that decided that fiscal contraction of government stimulus was more important than jobs during recession recovery of the world's first global banking collapse have done a fine job at making things go from bad to worst.

this is what happens when you mix ideology with a hard science like economics...

Originally Posted by LAM

defiit hawks that decided that fiscal contraction of government stimulus was more important than jobs during recession recovery of the world's first global banking collapse have done a fine job at making things go from bad to worst.

this is what happens when you mix ideology with a hard science like economics...

Just Like Obama thought health care was more important than jobs during a recession recovery of the worlds first global banking collapse...

This is what happens when you mix ideology with hard science like economics...

Originally Posted by ExLe

Just Like Obama thought health care was more important than jobs during a recession recovery of the worlds first global banking collapse...

This is what happens when you mix ideology with hard science like economics...

reducing health care expenses is a major problem, those monies could be better spent else where like maybe sending a child to college or retirement, etc. in 1970 healthcare costs were 1/10 of personal consumption expenses now it's about 20%. it is increasing at the rate of about real GDP growth +1 with middle class incomes averaging about a 1% annual increase..by 2080 healthcare costs will amount to 50% of GDP...all of the income gains from 2000-2010 in the middle class were consumed by either food, energy and/or increasing healthcare costs...

nah..no problem here

and the GOP is doing what about this?

"A recent report released by the Access Project documents how low and middle income households are turning to credit cards to pay for medical care (Zeldin and Rukavina, 2007). Based on a national telephone survey of over 1,100 low and middle income households, the report shows that nearly a third (29%) of the respondents reported that medical expenses contributed to their current level of credit card debt. In households with medical debt, the average credit card debt was significantly higher (46%) than in those households without medical expenses as a contributing factor in their overall credit card debt. Although uninsured respondents had the highest levels of credit card debt, even respondents with health insurance were not completely shielded from the medical debt problem.

Rising health insurance costs could affect labor market outcomes. As mentioned before, Baicker and Chandra (2005) estimate that a 10% increase in health insurance premiums reduces the probability of being employed by 1.6%, and conditional on employment, increases the probability of part-time work by 1.9%. Johnson et al. (2003) find that insurance costs significantly reduce retirement rates for workers aged 51 to 61.

Rising health care costs mean less money for non health care consumption, other benefits, and retirement. Johnson and Penner (2004) estimate that in 2030, out-of-pocket health care costs will take up roughly one third of after-tax income for older adults, up from roughly 16% in 2000. Follette & Sheiner (2005) estimate that a 2 percentage point excess growth in per capita health care spending relative to per capita GDP will lead to decline in non-health consumption by 2040 and will leave no resources for non-health care consumption within 75 years. A recent report suggests that a 65-year-old couple retiring in 2007 will need about $215,000 to cover medical costs in retirement, up 7.5 percent from the previous year. For about 40 percent of the retirees whose primary source of income is Social Security, health expenses could eat up as much as half of their retirement benefits (Hamilton, 2007).

Goldman, Sood and Leibowitz (2005) show that employees facing an increase in the price of health insurance respond by lowering their level of insurance coverage. However, employees do not completely shift increases in expenditures away from health insurance—in fact, increases in prices lead to increases in health insurance expenditures. These increases are accommodated by reducing both take-home income and other benefits such as life insurance, disability insurance, dental insurance, and retirement benefits. For example, they estimate that a $1 increase in premiums leads to a 52-cent increase in health insurance expenditures. Approximately 2/3 of this increase is financed through reduced wages and 1/3 through other benefits. These results suggest that rising health insurance prices not only reduce resources for current consumption but also lower insurance purchases against a variety of risks.

Consumers are concerned about rising health care costs. Rising costs of health insurance create uneasiness among voters. Results from the annual health confidence survey suggest more than half of those surveyed were dissatisfied with health insurance costs. Results from an ABC/Washington Post poll found that 75% of the people would prefer to have employer-sponsored health insurance rather than a $6,700 raise (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2006)."

The Effect of Health Care Cost Growth on the U.S. Economy
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/0...report.html#34

Originally Posted by LAM

reducing health care expenses is a major problem

It's awesome that Obamacare is free.

"But oh, we've spent more on wars!" Yes, because the money we're going to spend isn't for wars, it's okay to pile on even more debt. That'll help balance the budget.

BigPimpin,

It has nothing to do with the potus.

It ain't about "change you can believe in."

These problems started decades ago and they will continue - and get worse for several years to come. Doesn't matter what administration is in power.

And also: the article claims the recession ended?

It did not.

That's just the phony definition of a recession as 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

Originally Posted by DOMS

"But oh, we've spent more on wars!" Yes, because the money we're going to spend isn't for wars, it's okay to pile on even more debt. That'll help balance the budget.

tax money spent on healthcare is money spent on "us", just like spending on infrastructure, education, etc. it is an investment in the country and makes the US stronger and better in the long run. there is good borrowing/spending and bad borrowing/spending such as supply-side tax cuts which do not create jobs (and never have) which are not only costly but they increase inequality making the economy even more unstable.

balancing the budget does nothing in terms of the economy under the current circumstances (high unemployment, 0% interest rates and weak economic growth). it does not cause real income growth or increase GDP nor does it create jobs to reduce unemployment. in high deficit country's spending only need be controlled to a rate equal to or less than real GDP growth while plans are made to reduce the deficit via budget cuts, etc. there are a number of studies on this subject. worldwide there may be 2 or 3 country's that do not run a budget deficit.

Originally Posted by LAM

tax money spent on healthcare is money spent on "us", .

If I have no money and buy a large screen LED TV, it's okay because it's "for me."

Originally Posted by DOMS

If I have no money and buy a large screen LED TV, it's okay because it's "for me."

No, but if you bought a house for your Iraqi friend you can't cry that buying a TV is what's crippling your budget.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, but if you bought a house for your Iraqi friend you can't cry that buying a TV is what's crippling your budget.

Oh, so long as you have an excuse, it's okay to spend more money you don't have.

You've made one mistake, so why not another? Or ten more? Or twenty more. You've got fucking president there, so anything goes.

That's awesome.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Oh, so long as you have an excuse, it's okay to spend more money you don't have.

You've made one mistake, so why not another? Or ten more? Or twenty more. We've got fucking president here...

That's awesome.

No, but I don't believe it's a mistake to invest in your own people. I also have the ability to see that in the future this will drive costs down because people who have to go to the hospital do, they go to the ER which costs much more, and they don't pay anyway. Forcing them to pay a tax in order to get it, while not optimal, ensures that they have skin in the game and unclogs the ERs.

Have you heard any of the GOP response to ending Iraq? They all think it's a mistake, they want to continue flushing money down the toilet that is the middle east and stop spending money on our citizens. I would rather they stop spending money on shit that's proven not to work (Iraq) and see what happens with something they have never tried and has yet to actually cost us a single penny(Obamacare). I get that Republicans think it's going to cost more, but they also think tax cuts lead to job growth. We tried their way and it drove us in to a ditch, now they are complaining that Obama isn't getting us out fast enough. While I agree that he deserves quite a bit of criticism, I don't think the GOP has that right, those assholes got us here. Look at dethroning dictators, Iraq cost us a trillion and took 10 years, Libya cost a billion and lasted 6 months and they both ended in the same result.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, but I don't believe it's a mistake to invest in your own people. I also have the ability to see that in the future this will drive costs down because people who have to go to the hospital do, they go to the ER which costs much more, and they don't pay anyway. Forcing them to pay a tax in order to get it, while not optimal, ensures that they have skin in the game and unclogs the ERs.

Have you heard any of the GOP response to ending Iraq? They all think it's a mistake, they want to continue flushing money down the toilet that is the middle east and stop spending money on our citizens. I would rather they stop spending money on shit that's proven not to work (Iraq) and see what happens with something they have never tried and has yet to actually cost us a single penny(Obamacare). I get that Republicans think it's going to cost more, but they also think tax cuts lead to job growth. We tried their way and it drove us in to a ditch, now they are complaining that Obama isn't getting us out fast enough. While I agree that he deserves quite a bit of criticism, I don't think the GOP has that right, those assholes got us here.

First off, let me be crystal clear on thing: fuck the Middle East. We shouldn't have stayed there after achieving the goal of ousting Saddam and Killing Obama. It's a waste of Western lives and money.

I also believe that taxes need to go up on every fiscal level.

That aside, I still do not believe that spending more money is the way to do. You claim that it's going to "save" money down the line. It's going to cost anywhere from 1 to 2 trillion (maybe more) dollars over the next decade. So the cost to the country was going to be more of than that? And you have proof?

Originally Posted by DOMS

First off, let me be crystal clear on thing: fuck the Middle East. We shouldn't have stayed there after achieving the goal of ousting Saddam and Killing Obama. It's a waste of Western lives and money.

I also believe that taxes need to go up on every fiscal level.

That aside, I still do not believe that spending more money is the way to do. You claim that it's going to "save" money down the line. It's going to cost anywhere from 1 to 2 trillion (maybe more) dollars over the next decade. So the cost to the country was going to be more of than that? And you have proof?

I definitely don't have proof, but that's kind of my point. Why does there need to be proof? Was there ever proof that trickle-down worked? No, but we tried it to see if it did work. Our healthcare system is in shambles, 60% of bankruptcies are from medical bills and 75% of those people have insurance. In a consumption based economy that is a huge problem. The GOP had every opportunity to do something, they didn't. Time to move on and try something new. Our primary job for the next decade is getting more money into the hands of the middle class, this will help.

As for not spending money, we will be spending a lot more money to get out of this. It doesn't matter who is in power, they are going to need to spend a ton of money to turn this shitshow around.

I guess my stance is that at this point, I'm gonna vote for the party that accomplishes a task for a billion instead of a trillion. You know the GOP would have blown through a shit ton more money trying to kill ghaddafi, if they could have accomplished it at all. Then they'd say we need to cut pensions because that is what's killing us.

When the GOP stops making us police the world and trying to legislate things that a person does in their own home they may get my vote back. I voted for Christie and I'll vote for him again. He would have lasted 2 days in the primary, once they found out he was pro-choice, pro-immigration, and couldn't give 2 shits if 2 gays wanna buttfuck each other at home he would have been toast. The GOP is stuck on crazy, when they come back to sane I'll start listening.

Originally Posted by DOMS

First off, let me be crystal clear on thing: fuck the Middle East. We shouldn't have stayed there after achieving the goal of ousting Saddam and Killing Obama. It's a waste of Western lives and money.

I also believe that taxes need to go up on every fiscal level.

That aside, I still do not believe that spending more money is the way to do. You claim that it's going to "save" money down the line. It's going to cost anywhere from 1 to 2 trillion (maybe more) dollars over the next decade. So the cost to the country was going to be more of than that? And you have proof?

Did you mean Osama?...

You should edit that before you get a knock on your door from the Feds...

Originally Posted by DOMS

If I have no money and buy a large screen LED TV, it's okay because it's "for me."

governments are not people, the same rules do not apply.

is reducing federal spending important yes, but nothing is more important than getting a whole lot of people back to work and not at poverty wages (minimum wages).

you mentioned a waste of money to be in Iraq...a "waste" for the taxpayers like you and I how are no better from their efforts. but most of the top DOD contractors pay very little in taxes according to the GAO. and their stock shares for most have tripled and then some since 2001.

"Many of the top 29 U.S. publicly traded defense contractors—those with $1 billion or more in DOD contracts in fiscal year 2008—have created offshore subsidiaries to facilitate global operations. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2008, they increased their use of these subsidiaries by 26 percent, maintaining at least 1,194 in 2008. We interviewed 13 of the 29 contractors based on a range of the amount of government work, locations of subsidiaries, and industry types; they reported that 97 percent of the subsidiaries generally supported global commercial and foreign government clients, while the remaining 3 percent supported DOD contracts performed overseas. These subsidiaries also helped the 29 contractors reduce taxes, with about one-third decreasing their effective U.S. corporate tax rates in 2008 in part through the use of foreign affiliates, lower foreign tax rates, and indefinite reinvestment of foreign income outside of the United States."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10327.pdf

the GOP/Koch Brothers/Americans for Prosperity will not allow legislation to be passed that closes offshore tax havens. the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act 2011 can not make it out of committee...again just like all the other years

i can't even buy an oz of blow with my welfare check now

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

i can't even buy an oz of blow with my welfare check now

the median income fell in 2010 down to 1999 levels...basically 2000-2010 for the middle class and below there was no gain in income, a lost decade then add in the loss of home wealth a good 50% of the US labor force is much worst off in 2011 than they were in 2000. 100% of the income gains went to the top 1% after adjusting for inflation and rising food and energy costs.

the FRB has kept interest rates at 0% mainly because of wage stagnation but they claim on the website it is to help households and businesses to finance spending. too bad the banks have jacked up the interest rates on revolving credit accounts even for those with high FICO scores to account for rising inflation.