The tooth fairy has gotten a lot more generous than when I was a child. I can remember getting a dime under my pillow for every lost tooth. Man, did I get cheated. Do you know that the average tooth fairy sprinking is now $3.00 per tooth? I am no spring chicken so perhaps the now/then is pretty stark. A lot can happen in a half century.
In more recent times, we have been asked to compare 2008 to now. The entire Republican convention tried to paint a dismal picture of our well-being. Often that question came in the form of …ASK YOURSELF, ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW, AFTER 4 YEARS OF BARACK OBAMA OR IN 2008? The Republicans would have us believe we are worse off.
Let’s compare a few basics. The GDP was at -9 in 2008. It is +2 now. In 2008 we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. We are gaining 200,000 jobs a month now. The stock market is in much better shape. The DOW is now hovering around 13,000. In 2008, the DOW had dropped 6,000 points, hovering around 8,000. It was go to even lower in early 2009.
TARP, first implemented in the fall of 2008, has almost been repaid. The auto industry has been rescued. GM lives! Most of that money has been paid back also. Our homes have been regaining value for several years. We have been pulled back from the edge of the cliff.
Did we leave off, Bin Laden is dead?
Things were grim in 2008. The crash was deep and severe. We haven’t fully recovered. Gas prices are high, unemployment is still high, especially in some areas. In North Carolina, the unemployment rate is 9.6. That’s higher than Virginia. Our economy has a long way to go. However, the arrow is pointing in the right direction. If you are a kid, you can still get dividends by putting that tooth under your pillow.
I am asking MYSELF if I think I would be better off under John McCain and (gasp) Sarah Palin. While we have no way of really knowing, I emphatically think NO.
In what ways are you better off today than you were in 2008?
I’ve been lucky. I’m the same. My salary is a bit smaller, but that’s actually by choice. But I’m one of the lucky ones, to have survived the Obama economy. I know many who are not as lucky. And it is very obvious that businesses are simply not going to take risks until Obama is gone. It’s just that simple. The economy will continue to grow with the regular business cycle, but anyone with more than $100 in their pocket will sit on it until Obama is gone, gone, gone. And when the Obama-ACA tax increases hit, things will get even worse.
However, I and the rest of the country, look forward to Democrats openly struggling with the “are you better off” question. Run and hide and distract and redirect, but in the end, Obama can’t escape his record.
One of the ways everyone is worse off is the Obama administration’s abject failure to get enacted effective regulations (even with both Houses of Congress solidly controlled by Democrats the first two years of his administration) to address the possibility of another major banking system crisis. Dodd-Frank is toothless, and concentration in the banking industry (“too big to fail”) is worse now than ever.
Nonetheless, in one of the biggest jokes of a campaign ad, former President Clinton is urging voters to reelect Obama and not return to the days of Republican deregulation. Mr. Former President, here are some facts.
President Bush attempted to get legislation passed to INCREASE regulation and oversight of the two GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In 2003, Bush proposed creation of a new agency with greater oversight powers to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress never passed any reform bills. In fact Barney Frank, (Democratic Chair of the House Financial Services Committee from 2007 to 2011) said the two GSEs were “not facing any kind of financial crisis” and no additional regulation was needed.
With President Bush’s support, Republicans proposed in 2005 the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, (Senators Chuck Hagel, Elizabeth Dole, and John McCain). This act would have strengthened oversight of loans made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The problem in both cases was that Democrats refused to give up the powers that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to engage in sub-prime lending, and essentially give home loans away to Democratic voters.
The gorilla in the financial crisis, which we have discussed on Moonhowlings before, is the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999). This act repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed integration of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was key to the severity of the recent financial crisis. While Republican fingerprints are on it too, the bill was signed by President Bill Clinton – the very same Bill Clinton claiming it would be unwise to return to the days of Republican deregulation.
How am I worse off than I was fours ago? I live in a financial system even more controlled by the big banks and Wall Street than it was four years ago, and more vulnerable to a crisis than it was in 2007. This is because of (1) the failure of the Obama administration to pursue any effective regulatory measures, (2) the deregulation of the Clinton administration, and (3) the obstruction by Democrats of Republican efforts to enact meaningful regulations and reform of the mortgage market prior to the financial crisis.
Not reading any further without a response. Dodd-frank was made toothless by Republicans. The toothlessness is due to continued compromise to get anything at all on the books.
Even though it doesnt go far enough, it is better than what we had.
How is your portfolio looking?
Who do you think people listen more to? you or Bill Clinton?
I think we have just been sprinkled with Republican BS dust.
In what ways am I better off today than I was in 2008? Hmmmm…..
Well, personally, I have a lot more free time. I pay less income tax.
On a political level, more common sense gun laws have taken effect, bringing more freedom to millions. The common sense fiscal conservatives have increased their power, or at least, their influence. The failure of the entitlement state has been revealed, bolstering the argument for common sense fiscal policy. So we have that going for us!
Hopefully, you are investing the free time wisely. many people don’t often get that opportunity. It sounds like you are from what you have told us.
Not so sure the gun laws are positive but at least you are being positive.
What do you mean by enntitlement state? I have gotten so I question every time I see the word ‘entitlemnet.’ It has become one of those words that can go either way for me.
@Need to Know
No, you’re better off because Congress has enacted 10’s of thousands of mind numbingly complex rules that will supervise the financial services by placing the same people who caused the meltdown in charge of “fixing” it. All these easily read regulations will create thousands of jobs for lawyers, creating millions of dollars in wealth for law firms.
You’re better off because now you can purchase a home for a fraction of the actual value at any number of foreclosures. You’re better off because your property taxes probably went down with the value of your home. You’re better off because everyone knows that printing a trillion dollars to buy our debt is so much better than borrowing from another country. All that “quantitative easing” artificially bolsters the stock market, making your investments worth so much more……kind of like the recent housing market. And look how well that turned out! Of course, Soros, Buffett, and others are dropping all municipal bonds and reducing their stock holdings, but…what do they know?
OK, hold on, wait for it, much better off but with a caveat. My income is directly tied to business interaction with the Federal Government. As the present administration has so completely effed up most cabinet level agencies and the various Secretaries have embarked on several courses of destruction, I have more damn work than I know what to do with and charge accordingly. There is profit in disaster.
@Moon-howler
But nothing he said was untrue.
And Dodd-Frank is toothless because the same people that wrote it caused the problem in the first place. It was a CYA bill that empowers bureaucracy, takes the heat off of Congress, and is another of those multi-thousand page bills that enact laws that are not written because it empowered bureaucrats to write the laws as they see fit. It’s another “fix” by Congress to a problem caused by Congress.
Bullcrap. Right. The Democrats caused the financial crash. How do you sleep at night?
@Moon-howler
The entitlement state.
One in which transfer payments take up a major portion of the budget, therefore increasing spending without an increase in GDP.
grrrrrrrrr
@Moon-howler
Cargo makes a good point. We have an abundance of new regulations for financial services, many of which are useless, raise costs for consumers, and do nothing to decrease the chances of a future crisis.
How can you argue that Dodd-Frank was made toothless by Republicans? For the first two years of his Administration Obama had Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. He could have addressed financial reform with no support from Republicans at all. I would think that in light of the crisis we faced and his own often repeated criticism of the problems he inherited from President Bush, that Obama’s first order of business would have been to deal with the financial system to prevent further deterioration or another collapse.
But no, the President chose to put all of his effort into Obamacare, which a majority of Americans still oppose and want repealed:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2012/most_favor_health_care_repeal_expect_law_to_increase_costs
Moreover, health care reform was not nearly as critical as buttressing the financial system and putting people back to work. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, the United States had 1,108,000 fewer civilian jobs in July 2012 than it did in December 2008, the last full month of Bush’s presidency.
How am I worse off? A health care bill that most people oppose, over a million fewer civilian jobs, and “too big to fail” a worse problem than ever.
Dodd/ Frank was hammered out in committee. It wasn’t just a dash to the finishline for signature. As I recall, the negotiations exhausted Chris Dodd. There was a great deal of lobbying agasint it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-great-for-the-stock-market
Many people with 401k’s are better off than they were four years ago.
(Note that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt 9-15-2008 and the economy/market
started to crash weeks before Obama was even elected – much less in office).
Absolutely @Steve Randolph
@Steve Randolph
The vast majority of research shows that the stock market is much more impacted by monetary policy than anything the President or Congress does. Here’s a link to an article by Bernanke himself,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10402.pdf
Some Googling will turn up much more research.
Two points. First, the stock market is not a good measure of overall economic well-being. Employment, GDP, inflation, etc. are far more important gauges of the economic well-being of most people. Second, if you want to thank someone for your 401(k) looking better it should be Bernanke rather than Obama. On a related note, in managing my own portfolio I pay much more attention to what the Fed is doing than to what the President or Congress is doing, regardless of who is occupying those offices and what their party affiliation might be.
The question was about general feeling of well-being, not who we should send a thank you note to.
As for the stock market, people who own stocks or mutual funds very definitely feel the impact of unhappiness with financial security. The debt ceiling crisis certainly unnerved investors. Stock took a nose dive in 2008 and early 2009. The entire market responded, not just the financial sectors.
I don’t think we can ignore a stock market that has more than doubled, regardless of how choppy it gets.
WE certainly don’t ignore it when the bottom falls out of it.
It isn’t necessary an indicator of the economy but it certainly is an indicator of where investors think things will be 6 months down the road.
Those of you WITH 401K’s that is.
I had to cash mine in just to pay bills.
VERY cool site
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_budget
@Moon-howler
Moon, you know that I buck the views of many of my fellow Republicans in arguing that TARP was essential to avoid another Great Depression as opposed to the serious recession we had. I don’t like bailouts, but given the situation at the time it was the best of various bad choices. Credit goes to Presidents Bush and Obama, and their administrations for dealing with this problem in the end of the Bush’s presidency and the beginning of Obama’s. The problem is that Obama has failed in most ways since to revive the economy and deal with problems in the financial system.
@Cargosquid
For those who like to pour over raw data, try:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
This is where I get most of my economic data, including the employment numbers I cited above.
I am better off. My 401k has recovered, my business is more stable, house has recovered equity.
What I wonder is how much resistance the Republicans have created just to enforce their number 1 stated objective of making Obama a one term President. Did they allow the threat of default, fiscal cliff and non compromise strategy just to get to goal number 1? This Congress has been the largest do nothing Congress in history – funny, but they all (Ryan, Boehner, McConnel, etc) went along for the spending when Bush was in office.
@Pat Herve
No argument from me that Bush and his Congress were spendthrifts and fiscally irresponsible. I just don’t think that you solve that problem by reelecting a President who is even more fiscally irresponsible than Bush was.
The deficits are not attributable to TARP either. As Moon pointed out, TARP has been largely repayed.
NTK – yes, Bush and Congress were spendthrifts – but why should I believe that the same folks – Ryan, Boehner, McConnect, etc are not going to do the same thing all over again, and just spend money. One can complain about the Dems raising taxes and spending, the R’s proved they just spend. As Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits do not matter” – well, as least when there is an R for President.
Congress does all the spending, and there are many triggers that kick in – extra unemployment, medicare, welfare – as the economy tanks – so, all the spending cannot be blamed on Obama.
We’re well off enough to retire despite a 30% reduction in salary, have equity quickly building in our house ( took an 8 year note ), and our investments (though conservative in retirement) pay off. I don’t think we’ve lost ground.
I agree with Pat Herve’s assessment of Congress.
Perhaps Obama’s biggest mistake was in not being partisan enough to ram through his agenda in his first two years, but he had a big financial mess with which to deal.
@Censored bybvbl
I wish Obama had rammed his financial regulatory agenda through Congress. I agreed with much of it and would have a much higher opinion of him now if he had focused on financial market integrity, and job creation. Read under “controversy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
Glass-Steagall should have been reinstated and other measures taken to break apart the large financial institutions. “Too big to fail” means “too big to exist.”
Regrettably, I doubt at this point that anything will be done on effective financial market regulation regardless of whether Obama or Romney is elected. I’m very discouraged on that account.
However, I think that a change in course will help create jobs and get the country back to work. The fact is that we have over one million fewer private sector jobs now than at the end of Bush’s term. Obama’s people can spin this however they like, and look at time periods that make them appear better, but facts are facts.
Absent the regulatory structure we should have, one of the best ways to avert financial crisis is to get the country back to work and growing robustly again. Two-percent growth doesn’t cut it. I’d like to have that and effective financial market regulation, but you have to take what you can.
@Pat Herve
Pat – this is a contest of who is the most fiscally irresponsible. So far, Obama and the Democrats are ahead of Bush and the Republicans.
I will add that if Romney and the Republicans win, and we get a continuation of the Bush/Obama era, we’re likely to see a huge surge in independents. I’m sticking with the Republicans now because regardless of how fiscally irresponsible Bush and the Republicans were, Obama and the Democrats are far worse. I also see a chance that given the level of the debt, the vocal public opposition to the way the economy has gone under Bush and Obama, etc., that there’s a chance Romney will be different. I know what I’ll get with Obama.
If Romney turns out to be an extension of the Bush/Obama fiscal irresponsibility, and servitude to the big banks and Wall Street, I could conceivable go independent also.
Obama has done nothing to save the economy that did not first save the unions. Not one – and the public unions were a much higher priority than the private unions – and they know it and are saying so.
Its not just that the economy remains bad, it is the empty chair problem. He could have had a Nixon goes to China or Reagan in Berlin moment and been that kind of leader, but no, instead he remained a community organizer. Nothing on entitlements except to expand the give aways through Obamacare; nothing on agency budgets and for all the talk, nothing on productivity. He cancelled full and open public-private competition for clearly contractible work in government because of the prefrence for government. His class warfare and energy agenda have made all of us worse off than we were 4 years ago AND – AND evern worse compared to what could have been by NOW. He did not promise to kick the can down the road. I think it was just too much for him and that is our fault. A first term senator with no executive business or government experience, who never made a payroll or authorized a budget – who never submitted a bill to Congress much less got one passed. What were we really thinking.
Blue, not sure you and I were living in the same country. What are you talking about with the unions? That makes NO sense.
pssssst: Obama wasn’t in office during the crash. Save the economy? Save the unions?
Here is what I think happened. Barry wrote a book about himself. Now that should have been a clue given his total lack of accomplishments or experience. Historically we know the book was not selling and the publishers must have said, you need to do something that will make people want to buy the book. He tells Michelle that he will run for President to sell his book (Herman Cain unabasdhedly did the same thing). Ooopss, he wins in public caucus states – not by voting. His ego gets the better of him and he decides he really could pull this off. Michelle goes – now what – this was not the plan. He says not to worry the party will cover me – they have to. And so here we are.
More fairy tales, Blue?
@Moon-howler
Why isn’t that path feasible? Remember, he came out of nowhere. Its as good as anything.
Bin laden is dead and General Motors is alive, so I’d say we are better off now.
US auto sales up beyond expectations. GM 10% / Chrysler 14%
above last year’s August sales. Some due to the fact that credit is loosening up.
@Starryflights
Barry would be in even more trouble if he had prevented the team from taking out Bin Laden. GM needed a hair cut and bankruptcy would have allowed the restructuring it needed. The idea that GM is only alive because of Barry’s public investment in too big to fail and subordination of private creditors is foolish talk. BTW they still owe us big time. It was again all about the unions not investors – and this is a big reason investors are holding back.
For a good example, there are several good detailed articles about how money is fleeing Spain. See out future- its right there.
I don’t suppose you have ever thought about the other industries that would have been affected by a failure within GM? Didn’t think so.
Am I to assume you aren’t voting for President Obama?
That’s “Uncle Joe” Biden’s bumper sticker from a recent speech.
GM is a zombie. They are still 25 billion in the hole.
Chrysler is now Fiat.
Ford succeeded without bailout.
And Toyota is now #1 again….even after a tsunami taking out a year’s worth of industry.
The other industries would have been hurt but they would have recovered. Other car companies would have bought up the surplus and real bankruptcy would have enabled GM to restructure.
That is a vast oversimplification of the auto industry. GM is far from a zombie. Jobs were saved in both the direct auto industry and in all those industries that rely on the auto industry (tires/parts/etc etc)
Toyota has had problems and ford is not without them either.
I disagree with your assessment.
I hear Romney got a convention bounce, up to 48 percent from 47! Wow! One whole point! Face it, if the majority of Americans believe we are worse off now than four years ago, Romney would be up 10 points by now.
@Moon-howler
I’m going to have to lean toward Moon’s side here with qualifications. GM financial is the part of the company that dragged them down. As I wrote above, I do not like bailouts. However, if I were starving in the desert, I would eat some of the stuff Andrew Zimmern eats on his Travel Channel show in order to stay alive.
The worst part of the GM and Chrysler bailouts was screwing over the bondholders. Union members got first class treatment, while bondholders (who are largely pension funds and retirees) got burned. That part was Obama politics.
Ford did best without a bailout, but they didn’t have a financial division dragging them down. Chrysler and GM are still here because of the bailout. In retrospect, I think Obama did the right thing the wrong way. Losing GM and Chrylser, and all of the associated industries, would have cost us thousands and thousands of jobs and prolonged the recession even more.
@Need to Know
Chrysler is still here as part of a foreign company.
We could have sold GM to Mercedes and saved money.
That would be like selling your soul. Sell GM?
@Need to Know
Glass-Steagall contributed to consistency for 60 (?) years.
Has diversification resulted in any long term success of any business? It seems there is a short term rush or gain but it’s not sustainable. Insurance companies learned that I think during the the 80’s
@Cargosquid
Maybe, perhaps, depends.
@Lyssa
Since 1933.
I’m watching the polls…no problems here!
Are you paying any attention to Obama’s favorability ratings? How about what’s happening to Women’s opinion of Obama? Me? I’m liking the polls!
That’s BtB for the Democrats. (Before the Bounce)
@SlowpokeRodriguez
Which polls?
1. U.S. median income has dropped 7.3% since Obama took office.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/
2. U.S. manufacturing has just dropped to July 2009 levels and construction suffered its largest drop in a year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/democrats-gather-amid-a-drumbeat-of-bad-economic-signals/2012/09/04/35ff61e8-f6ab-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html
3. The number of Americans on food stamps has increased to 46.7 million people in June, which is a record.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/food-stamp-use-climbed-to-record-46-7-million-in-june-u-s-says.html
4. The debt has reached $16 trillion, which equates to over $136,000 per household.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html
5. The Obama administration has indicated that it will not back up Israel if it attacks Iran, which ironically makes war even more likely.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2012/09/feckless.html
6. Over 30% of Americans with mortgages are under water; 48% of borrowers under the age of 40 owe more than their homes are worth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-stan-humphries/underwater-homeowner-mortgage_b_1828455.html
7. Over 25% of Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Most contributors on this blog (including myself) have fared okay during the first four years under Obama, but I shudder to think what the next four years under Obama could bring.
In the big picture, we clearly are NOT better off since Obama took office.
I am counting on an Obama 3nd term and can’t imagine facing a Romney 4 years of oppression as a retired female. Many of the indidcators yo umentioned are very much a product of being in a recession. How much worse could they be? Lots worse.
I have never heard the Obama administration indicate that it won’t back up Israwl if it attacks Iran. I hope he would discourage a preemptive strike on any nation.
Do you think those folks are under water because of Obama? Where have you been? That ship had sailed long before Obama even elected.Some of your sources are from conservative sources with definite bias. I consider the source.
One is the latest WashPo/ABCNews poll. Polls are polls. I’m not a fan of any of them, but when some liberal drooler spends their time touting some silly poll results, I like to fire back with a few others. I’m convinced you could find some poll to say whatever you like.
@Slowpoke, did you just tell us you have become a drooler?
Just curious – I look at Real Clear Politics myself.
@Moon-howler
I sleep quite well, thank you.
First there was the removal of Glass-Stegall. Then the liberals forced financial companies into making sub-prime loans or be tarred as racists and penalized. Being capitalists, the companies turned a lemon into lemonade, and figured out how to spread the risk.
See NTK for more details. THAT’s how the Democrats started that ball rolling towards the cliff.
@Cargo, i swear, you all could politicize anything. 🙄
That is the blame game on steroids. Let’s see…forced…was that at gun point? What was the penalty?
I think this is a case where food for thought (more minorities should be given the chance at home ownership) was turned into a full course fantasy meal.
Nowhere in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is there language that says to sell to people who cannot afford to repay their loan. The lending practices that led up to the mortgage lending crash/crisis were driven by greed for market share and revenue growth. Everyone wanted more of the pie and got more and more creative.
I don’t think greed belongs to a political party. Let’s not even call it greed. Let’s call it wanting more and more wealth.
@Moon-howler
Facts are facts, regardless of the source. Sometimes conservative sources are the only ones with the motivation to show how badly Obama has done.
I have to admit that I am quite tired of hearing what Obama inherited. He WANTED the job. The question is what has he done to fix the situation since he took office. The facts indicate that he has done very little and the country in many ways is worse off than when he took office.
Did you expect the fairies to come clean up the mess? You are a student of history, are you not? When something is as severe as that financial crash, the clean up can take a decade. Remember also, there is no paradigm for clean up.
The cure is opinion only. Kelly, in fairness to Obama, the crash occurred about 7 weeks before the election. I expect there was at least one night after it all started tumbling downhill that Obama didn’t want it…but he manned up and continued what he started. That was opinion.
We will just have to disagree on the quality of his work. I expect world view is probably motivating both of us.
I dabble in drooling, sure! 🙂
I discuss politics online……..guilty as charged!
Moon, I’ll give you a positive about the Obama administration and how we’re better off. Obama, for the most part, has restrained from getting us involved in foreign situations that are none of our business, are not security concerns for us, and can be handled by someone else. Syria is a good example. I’ll acknowledge that if McCain had been elected we would likely now be seeing our men and women dying in place of Syrians, who should be fighting their own battles.
CNN quotes the Turkish Prime Minister today:
“‘Right now, there are certain things being expected from the United States. The United States had not yet catered to those expectations,’ the prime minister said when asked whether he was surprised the United States is not offering anything but ‘nonlethal support’ to the opposition.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/world/meast/turkey-erdogan-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Well, the Turkish Prime Minister can KMA. Let someome else deal with these foreign squabbles for a change, and pay the price in blood and fortune instead of expecting Americans to save their hides every time.
Thank you, President Obama, for keeping us out of this situation and minding our own business.
@Need to Know
Um…..Libya?
Other than that…I agree with you. Turkey can KMA too.
That said, if we had taken a right turn and gone into Syria because they were shooting at our forces in Iraq, this whole mess in Syria would have been moot. The revolution would have happened much earlier. Too bad that they stopped shooting at us.
@Cargosquid
To Obama’s credit, he did not send troops into Libya, or even get our Air Force much involved. The Europeans took the lead on this (finally).
We can’t afford to be the world’s policeman anymore, and it’s not our job. The U.S. should not intervene anywhere unless it’s a matter of a direct threat to our security.
The whole doctrine of “assasinations” should be changed also. Why is it OK to send in thousands of American men and women to get killed, and to kill thousands of people on the other side, but attacking whoever claims to be the “leader” is off limits?
I’m fine with firing a cruise missile right up Qadaffi’s or Assad’s butt. Sadam Hussein back in the day also.