Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Another Depressing List from Before It's News

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) writes | more than 2 years ago

User Journal 14

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? While it is a bit early to ask this question of the Obama Administration- the tail end of the Bush Administration was bad enough that taken together these 35 indicators say most Americans are worse off.

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? While it is a bit early to ask this question of the Obama Administration- the tail end of the Bush Administration was bad enough that taken together these 35 indicators say most Americans are worse off.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course we are.... (1)

logical_failure (2405644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277737)

Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Re:Of course we are.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39279805)

there you go with your 'obama = bush' nonsense again, dumb_registrars. you aren't fooling anyone.

logical_failure = damn_registrars

Misleading (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39278379)

The article in question doesn't use Obama's entry into office for the baseline. It randomly picks dates as far back as in the 1970s to compare against.

Yes, people aren't better off. But saying "than 4 years ago" and referencing this article is dishonest.

Re:Misleading (1)

logical_failure (2405644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39278683)

But saying "than 4 years ago" and referencing this article is dishonest.

Mildly... but the fact still is that under Obama - gas prices, unemployment, underemployment, the deficit, and the national debt have all skyrocketed.

Re:Misleading (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39278963)

Yes. But do you think it is his fault?

I said back in 2008 that whomever wins the election is just volunteering to be blamed for the shitstorm that the next 3-4 years (at least) will be, economically. I still believe that we'd be in about the same position had McPalin gotten elected.

The truth is, there isn't a lot the President can really do about the economy. Much less in the time-frame of 3-4 years.

Re:Misleading (1)

logical_failure (2405644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280453)

Yes. But do you think it is his fault?

Some of it is absolutely his fault.

For one, the deficit / debt is entirely the fault of Obama / Reid / Pelosi. Had any of them read a history book, they would have learned that increased deficit spending did more harm under Hoover / FDR and prolonged the Great Depression.

As far as unemployment: Yes - vetoing Keystone XL pipeline was a job killer.

Gas Prices: Not Obama, but definitely the fault of the Democrats. Remember when Bush wanted to drill in ANWAR? THe Dems said no, it would take 10 years for it to lower gas prices... that was 10 years ago.

And finally... notice how the stock market tanked in 2006 when Pelosi took over? It's recovering - and has been recovering since the GOP took back the House.

So yeah, totally, and completely - Fuck the Democrats. They're morons. (Fuck the GOP too, since they're only slightly less stupid).

Re:Misleading (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282311)

Well, Reagan started down the massive debt route and Bush kicked it into high gear. Obama did keep his foot mashed to the pedal, so certainly contributed his part.

Vetoing the Keystone XL was pure politics. Both R and D want it built. The Rs couldn't deal with agreeing to the budget and debt ceiling raise without getting a zinger in.

It'll get built. Hell, they've already started construction on the southern portion from Oklahoma down to Houston/Louisiana. I expect the northern section to be approved either right before the election -- if Obama thinks he needs a boost -- or right after by whomever wins.

As for ANWR -- not really. The TAPS (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System) has a limit of 2.1 million bbl per day of capacity. ANWR was expected to produce 1.5 million bbl / day after a 10-year ramp up (your 10-year figure).

The problem is, the U.S. consumes 19.2 million bbl / day. ANWR would affect thus about 12% or so of our consumption.

Add to that the fact that oil is a world commodity and priced on a world -- not local -- market. The world consumes [] about 87 million bbl per day, total. ANWR would add about 2% to the world production and affect prices proportionally.

The greatly increasing demand from China and India on world demand wasn't taken into account when that argument about opening ANWR having a significant impact on prices was made.

I hope you don't think that because it is "our" oil it is thus significantly cheaper. It isn't, and I can't believe you'd be advocating for the gov't to nationalize everything necessary to mandate a price per bbl.

The hard truth is we have a lot of oil in Alaska, and it'll most likely last us 30-50 years at least -- possibly more. BUT, the pipeline limits the amount coming down to about 10-12% of our total usage. It isn't going to make anything significantly cheaper on any timeframe.

And the stock market (DJIA and S&P) continued to rise through about December 2007. I believe it was more the housing bubble crash than any one party in the House that was the downfall of the market.

Still, they all suck. They are all out to make noise and claim credit without having the knowledge or power to do anything real or substantive.

Don't mistake me. I'm not apologizing for Obama, his policies or his performance. I'm just pointing out same shit, different suit. They ALL (almost) suck hard.

[And I say this as a person who lives in the DC area.]

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39283587)

lotsa words there dumb_registrars, and as usual, not many facts. you really need to try a new way to troll, not the same old way you've been trolling.

logical_failure = damn_registrars

Re:Misleading (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287845)

Yeah, tell that to Reagan. Under his leadership, it took 2-3 years for the economy to rebound better than at any time since World War 2.

No one put a gun to Obama's and Congress's heads and forced them to pass the trillion dollar "payoff to our supporters". And yet, unemployment went higher than they claimed would happen if we _didn't_ pass the stimulus. Obama himself admitted the "shovel-ready" jobs weren't. And while infrastructure work is needed, spending money on it doesn't create wealth so any economic gains from the spending would disappear as soon as the money was gone. The money is gone and unemployment is still around 9%, double what it was in January 2007.

The economy really started tanking when the Democrats took over Congress (although the Republicans did their share of damage too, I'm not saying they didn't help make the mess). But, since then everything the Democrats have done has failed to achieve what they promised.

At some point, the only reasonable response is that these people have no idea what they're doing and never did.

The Federal Government, including the President and Congress have a tremendous effect in the economy. They can't always make it better, but they can definitely and easily make it worse, and the uncertainty of new looming taxes and regulation, not to mention the massive new regulations that actually have been created, has corporate America (companies large and small) simply not hiring because they don't know what to expect. Removing that uncertainly would unleash pent-up economic growth, but it doesn't fit in with the Democrat "morality" of punishing the successful, so we all suffer so that the rich can "pay their fair share", despite the fact that the rich pay the vast majority of taxes already and that Obama and his friends on the Hill will do nothing to eliminate the loopholes that allow a lot of large companies and rich people to avoid paying more in the first place, and of course, by sheltering money instead of investing it, less wealth is created and revenue goes down anyway.

It's the worst of all worlds. We get the bad consequences of raising taxes and increasing regulation but none of the benefits.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39279577)

you need a new way to troll there, dumb_registrars. it is disgustingly painfully obvious that it is still you. might be time for you to find a new hobby.

logical_failure = damn_registrars

"Fairbanksing" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280003)

When the truth is good enough but you throw in bullshit anyway, and you end up with a stinking mess.

#3 The U.S. government says that the number of Americans "not in the labor force" rose by 17.9 million between 2000 and 2011. During the entire decade of the 1980s, the number of Americans "not in the labor force" rose by only 1.7 million.

I think we call most of those 17.9 million "boomers". Remember: even if you think the government is still faking the numbers by removing people whose benefits expire, nobody's benefits ran out, they still keep getting extended. If you're going to go all shadowstats, pick the "underemployed" numbers of people who got a part time McJob. Picking a completely fake number like this rather than official unemployment statistics stinks of bullshit.

#6 Back in the year 2000, more than 50 percent of all Americans teens had a job. This past summer, only 29.6% of all American teens had a job.

Now they have NHS, piano practice, two volunteer projects after school and still make time to help little old ladies cross the street, and that might qualify them for an opening at the local public university. Did anyone ask how many kids wanted a job? My little brother worked for a week as pizza delivery before he decided people don't tip worth shit and quit. Is the president forcing people to be stingy assholes?

#9 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

Damn you, women! Get thee back to the kitchen, and make me a sammich!

#14 About twice as many new homes were sold in the United States in 1965 as are being sold today.

Because sales of homes are such an awesome predictor of where our economy is headed. Funny that mortgage debt our country is in is so terrible that it merits positions #17 and #18. I guess these are in order of importance, so it's more important to sell more homes than it is to reduce mortgage debt?

#15 ..... Overall, U.S. home prices are 34 percent lower than they were back at the peak of the housing bubble.

That's what made it a bubble, durrrrrr!

"Oh noes! liberals are forcing banks to give out mortgages! Oh noes! liberals stopped forcing banks to give out mortgages and nobody can sell their house!" It's schizophrenic bullshit like this that makes the right wing look like idiots. Get your act together already, there are real problems America is really facing. We need to focus on real problems and real solutions, not spending our time playing Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Actually (1)

loucura! (247834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282729)

I am much better off since 2008. My cost of living is dramatically higher, because I'm maintaining two households in different states, but I'm making enough to do so and the company I started last year is doing well.

Re:Actually (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287897)

Good. I hope you can hire some people and give them good jobs. :-)

it's worse than that (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#39309201)

I think this recession and its long aftermath has been and will continue to be "40-somethings and 50-somethings hardest hit".

We knew we were going to be in mounting trouble when the Baby Boomers began to retire, but we expected that to start happening gradually as they gradually began turning 65 or so.

But like Jerome Greene from TFA, almost no one can afford to retire at 50. Nor can what number of lucky job holders we have left in this country afford to support his early retirement for possibly upwards of an average of 30 more years of his life and of those similarly in his shoes.

And not only are record numbers on food stamps, but I've heard that the long-term unemployed are now figuring out to claim disability from the stress and depression (which I know of from personal experience) from being out of work for so long [] .

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>