It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are you better off than you were 2 yrs ago?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:24 AM



Bureau of Labor Satistics
Dow Jones
Office of Management & Budget

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:33 AM
Yes, I am.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:36 AM
me too

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:38 AM

in general, people usually make more money as time goes on.

i'd love to see these graphs displayed on t.v. every time someone from the bush admin. spews rhetoric about their manufactured crises.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 12:53 PM
Ummm let me think.....Yes

Better job and more money,in Silicon Valley mind you.

But Grey Davis is doing his best to put me in the poor house.Damn dems.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 02:13 PM
Don't worry William, Bob, Nyeff....the Bush economic team will get right on it!

As the country goes..........
Though it bucks the trend, continued good fortune to all.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 04:38 PM
I am sure they will BT!

If the economy starts picking up, BT, you won't have much to talk about here!

Not that I think the economy is in great shape - don't get me wrong, luckily the housing has been good, people will soon get tax refunds, consumer spending is still ok (my wife alone is keeping that segment going,
) holidays are over, and the the postive effects of the post-9/11 baby boom should starting kicking in any minute (I swear, everyone I know is pregnant or has had a baby recently).

Personally, I think the whole 'we're you better off X years ago' argument is a typical democrat scare tactic.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 06:35 PM
Yes, I'm better off. In more ways than one, as a matter of fact. But hey, it's not attributed to either Bush or Clinton, but to me. Of course, the tax reliefs will be good, and that will be due to Bush, but it is still money that I've earned and will be just less money stolen by the system.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 08:31 PM
Yes, but only because I'm proactive, and only in some areas.

The biggest whomp is in our future income. Our 401Ks are doing horribly... I eventually pulled all my money out of stocks and bonds and put it in money markets. I can keep the stocks in my trading account from losing hugely, but only when I trade very actively.

We'd hoped to retire in 10 years. I could stand another 8 years of a Democrat administration, budget surpluses, and so forth.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 09:59 PM
Yep I'm better off now. Finally got the luxury of electricity. I no longer have to use generators. Here's to Solar Power.
T'aint what's it's cracked up to be. I went through the whole Clinton administration, without electricity.

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:29 PM
Weren't the house and senate both republican during Clinton?
Maybe instead of using just the Presidents, they should use all the offices????

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:36 PM
Since your into graphs.
Here ya go.

FYI - I'm not a Republican

posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 11:59 PM
Look it's plain and simple why doesn't anyone understand, Clinton burned out our economy and Bush is doing a great job of propping it up, if it weren't for Ossama we'd probably be in a Depression by now, because of him America has had a purpose to spend and thus generate revenue, so no economic's hillarious...our bane is really a blessing in desguise, TOO BAD SO MANY HAD TO PERISH BLAHRHERHAHAHAHAH

Anyways.....It figures that stupid hell hole called Las Vegas would vote for Gore...

I often wonder if a State had a "civil war between counties" if the government could interfere, or if it has no jurisdiction over state affairs even if the state is warring to devide in two?

no signature

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 08:10 AM
I'm fairly neutral politically... I tend not to like most politicians.

I liked Clinton however, not because he was a quality president (he wasn't terrible), but because he was someone who truly enjoyed being president. You could see it in his eyes, he was having fun and was very comfortable in the role. To some degree, this was refreshing to experience.

Now, the economy.

I've lived the dot-com digital bubble from incubation in the late 1980's through the boom of the late 1990's and am stilling standing today after the bust. Today's economic low has nothing to do with previous administrations beyond the leadership of the Securities and Exchange Commission. They allowed the lessening of basic requirements for new IPO's on NASDAQ and AMEX. This lowering of basic leadership and financial standards allowed companies that normally should never have stepped near Wall Street to suddenly get in the doors, raise bushels of money, and ultimately fail because they didn't have any hope of making it. We are recovering from billions of lost capital.

We could get into the rampant corporate corruption, but it's a result of the loosening of IPO standards and lunatic stock market speculation.

Didn't we already experience all of this 70 years ago?

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 08:13 AM
Can you say 'Angel Investors'!

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 12:29 PM
nice graph, DClark!

Here's another like yours:

[Edited on 15-1-2003 by Bob88]

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 01:30 PM
Funny, I didn't know Land Mass was used to calculate votes!

Won all those counties and STILL lost the popular vote by over half a million ( maybe he will change to land mass considerations after all!

Since the latest Gallup poll only has 33% comitting to vote for that Dim Son Bush again, he better pray the economy turns around.
Thomas: what tax relief are you expecting from Bush? Two words for you: The States.
The states are struggling with giant deficits, tax increases and cutbacks in programs so severe that some are releasing prisoners, with some counties/municipalities on the brink of bankruptcy. So what good will it do to put Mr. Bush's little tax break( if you actually qualify for one) in one pocket while taking money from the other pocket to pay higher state taxes? And very high they will be!

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 06:02 PM
Funny, I didn't know popular votes elected presidents

There you guys go again with your polls. 36% will vote again but his approval rating is 58%

Why doesn't that add up?

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 09:20 PM
B-T, there's no use in arguing Reaganomics again. I'm for it, you're agin' it.

As far as the struggling states, counties and cities, go figure. When they set about doing the jobs the governments are to accomplish and quit the stupid stuff like the big social giveaways, I'll have more pity on their plight. As far as right now, they are too busy having students taught social-engineering issues instead of the three 'r's.

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 10:33 AM
Popular votes pick EC members, land mass picks....?

Well, I got that number straight from FoxNews Jr, the Compliant News Network - CNN:
"Asked whether they would support Bush if he runs for re-election in 2004, one-third of the respondents said they would definitely vote for him, while another third said they would definitely vote against him. One-third described themselves as undecided."

That they couldn't bring themselves to put it in numerical form is more testimony to their corporate whoredom and bowing to the Naked Emperor.
Thomas: I can be a supply side advocate in some circumstances, but Reganomics has bee proven to NOT work - it's flawed for it's lack of accounting for variables ( in this case "war"& recession) and inability to stray from the game plan. I have seen no Economist, no one holding a PhD in Economics, come out and support this plan or even explain the logic of $670 Billion being removed from the Federal operating budget over 10 years while embarking on a Iraqi war effort that will spend another conservative estimate of $200 Billion over the same period. Even Paul O'Neil booed it.
States and municipalites that are in severe deficit or near bankruptcy are across the board: some have been long time conservative strongholds, so the idiology argument is moot.
The money for needed programs is cut from the fed level to pay for fed tax cuts, the programs still have to be paid for, states cut to the bone and services suffer and it all equals out to big state level tax increases.
When the White Hous C of S is quoting $300 Billion in deficit by next year, and government agencies are saying it's going to be $200 Billion this year, we could be ripe for a full scale depression.
Bush has withheld two thirds of the money he promised for education - states have to make up for it. Remember Reagan calculating Ketchup & Relish as vegetables to work his school spending numbers against a tax cut? The theory that Clinton benefitted from Reagan's policies is false, refer to the chart's above as to the Reagan legacy.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in