Are you better off than you were four years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Worse off took about 20% paycut in medical sales and my homes are worth less. Dh had to go into government contracting.

So you are now living off the federal government -- socialist.

[Anonymous]

Better off -- had a chunk of GM in my portfolio. Overall my stocks have been rising. Refinanced my house at a great rate. Things could be better, but I think they would have been worse under a Republican president.

[Anonymous]

2008 we were in financial freefall b'c DH works in real estate. It's been a tough 4 years but it's better now because the banks are more functional than they were in 2008.

[Anonymous]

In a word, no.

I've been a freelance consultant for 13 years and have watched my income tank since about 2008/ 2009.

[Anonymous]

4years ago I made $125k a year. I was laid off three years ago due to budget cuts. I spent 6 months unemployed and took a job that is $80 a year.

[Anonymous]

irrelevant question. Real question is who do you think will do a better job with things over the next 4 yrs given the likelihood of the make-up we'll see in Congress. For me, it's still Obama because I'm terrified of the idea of giving the right-wing conservatives a blank check. But others may think that he's not likely to get much more done in the next 4 yrs since Rs will continue to dig their heels in rather than work with him to try to actually make progress for the country.

[Anonymous]

For our jobs we haven't really seen a difference. The main difference is our home is worth less than what we paid so I guess worse off.

[Anonymous]

I'm probably about the same. But I think anyone who is not trying to prove a political point would admit that the unforeseen economic consequences of any government action often outweigh the intended consequences.

But one thing I think is almost inevitable is that if Romney is elected, then despite all his claims that the President does not decide about abortion, he will get to replace either Ginsberg or Breyer, and Roe v Wade will be overturned or immensely weakened. We may have different opinions about whether that is good or bad, but does anyone seriously believe that I'm wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm probably about the same. But I think anyone who is not trying to prove a political point would admit that the unforeseen economic consequences of any government action often outweigh the intended consequences.

But one thing I think is almost inevitable is that if Romney is elected, then despite all his claims that the President does not decide about abortion, he will get to replace either Ginsberg or Breyer, and Roe v Wade will be overturned or immensely weakened. We may have different opinions about whether that is good or bad, but does anyone seriously believe that I'm wrong?

Perhaps but we would not give them the power unless we believed it necessary, even if government gets it wrong sometimes. We forget that we once had another form of less powerful government, and it failed. And so therefore as a whole we bet that a stronger government was a net positive, including some unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Better off. In 08-09 we were both unemployed and our house was underwater. We have been slowly digging our way out of that but huge health bills for fertility treatment slowed us down. We have managed to pay down our underwater house, even with the health care costs, and we officially switched to "in the black" this year. We still need a couple more years to pay down the house to a point where we could sell without bringing any cash to the table but I feel like we are generally on the right track and improving.

But, I agree with the pp who said the more important question is who do you think will be best for the economy in the next four years. I don't think we need to go back to the policies of the Republicans even though the Democrats haven't taken us as far as I would like. They really dropped the ball on housing, imho. But, any party that would use our credit rating and global economic position as a bargaining tool (I'm thinking of the ridiculous debt ceiling fight here) as a bargaining chit is not responsible enough to lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:irrelevant question. Real question is who do you think will do a better job with things over the next 4 yrs given the likelihood of the make-up we'll see in Congress. For me, it's still Obama because I'm terrified of the idea of giving the right-wing conservatives a blank check. But others may think that he's not likely to get much more done in the next 4 yrs since Rs will continue to dig their heels in rather than work with him to try to actually make progress for the country.

Well I think if Romney is elected and gains a majority in the house and senate, I will be worse off. To begin with, they will eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Once that is gone, fewer people will have an incentive to purchase a home, thus causing my home to further depreciate in value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For our jobs we haven't really seen a difference. The main difference is our home is worth less than what we paid so I guess worse off.

Wasn't your house declining in value in 2008?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4years ago I made $125k a year. I was laid off three years ago due to budget cuts. I spent 6 months unemployed and took a job that is $80 a year.

Isn't that just the free market at work, though? And isn't that what Romney wants more of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you own stocks, you're better off. By 70%.

If you have kids 18-25 who could stay on your health insurance, you're better off.

If you have a job related in any way to the auto or banking industries, you're better off.

I can't think of anyone who isn't better off, except Osama bin Laden.

I was going to mention this. My stock portfolio is definitely better off then when it hit rock bottom in December 2008.

Amen on the 2nd bolded statement!

[Anonymous]

4 years ago, my salary was $130K, today it's $208K. Better off.