Misery Index Highest Since May of 1983

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.miseryindex.us/

The misery index -- which is simply the sum of the country's inflation and unemployment rates -- rose to 13.0, pushed up by higher price data the government reported on Wednesday.

The data underscores the extent that Americans continue to suffer even two years after a deep recession ended, with a weak economic recovery imperiling President Barack Obama's hopes of winning reelection next year.

Inez Stallworth, an underwriting assistant for a financial services company, recently gave up her car, in part because of rising costs for gasoline and groceries.

"I can't fit it in," said the 27-year-old Chicago resident, who said most of her extended family was getting by "paycheck-to-paycheck."

Consumer prices rose 3.9 percent in the 12 months through September, the fastest pace in three years.

With gasoline prices high, consumers have less to spend on other things. Moreover, a rise in overall prices saps economic growth, which is typically measured in inflation-adjusted terms.

The last time the misery index was at current levels was in 1983. But in 1984 an improving economy probably helped President Ronald Reagan win reelection. This year, the index has risen more than 2 points.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-usa-economy-misery-idUSTRE79I7IY20111020

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Fckin wall street fatcats.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fckin wall street fatcats.

Fuckin unemployed losers.

[Danno 1,228]

1983 reagan was one year away from his re-election .... and he turned it around to a sizable win, DOn't think Barry can't do it.

Of Course Reagan actually had an Economic plan that kicked in by then......

anyone think Obama economic plan is on the verge of "take off"?

[mawilson 2,133]

anyone think Obama economic plan is on the verge of "take off"?

Obama is a one-trick pony. His only plan is to borrow even more money and spend it on government jobs (teachers, police, firemen) or private jobs (solar, wind, other "green" tech).

[웃 910]

Obama is a one-trick pony. His only plan is to borrow even more money and spend it on government jobs (teachers, police, firemen) or private jobs (solar, wind, other "green" tech).

Technically a two-trick pony. If the economy wasn't at depression/recession levels he would do what you said above, and also raise taxes on EVERYONE!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't know why we insist on zombie economics. Let the dead economists rest in peace.

[mawilson 2,133]

Technically a two-trick pony. If the economy wasn't at depression/recession levels he would do what you said above, and also raise taxes on EVERYONE!

Not, not everyone. Only the rich. If he wanted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for everyone, I would have no problem with that.

[dalegg 143]

Not, not everyone. Only the rich. If he wanted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for everyone, I would have no problem with that.

I agree. I think there was something contradictory in that policy too. I seem to recall him stating something to the affect that "The rich have benefited disproportionately to the Bush tax cuts". Okay so if that's true why does he believe that the lower and middle class would collapse if the tax cuts were removed from them, and the wealthy would do just fine? If the low and middle class (us) are going to suffer more than the rich by going back to the pre-Bush era tax rates, then WE benefit more from the tax cuts don't we?

And what's with this "shared sacrifice" nonsense? Sure the middle class has suffered higher unemployment than the upper class, but you aren't going to be raising taxes to the people that lost their jobs! (well, at least not much). I don't suffer from higher taxes more now just because my neighbor who used to have a middle class income lost his job, do I? And he doesn't have a high enough income to tax much more because he is unemployed, so this notion that the middle class is all going to suffer hard doesn't work.

[mawilson 2,133]

I agree. I think there was something contradictory in that policy too. I seem to recall him stating something to the affect that "The rich have benefited disproportionately to the Bush tax cuts". Okay so if that's true why does he believe that the lower and middle class would collapse if the tax cuts were removed from them, and the wealthy would do just fine? If the low and middle class (us) are going to suffer more than the rich by going back to the pre-Bush era tax rates, then WE benefit more from the tax cuts don't we?

And what's with this "shared sacrifice" nonsense? Sure the middle class has suffered higher unemployment than the upper class, but you aren't going to be raising taxes to the people that lost their jobs! (well, at least not much). I don't suffer from higher taxes more now just because my neighbor who used to have a middle class income lost his job, do I? And he doesn't have a high enough income to tax much more because he is unemployed, so this notion that the middle class is all going to suffer hard doesn't work.

+1

[Danno 1,228]

"The rich have benefited disproportionately to the Bush tax cuts".

Two customers shop at Lowes with ten percent off coupons,

the guy who spent more and got a greater discount actually benefited more... not fair!

[웃 910]

"The rich have benefited disproportionately to the Bush tax cuts".

Two customers shop at Lowes with ten percent off coupons,

the guy who spent more and got a greater discount actually benefited more... not fair!

Huh?

Tax Cuts and Fairness

The tax cuts enacted in recent years have gone disproportionately to high-income Americans. In 2007, the 0.3 percent of households with incomes above $1 million received about $120,000, on average, from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, according to estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. In contrast, households in the middle of the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging $740. The Tax Policy Center estimates also show that the tax cuts represent a larger fraction of income for high-income households than for low- or middle-income households, a clear indication of these tax cuts’ regressivity.

CHART FROM 2006: OBVIOUSLY WAY OFF - BUT POINT STILL MADE:

CONCLUSION: Be a deficit hawk. Be fiscally conservative. Be a Democrat!

Keywords (IGNORE): Bush tax cuts; deficit; surplus; tax; increase; decrease;

[mawilson 2,133]

The tax cuts enacted in recent years have gone disproportionately to high-income Americans.

So then, as dalegg pointed out, why not get rid of the Bush tax cuts for low and middle-income households?

After all, they didn't really benefit - wouldn't even notice they were gone.

[웃 910]

So then, as dalegg pointed out, why not get rid of the Bush tax cuts for low and middle-income households?

After all, they didn't really benefit - wouldn't even notice they were gone.

You're asking me? I'm a budget surplus guy. A balanced budget guy. I am a deficit hawk. I am a fiscal conservative.

^I am a Democrat!

Edited October 22, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[mawilson 2,133]

You're asking me? I'm a budget surplus guy. A balanced budget guy. I am a deficit hawk. I am a fiscal conservative.

Yes, I'm asking you. If Democrats are so fiscally conservative, why haven't they suggested repealing the Bush tax cuts for everyone?