The medicines are a huge issue for my father. After his heart attack last fall, he was put on several medications. The insurance company decided one of them (the most expensive one) wasn't warranted and they won't pay for it. He is on 8 different medications alone right now. I don't even know how many my mother is on, but I think it's only one or two. So, to stretch things out, my dad now only takes the medicine that insurance won't cover every other day, instead of every day.

 

This is very sad Rockmom. I will pray for your Mom and Dad. I think (I know America needs to take care the elderly and their medicine). Sometimes Medicare and Medicaide just don't cut it. I'm the only child who checks in on my Mom.

This is very sad Rockmom. I will pray for your Mom and Dad. I think (I know America needs to take care the elderly and their medicine). Sometimes Medicare and Medicaide just don't cut it. I'm the only child who checks in on my Mom.

 

I help as much as I can financially, but I can't afford the full cost of the medication. The thing is, they had better insurance until the new drug plan went into play.

I'm much better off. I'm VERY lucky in that when I think of my large circle of family and friends, I can only think of 1 friend and 1 brother who are not better off than they were either 4 or 8 years ago. Neither of their situations has anything to do with federal, state or local issues.

No one made money when Carter was pres.

 

Our family did. Invested in CDs and the like when interest rates were sky-high. Did well enough for my parents to retire to Florida at age 52 (dad, the only wage-earner in the family) and 48 (mom). Had enough to sell a home at approximately 400% more than they paid 17 years earlier, purchase a house in Florida and rent it out for a year prior to moving there.

To say Bush gave us tax cuts only means that we are paying more in other areas.

 

 

This is a good point.

I have done well under presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. That said, the general economy and massive debt have been bad under President Bush.

Obama's proposals:

 

Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due.

Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Obama will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.

 

McCain's proposals:

 

 

Prepare for the 21st Century in Higher Education

America is facing increased competition from overseas like never before. Higher education is as much a part of that competition as the job sector, and we must rise to the challenge and modernize our universities so that they retain their status as producers of the most skilled workforce in the world. The answer is not to impose more regulations on institutions, but to encourage the government to support innovative approaches to education, removing regulatory barriers that prevent us from moving forward with new ideas.

Improve Information for Parents

Institutions report on hundreds of factors to the U.S. government every year, but the government does nothing with the information. Making this information available to families in a clear and concise manner will help more students make more informed choices about higher education.

Simplify Higher Education Tax Benefits

The existing tax benefits are too complicated, and many eligible families don’t claim them. By simplifying the existing benefits, I can ensure that a greater number of families have a lower tax burden when they are helping to send their children to college.

Simplify Federal Financial Aid

Too many programs and a complicated application process deter many eligible students from seeking student aid. The number of programs also makes it more difficult for financial aid officers to help students navigate the process. Consolidating programs will help simplify the administration of these programs, and help more students have a better understanding of their eligibility for aid.

Improve Research by Eliminating Earmarks

Earmarking is destroying the integrity of federally funded research. Billions of dollars are spent on pork barrel projects every year; significant amounts come from research budgets. Eliminating earmarks would immediately and significantly improve the federal government’s support for university research.

Fix the Student Lending Programs

We have seen significant turmoil in student lending. John McCain has proposed an expansion of the lender-of-last resort capability of the federal student loan system and will demand the highest standard of integrity for participating private lenders. Effective reforms and leveraging the private sector will ensure the necessary funding of higher education aspirations, and create a simpler and more effective program in the process.

 

Pay for your own education, it will mean more to you. A free ride may turn out like Section 8, people do not take as much pride or work as hard when they do not have their personal investment in their education or home.

It might take longer to get through, but you have the pride of a job well done, because you worked hard at it.

Here's the problem with this question.

 

Many of us are going to be "better off" simply by getting older and more job experience which leads to better jobs/promotions and more $$. Is that a product of the govt? I'd argue that its not. I'm better off because I have a better sales position that I used to . Why? Because I gained sales experience that higher-paying jobs require.

 

Some are better off simply because they, too, have gotten more experience. My guess is that 98 is better off because he got a new (better) job. Was it because of the govt? I'm guessing "no" but , rather, because he got better at what he did which lead to better opportunities.

 

So, how do we really guage the responses to the question posed?

Here's the problem with this question.

 

Many of us are going to be "better off" simply by getting older and more job experience which leads to better jobs/promotions and more $$. Is that a product of the govt? I'd argue that its not. I'm better off because I have a better sales position that I used to . Why? Because I gained sales experience that higher-paying jobs require.

 

Some are better off simply because they, too, have gotten more experience. My guess is that 98 is better off because he got a new (better) job. Was it because of the govt? I'm guessing "no" but , rather, because he got better at what he did which lead to better opportunities.

 

So, how do we really guage the responses to the question posed?

 

Then all distinctions need to be blurred, not just the positive ones.

 

If you are worse off, because you lost your job or because gas prices are higher or what have you, that is not necessarily the government's fault, either. We have been over this ad nauseum, gas prices have little or nothing to do with the war or even with foreign policy. Just as the President should not take credit for people gaining experience and getting jobs, he should also not be punished because someone loses theirs. There is one word for the economic side of this: capitalism.

 

When you say are you better off or worse off, can anyone in here point directly to something the President did or did not do that put them in better/worse position? Tax cuts are one obvious answer. Appointment of Justices who have solidified conservative business rulings on the Court are another for me. The execution of the Patriot Act has caused certain taxes on my cell phone bill that I don't like. What elese? C'mon people.

Then all distinctions need to be blurred, not just the positive ones.

 

If you are worse off, because you lost your job or because gas prices are higher or what have you, that is not necessarily the government's fault, either. We have been over this ad nauseum, gas prices have little or nothing to do with the war or even with foreign policy. Just as the President should not take credit for people gaining experience and getting jobs, he should also not be punished because someone loses theirs. There is one word for the economic side of this: capitalism.

 

When you say are you better off or worse off, can anyone in here point directly to something the President did or did not do that put them in better/worse position? Tax cuts are one obvious answer. Appointment of Justices who have solidified conservative business rulings on the Court are another for me. The execution of the Patriot Act has caused certain taxes on my cell phone bill that I don't like. What elese? C'mon people.

 

Brother, you and I are on the same page. This question cannot be answered.

Taking the fight to the terrorists rather than sitting back and letting them come to us (Bill Clinton) is one way we are all better off. Had W not responded like he has, then 9/11 would have happened over and over again. Maybe not with hijacked planes, but in other areas. Like the subway bombings in Spain. Had Gore been our commander-in-chief in 2001, many more Americans would have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Brother, you and I are on the same page. This question cannot be answered.

 

My point is more subtle, though. If you haven't noticed the government making a large difference in your life, one way or another, than it is my assertion that the government has ably performed what should have been its limited role.

My point is more subtle, though. If you haven't noticed the government making a large difference in your life, one way or another, than it is my assertion that the government has ably performed what should have been its limited role.

 

Simply being "limited" doesn't automatically mean it was "effective."

 

The results of this poll will tell us nothing constructive.

My point is more subtle, though. If you haven't noticed the government making a large difference in your life, one way or another, than it is my assertion that the government has ably performed what should have been its limited role.

Very nice, one of the best posts ever in P&R.

Then all distinctions need to be blurred, not just the positive ones.

 

If you are worse off, because you lost your job or because gas prices are higher or what have you, that is not necessarily the government's fault, either. We have been over this ad nauseum, gas prices have little or nothing to do with the war or even with foreign policy. Just as the President should not take credit for people gaining experience and getting jobs, he should also not be punished because someone loses theirs. There is one word for the economic side of this: capitalism.

 

When you say are you better off or worse off, can anyone in here point directly to something the President did or did not do that put them in better/worse position? Tax cuts are one obvious answer. Appointment of Justices who have solidified conservative business rulings on the Court are another for me. The execution of the Patriot Act has caused certain taxes on my cell phone bill that I don't like. What elese? C'mon people.

 

 

For me, I'm not better off, because although I make more than I did 8 years ago, the amount of the increase in the 8 years has not kept pace with the rate of the increases in expenses.

 

So, I guess the most base, logical answer is "get a new job". Which would be great, but without a degree, leaving the industry in which I work and have attained a modicum of success is not an option. I don't blame "Bush" per se for my personal situation. But, answering the question...I'm in worse shape than I was 8 years ago. And, even though I had kids in private schools 8 years ago, I still am in worse shape. I could get a 2nd job...but after almost 20 years of working two jobs, and one year working two positions in one establishment, I physically and mentally can't handle it. Call me old.

 

My parents...unfortunately, a lot of their issue is rooted well before any of the administrations mentioned in this thread. They were in a great position, even though poor, until my father had his heart attack. And, that was AFTER the new drug plan for seniors was implemented. Now, you could say they should have planned better for such an emergency. But at 75, with no significant health issues until last year, and the expectation that insurance would cover at least a portion of a medicine the doctor presribed, I can't imagine many people in their situation who could have adequately prepared for that. But, to the issue and the basic answer....No, they're not better off. They live on Soc Sec and a small pension. Neither have increased, and obviously, basic living costs have risen dramatically.