Are you better off from 4 yrs ago?
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-27-2004 - 8:43pm |
Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?
On October 28, 1980, in the second presidential debate, Ronald Reagan asked a question that resonated throughout the campaign that year: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?†During this election season, many members of “Republicans for Kerry†are asking themselves the same question.
Hilliard, OH (PRWEB) September 17, 2004 -- Veronica Reynolds, age 80, a registered Republican and a retired local high school secretary, will vote for John Kerry this year. When asked for her reasons, she quotes a question that Reagan asked 24 years ago. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?â€
“Four years ago, I took a wonderful trip to New Zealand,†Reynolds tells RepublicansForKerry04.org, “and now I can no longer afford to travel out of this country. In fact, I have six children, four of whom live in states other than Ohio. It concerns me when I pay for the air fare to visit them.†Like many retired people, Reynolds has suffered a tremendous loss in her retirement savings over the past three years.
Also like many older citizens, Reynolds takes prescription drugs for a medical condition in her case, a chronic pre-cancerous condition for which she takes two tablets three times a day. She opted not to participate in what she called “Bush’s worthless prescription help for Medicare,†however. “I had to laugh, sadly, when the pharmaceutical companies raised their prices,†she says, adding that she was appalled at media reports that Bush’s new plan will reduce her Social Security benefits by 17%, and increase her Medicare premiums in 2005.
At a personal level, Reynolds knows that she is worse off than she was four years ago, but she is even more fearful for the nation if Bush is given four more years in office. “He will continue to destroy our country,†she says, noting that “if we disagree with his policies, we are accused of being un-American or not supporting our troops. Separation of church and state is on its way out. Foolish amendments to the Constitution are on their way in.â€
In a neighboring state, 46-year-old Republican Debra Vanderpool, her husband, and their sixteen-year-old daughter, live in Towanda, in northeastern Pennsylvania. Like Reynolds, the Vanderpools are struggling day by day. “We wonder sometimes where we are going to get the money for groceries next week, †Vanderpool says. “Four years ago, we had less money a month then we had now,†she recalls, “and we were making ends meet. We were getting groceries and paying bills and getting to go out to dinner or a movies once a while. So I ask myself am I better off than I was 4 years ago. Well the answer is no.â€
Vanderpool is also concerned that the US entered into the war in Iraq under false pretenses, and believes that has destroyed our relationship with our allies. Our brave soldiers are dying everyday “For what?†she asks. “Many people were for the war because we believed in the existence of the WMD. Bush has lied to the people of this country. There are many reservists and Guard families out there that are about to lose everything because their spouses are out fighting in Iraq…. They and their families are clearly much worse off than they were four years ago.â€
[Contact media@republicansforkerry04.org
# # #

Pages
I have not seen an economic upturn in my business as of yet, we do keep our fingers crossed and hope that we don't close down by year end. (This co. has been in business for 55 years) Because of the turmoil in the Stock Market we have not had any raises in three years. With every consumer staple, energy prices, increased co-pay in healhcare-prescriptions and child-care and no additional raises to reflect the rising costs, it has been a long hard 3 years. With no end sight and a posibility of a Co. closure needless to say I have not slept well as of late.
I would like to add a few comments in regards to oil prices that Debateguy talked about, and yes those items are a big factor. You all so need to be aware of the fact that the refineries are able to get as much crude as they need (quoting oil co's. on that statement)but the refineries here in the US can not refine the crude fast enough for distrubtion. You also do have to add Iraq in the equation of higher crude prices because like it or not Iraq is not outputting any where near as much as they had, or have. And Bush in Co. are responsible for the latter part.
I don't like the deficit either, but I understand that it comes from a lot of factors beyond the president's control-the end of the tech bubble which was largely responsible for the Clinton era "surplus", corporate accounting scandals which devastated the stock market and the attack on 9/11 which devastated the economy and required huge expenditures to recoup from Clintons' massive defense cuts, among other things. I disagree that the way to eliminate the deficit is to simply take more of people's money. Economic growth leads to a larger tax base which leads to increased revenue. Tax hikes eliminate incentives for investment, slow economic growth, and rarely result in an increase in revenue. Those are simple economic facts. I heard the same scare tactics used during the Reagan administration-the fact is, the economy is cyclical, therefore deficits are cyclical, chances are we will NOT be paying off the deficit, it will be paid off by the next economic boom (unless excessive taxation occurs and prevents that boom from coming.)
BTW, what does President Bush have to do with the high gas prices? The current increases are due to the hurricanes, from what I've heard. You're not blaming Bush for those, are you? And I don't blame you for not feeling safe in NYC. The certain knowledge that there are vile animals out there who want to kill Americans doesn't make me feel safe either, but the fact that we haven't been attacked here in 3 years helps a little. Perhaps the terrorists are concentrating their efforts in Iraq becasue they are having too much trouble carrying out their plans here. I don't pretend to be confident about that, but it's possible.
"I hate seeing people dying in Iraq but I know that only by sacrificing now can we ever hope to defeat these extremist, murdering animals, bring freedom and prosperity to the middle east and eliminate the conditions that foster terrorism."
The extremist, murdering animals we were supposed to go after were al Quaeda, who plotted the Sept. 11th attacks. They were headquartered in Afghanistan-- where the Taliban is now regrouping and Osama is still uncaught. So I am very confused by what you mean. Iraqis were not extremist animals plotting to harm us. >
I hesitate to even go down this road again, I've been through it before here so many times. We are not at war against Iraqis. We are not intentionally killing Iraqis. We deposed Saddam Hussein, and now Iraqis and Americans are being killed by foreign terrorists and Saddam loyalists who want to prevent the democratic process from occuring. We are trying to provide the security and training in order to bring stability to the country. Whatever the rationale for going to Iraq, we ARE now fighting extremist, murdering terrorists there. We HAVE gone after al quaeda, 75% of its leadership has been captured or killed. We HAVE overthrown the Taliban, and more than 90% of eligible Afghanis are registered to vote (40% of them women) despite the intimidation of the remnants of the Taliban.
< By & large they were a secular society where many people were getting educations and women had more rights than many other Arab countries. >
They were a secular society whose leader funded and supported Islamic terrorism for the sole reason that he had enemies in common. People may have been getting educations but they also lived in terror of being abducted, raped, tortured and murdered for disagreeing with the regime (or just for walking down the street and catching the eye of Uday or Qusay in the case of women-some women's rights!)
See above for what we're doing there. No, I would never presume to explain anyone's sacrifice to them-there are many parents of U.S. soldiers and soldiers themselves who believe as I do, they don't need my explanation.
No, I don't believe there was a direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, and neither President Bush nor Karl Rove has ever claimed there was. What President Bush claimed was that given (according to all intelligence available to everyone in the world) that Saddam had WMD's, given his defiance of 12 years of UN resolutions, given his long history of funding, harboring and otherwise cooperating with Islamic terrorists, 9/11 taught us that we could not afford to wait until the threat of a collaboration between the two became a reality, possibly with biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons. It's the left which has tried to portray that Bush claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but he claimed no such thing. Even though the WMD intelligence may prove to have been wrong (IMO the jury's still out on that), we had to go with the information that everyone agreed was correct at the time, and we had to force Saddam to comply with the terms of his cease fire agreement. Otherwise the UN as we know it becomes irrelevant, a paper tiger whose resolutions mean nothing and are to be summarily ignored by whatever aggressive rogue nations choose to ignore them. Unfortunately due to France, Germany and Russia's corrupt failure to enforce theor own resolutions, that's already happening.
With the growth of industry in China, experts feel that China will overtake the US in 2 years, putting even more of a strain on oil producing countries.
My temporary solution is that I dont even drive unless it is aboslutely necessary (we also have a pretty fuel efficient car....23 mpg local, 30 mpg hwy. (I will be getting one with better mileage in 14 months when my lease is up too), and I also keep the temperature in my home lower in the winter, preferring to wear another layer of clothes instead of paying $1.80 per gallon for heating oil.....(who knows what it will be this year)
That is another excellent point that I forgot about. We have not built any new processing plants in the US in over 10 years, and it looks like we need to either update the current ones, or add a few additional ones as our demand seems to be increasing ever so slightly every year.
-- You also do have to add Iraq in the equation of higher crude prices because like it or not Iraq is not outputting any where near as much as they had, or have. And Bush in Co. are responsible for the latter part
I disagree with this as the production from Iraq is a small fraction of what the other oil producing countries are respobsible for, especially after the first Gulf War, when the UN basically oversaw the operation, and limited the production. It does have an effect but nothing along the lines of the other items that I detailed in my previous post, or the refineries problem that you pointed out.
Not sure how what we do here (no REAL winter) affects heating oil costs? We have central A/C and heating----don't know if this kind of system USES oil? I've never put any in, anyway! That must be for states that have more severe winters. Ours are pretty mild, and we do the same as your family, we'd rather bundle up than turn on the heater! Luckily, whole family is pretty warm-blooded! :-)
I hear you about keeping the heat on low this winter....feet PJ's for the kids here we come! My boss (very smart man) believes that Heating Oil cost's are going to be huge..and with that, people will be having to take more out of their operating budget and in turn people will be spending less in the retail area, we have a hard winter to be looking at...here is hoping that we don't get a cold winter!
Pages