Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

IA: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 1/26)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
1/26/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Iowa

2010 Senate
Grassley (R) 59%, Krause (D) 26%
Grassley (R) 59%, Conlin (D) 31%
Grassley (R) 61%, Fiegen (D) 25%

Favorable / Unfavorable
Chuck Grassley: 67 / 30
Bob Krause: 27 / 35
Roxanne Conlin: 35 / 45
Tom Fiegan: 23 / 37

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 44 / 54

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

It would be nice to see Grassley go, but for some reason the voters of that state continue electing him. You couldn't really 2 vastly different senators from the same state, regarding their views and policies as Grassley and Harkin.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

We'll have to hope some kind of health reform passes before this summer, and progressives in Iowa can run some ads with Grassley repeating the same words as Sarah Palin, "pulling the plug on grandma" and than show Grassley denying it on tv. He can fool some of the people some of the time, but can't fool all the people all of the time.

____________________

Field Marshal:

For a state Obama carried by 7 points, his approval isn't very good.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I have a amusing political cartoon that has Grassley in it which has him looking really angry and it came out during the town hall nightmare. It says Burcher, Birther and Birdbrain. I don't know if he was a burcher, but he must have made some comment about Obama's birth certificate.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Rasmussen isn't accurate on Obama's approval since voters in presidential elections turn out in greater numbers. I saw a poll that had Obama at 49-46.

____________________

Xenobion:

I've said it once I've said it again that approval does not = votes. There are a great number of "lesser of 2 evils" voters out there.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It just doesn't sound like there are any strong enough candidates in Iowa who would challenge him. In ND, Byron Dorgan had about 70 percent approval, but the popular governor Hoeven had like 85 percent approval.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I predict Hoeven wants to run for president in 2016. Being from ND and taking credit for a state surplus and a 5 percent unemployment rate is a good selling point for the GOP, but than again ND doesn't have a lot of turnover and is pretty homogenous.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal

Obama actually carried Iowa by 9.3 points. Ras underestimates Obama's approval because he is polling likely voters in 2010. Those voters have a Republican lean.

I still expect Obama's numbers to drop further nationally into the low 40s or high 30's by the end of the year. His numbers seem to closely track Reagan's numbers, which is not much of a surprise.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Reading about his record, I could honestly say I could live with Hoeven as president after Obama's second term. I wouldn't vote for him, but he sounds like a straightforward semi-conservative who doesn't create contreversy.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I don't think Obama's approval will drop to Reagan's numbers,or Bill Clinton's because he has kept a steady approval of non-white voters averaging about 70 percent, as well as white democrats and progressives. If his approval among whites were to drop to 30 percent, and Obama kept a 70 percent among non-whites, be would average about 45 percent approval. Our country is about 40 percent non-white anyhow. I think he has probably lost a lot of approval from just about all center/right whites, but I think his numbers will be back up in the next few months. Be more optimistic than that; Obama is still the most popular politician in America.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

My friends overseas and in Canada think AMerican voters just don't make sense. They can't understand how the voters can turn on Obama after 1 year, yet it took nearly 4 years before Bush's bubble really sank. They think Iraq was a human rights violation and ask why we can't prosecute the bastards, and I tell them, that the powerful few rule over the many. Their economies in Europe and Canada are hurting as well, but they are smart enough to know that their economy is horrible and it isn't always the fault of their leader.

____________________

Stillow:

Who cares what your dopy canadian freinds think....

O will dorp to the low 40's....he won't be able to rebound like reagan or clinton because his policies are anti growth policies which will driv ehte economy down fruther....he's a one term president. Last nights speech almost gaurantees it.....he's totally out of touch.


____________________

Stillow:

oh and also tell your canadian freinds hockey is boring!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well Sarah Palin likes hockey too. Did you forget that?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

For all you right wingers who keep defending the failed policies of conservatives, here is a good reply to those of you who think Obama's policies expressed in his speech are not pro growth.

Well maybe his policy on corporations giving unlimited funds to candidates to lie about progressive candidates, is anti-growth. It is anti growth, of greedy white men and women, committed to corporate interests that will suck us dry, raise our health care premiums send our corporations overseas and kill main street by allowing places like Wallmart to put everyone else out of business. Obama is trying to help

"Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?"


Right
Direction Wrong
Direction Unsure
% % %
1/27/10
71 27 2
1/22-26/10
53 43 5

____________________

Stillow:

Ya those horrible conservative policies that gave us the boom of the 80's and 90's.......darn conservatives!! It was not until W came along and decided to engage in hug eg'ment spending that things fell apart. He jumped on the liberal spending bandwagon and couldn't stop.......and we see the result.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The early 80's had a horrible economic time. I am not blaming Reagan for taking almost 3 years to get the 10 percent unemployment down, yet Obama has been in office for just over a year, and you keep ripping him apart. I just don't get it. For all you "states rights people". I tend to blame individual states for not doing enough to solve unemployment. Some of them are Democrats and some of them are Republicans. VT, MN, ND, SD, and NH all have unemployment rates under 7.5. They are doing something right? Unlike you, I don't blame a weak international economy on a president. It is far more complicated than that.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Besides, it wasn't conservative or liberal policies that made the mid 80's and mid to late 90's a success, it was a spirit of bi-partisan. Democrats worked well with Reagan, and Clinton laid down the law with the "contract with America" people like Gingrich and Armey, and they decided to work with him rather than threaten to fillibuster, and or threaten to make his policies his "waterloo". I just don't see any compromise yet from the GOP with Obama, and if I were him, I would be a lot tougher with them than he is.

____________________

Williame123:

Farleftandproud

Non-whites DO NOT make up 40% of the electorate. They make up about 25%. Also, as unemployment stays at or near 10% for the rest of the year, his approval among minorities will weaken.

His numbers have been surprisingly resilient considering the economic and political environment, but he is mortal like all the other presidents. He will eventually bounce back if there is a sustained decrease in unemployment.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"O will dorp to the low 40's....he won't be able to rebound like reagan or clinton because his policies are anti growth policies which will driv ehte economy down fruther....he's a one term president. Last nights speech almost gaurantees it.....he's totally out of touch."

November 2012 will be a very depressing month for you.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Whites are predicted to be in the minority in another 40 years. I didn't say non-whites are always likely voters but they do turnout in presidential elections, and they turnout when there is a lot at stake. VOting early and giving people more opportunities to vote are things that progessives like, but never see any conservatives being thrilled about early voting? Why is that? Is it a coincidence.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Unemployment is going to improve. For all those who like Obama, have more faith in him. Winter is always a bad time, and things pick up in the Spring. I am not saying the economy is going to improve drasticly this year, but I will be very surprised if it stays as bad as it is. I predict about 8.8 percent by november.

____________________

Williame123:

Farleftandproud

"I predict about 8.8 percent by november."

Not likely. Check out the CBO, Fed and Goldman Sachs forecasts. Historically, recovery from deep recessions caused by financial crises are far less robust than recovery from deep recessions caused by monetary tightening by central banks. That is why the recovery in the '80s was so robust.

____________________

Bigmike:

Farleftandproud

From the Harris thread.

"Harris is the worst poll of all because on presidential approval it is via internet. 40 percent approval for Obama? I don't think it is that bad yet."

Dying to know why you ended with "yet"

Williame123

I gotta believe the Reagan tax cuts had a lot to do with the 80's recovery being robust. Making the prospects for any current recovery pretty bleak.

____________________

Stillow:

There cannot be a robust recovery with Obama's current policies. He has run up the deficit to record levels...and annual projections moving forward are horrible. That is going to do huge amounts of harm to this country. I know you libs beleive we can just borrow and print money forever and the debt and deficits are meaningless, but it does not quite work that way.

Plus everywhere we turn he wants to raise taxes on people or business. He wants massive new entitlements like healthcare......

Sorry guys, he is doing everything wrong.

There will be a surge down on unemployment because in part the hiring related to the census which hires soemthing like a million people, but only for a short time, by end of summer they will all be unemployed again.

He is out of touch along with the Dems. Nobody wants the HCR, yet they continue to push it, they just keep kicking the dead horse.

____________________

Williame123:

Bigmike:

"I gotta believe the Reagan tax cuts had a lot to do with the 80's recovery being robust. Making the prospects for any current recovery pretty bleak."

So then why didn't his signiicant payroll and corporate tax INCREASES stifle the recovery? Also, given that Bush 43 cut marginal rates but Clinton and Bush 41 raised marginal rates by almost 30%, why was growth more robust under Clinton than under Bush 43.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

Reagan tripled the debt and Bush '41 was forced to pay for it by raising taxes to control it. Reagan signed the largest corporate tax INCREASE in history into law. He also raised payroll taxes. You are so blinded by ideology that you are clueless.

____________________

Stillow:

Williame123

You can raise taxes in good times....I would even argue its healthy to raise taxes in good times....Reagan had the problem with a democrat controlled congress which refused to cut spending. While o nthe contrary, Clinton had a conservative congress which forced him to control spending.

Also another big difference is Reagan did not make insane promises he could not possibly keep like obama promising unemployment would not exceed 8 percent if we passed his bogus stimulus package.

You, like many hav ea misunderstanding of fiscal conservative policy. Tax CUTS are required to spur economic growth in a down economy. Bush in 2001 is another perfect example as his tax cuts lead to good growth thru much of his presidency along with record low unemployment. His problem was 9/11 did impact things...and then combined with his inability control his spending lead us to not so good times.

Tax increases can be healthy during good times as investment funds for g'ment, one time infrastrucutre projects, etc....

O is a huge spender, he actually makes W look fiscally conservative....its dangerous because he has a dem congress to go along with all his massive deficit spending. At least reagan and Clinton had a counter weight to work with.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Trying to argue with Stillow against the Reagan mythology is useless.

Personally, I don't think the 80s were all that great economically. We had high interest rates, a recession in 82-83, a massive stock market crash in 87, and a collapse of the savings & loan industry (which required the largest "bailout" to date). It took 5 years for the market to recover from 87.

I also wish people would remember the railroad bailouts of the 50s through the 70s, the bailout of New York City under Ford, or the bailouts of the airlines in 2001. The most massive gov't intervention in the economy probably occurred after WWII to assist the private sector in transitioning back to civilian modes of production. People are complaining at Obama as if all this is unprecedented.

____________________

Stillow:

It is useless....its like it must be that spongebob vs oreilly thing.............

If the 80's were so horrible why was Reagan re-elected with a massive landslide? Why did Bush sr. win in 88....the first time since WW2 that a party held the WH for more than 8 straight years....the 80's saw massive job growth, a huge expansion of the middle class...and Reagan was rewarded for that. Those policies carried over into the 90's.

Recessions are normal and totally needed for a healthy economy. Stock market crashes are not a bad thing....yeah they scare everyone for a few months or even a year or so....but they present awesome opportuity to generage wealth.

Even during this recent crash, I bought into the market when the Dow hit 7,000, it went down more, but now its abck up over 10,000. i have made a killing riding the market recovery back up. I'm debating with myself now if I should sell off some things, because i beleive a double dip is coming, but thats just me.

You libs blame cons for everything....short term memory I guess, the Carter era was horrible....remember waiting in line just to get gas? 21+ percent intrest rates? The infamous misery index? FDR prolonged the depression with his g'ment involvemnt and was only bailed out of his mistakes by WW2 which ended the depression.

Sure its all debatable....we all have our views and interprations....but one thing is certain, you cannot end a recession by raising taxes and deficit spending.....you can only jumpstart an economy with tax cuts. capital must be freed up in the private sector. then during good years I have no problem with modest tax increases for various g'ment needs.

But you do not go and pass trillion dollar entitlements in the midst of a recession.

however, financial smarts are required not only by g'ment, but by us. In the mid 90's we began a huge credit binge....people began living well beyond there means with access to easy credit....which persisted up until it all popped in 2008. Right here in my snobby upscale neighborhood I watched people move in who had no business buying a home that expensive....now those are all foreclosure signs. I saw kids in there early 20's buying 750,000 houses here....the credit binge which started in the mid 90's got totally out of control in the 00's.

Just as we have to manage our spending and finances, g'ment must do the same....you can only live beyond your means for a short time...it ALWAYS catches up to you. Carrying debt is not always a bad thing, but to much debt IS always a bad thing.

So you can slam Reagan and praise Clinton if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy....but Reagan kick started the biggest economic expansion in history....and it was ultimately only undone by mismanagement of finances by both people and g'ment. People got gready....g'ment got to big and private and public sector corruption got out of control. Now we are hitting a reset button...and if the right fiscal policy is adopte dnow, we can enjoy another long lasting boom....and yes a long lasting booom will have nomral recessions...which again are very healthy to have.

If we do the wrong things, which is what we are doing now, we will end up with the FDR result which is a prolonged severe recession with no real end in sight....barring another major world war i guess.

____________________

Williame123:

"Reagan had the problem with a democrat controlled congress which refused to cut spending. While o nthe contrary, Clinton had a conservative congress which forced him to control spending. "

Oh really. Reagan's budget director disagrees with you. This is what he said of the Reagan administration:

"[A] lapse into fiscal indiscipline on a scale never before experienced in peacetime."

--David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) in the book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed

Another Reaganite blames Reagan.
"In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States."

--Richard Darman (Reagan adviser), in Who's in Control? Polar Politics and the Sensible Center
Also, if a conservative congress can force Clinton to control spending, then why couldn't Reagan force a democratic Congress to control spending? After all, Eisenhower forced a Democratic congress to balance the budget in the '50s and Clinton forced Gringrich to back down by shutting down the government.

If we follow your reasoning to its logical end, we must conclude that Reagan was either a weak and spineless leader or a profligate spender or both. Take your pick. Either way, Reagan looks terrible. By the way, the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987, so Reagan didn't preside over an entirely Democratic congress.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"Also another big difference is Reagan did not make insane promises he could not possibly keep like obama promising unemployment would not exceed 8 percent if we passed his bogus stimulus package."

Oh really? Reagan made an insane promise in 1981. This is what Reagan said on March 6, 1981 when he was arguing for his economic policies:
"[A] drastic reduction in the deficit...will take place in the fiscal year '82."

1982 saw the highest deficit since WWII. HaHaHa
Reagan's rosy and comical budget predictions were the butt of jokes in the '80s.

P.S. The last post was also in response to you.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Again, there's no point trying to convince you when you don't even read and are so steeped in your own ideas that you can't see past your own nose.

I said "the 80s were not all that great economically." Not that they were "horrible." There were two recessions, and 1980 is when health care and college tuition costs began to rise dramatically, thus reducing real income for the middle class. Unemployment declined after 83 but the jobs gained were relatively worse than the jobs they replaced. This was also the period when income inequality increased dramatically.

G.H.W. Bush had to pay for a lot of the Reagan policies, the tax cuts being one, and Reagan started the precedent of massive defense outlays without paying for them. IMO, G.H.W. Bush was far superior to Reagan and generally a very underrated president.

The middle class now is no better off today than they were in the 80s. They're probably worse off, because the "gateways" to the middle class require a greater percentage of income.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"So you can slam Reagan and praise Clinton if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy....but Reagan kick started the biggest economic expansion in history"

The question you have not yet answered is: if the Reagan tax cuts led to the boom of the last 30 years, then why didn't the Bush 41 and Clinton tax increases reverse it?

You completely ignore monetary policy, trade, global markets and technological advancement. Your knowledge of macroeconomics comes from bumper stickers.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

The long desultory sermon you posted is full of so many tortuous and half-baked arguments that I don't know where to begin.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"knowledge of macroeconomics comes from bumper stickers."

It actually comes from a lot of the exaggeration and hero-worship that accompanied Reagan's death in 2004.

Ie: "greatest economic expansion," etc... http://mediamatters.org/research/200406090005

I imagine that as we move further away from the Reagan era, his reputation will decline, like it did for Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

William123,

Not that I disagree with you, but weren't Darman and Stockman part of the spurned Reaganites? It's been a year or two since I've read much about the Reagan administration, but I recall that there was a good deal of dissension and a lot of bitterness that followed among some of its members.

____________________

Williame123:

"Not that I disagree with you, but weren't Darman and Stockman part of the spurned Reaganites?"

Yes. Stockman spoke honestly about fiscal indiscipline in the administration to reporters and was never forgiven.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

According to a new Gallup poll, "Prez Barack Obama's job approval rating, which has averaged 50% since Dec. 1, continues to be significantly above that average among Americans with postgraduate education (58%). Among educational groups, only postgraduates show a rating above the majority level."

What this indicate is that, those with lesser educational attainment either tend to be more racist or are easily swayed by Fox News hot air and lies. The more educated you are, the likely that you use your stronger faculties to analyse whatever your hear. Those with lesser educational attainment are easily fooled by conservative talk radio and Fox News talking points because they lack the necessary skills to check facts.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think our lagging educational system and it's regional inequalities are the reason we have elect such crappy poliiticians. We elect many good ones, but I do believe that civics and history isn't taught right in the schools and our educators have come short. About 50 percent of eligable Americans vote, and that is a serious problem for why our government is dysfunctional and neither side can agree on so many issues.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well for being a poll on the approval of Chuck Grassley, not the greatest firestorm of a subject, we started quite an interesting discussion.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Reagan and Clinton did everything correctly during their terms. Reagan greatly reformed the tax code, making it significantly more efficient, removing dumb regulations, and making it much more progressive.

Clinton did raise income taxes but he also times them with cuts in capital gains taxes. It has been argued that small income tax rate changes have little long term effects (though Obama's own economic adviser Romer states that for every 1% decrease in the tax rate, you increase GDP 3%) and that capital gains are where the real value lies.

In addition, the securitization market began to get going (for better or worse) in the mid-80's which helped unlock significant amount of capital off bank books allowing them to loan more and invest more, especially into private equity markets.

You can argue against Reagan all you want but the facts state otherwise. After 1982, the country had the greatest boom in economic growth, both in absolute GDP growth and in per capital income growth going all the way back to the 1880's. And in that time, unemployment dropped from 10%+ to 4% in 2000.

And PPP recently released a new poll that said Fox was the most trusted news station. In addition, the more educated you were, the most likely you were to watch Fox.

____________________

Keith Dinsmore:

Democrats should note that Bob Krause's unfavorables are lower than the two other primary candidates. It is apparent to many Iowans that Bob offers the best chance to knock off Grassley in November, which should be our primary objective in choosing a candidate.

Plus, he is very good on the issues most Democrats (and Iowans) really care about.

____________________

Stillow:

You lefties seem to simply have a disconnect between your partisan desire and reality. Reagan policies gave us a huge period of economic prosperity that lasted well beyond two decades....and was only brought to end bu the things I mentioned above.

It seems to me your still in denial about hi 1984 landslide....and you simply are unable due to your hyperpartisan view, to accept that tax and spend policies do not work. We treid that in the 30's.

We can og back and forth all day, but i nthe end the facts speak for themselves.

____________________

Bigmike:

IdahoMulato:

Of course BO polls well among those with postgraduate degress. He is one of them. People tend to identify with those they have something in common with.

Equating conservatism with racism or with ignorance is why the Dems are locked out of winning in so many states. You gotta look down on those who don't agree with you. Keep making that mistake and MA will happen again and again.

Education and intelligence are not the same thing. And I guarantee you Harvard doesn't teach common sense.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"You can argue against Reagan all you want but the facts state otherwise. After 1982, the country had the greatest boom in economic growth, both in absolute GDP growth and in per capital income growth going all the way back to the 1880's. And in that time, unemployment dropped from 10%+ to 4% in 2000."

Of course you can argue with the facts when you choose them selectively. You didn't mention income inequality, job stability, or sharp inflation in health care or college education, which was evidence I cited that for the 80s not being the economic utopia you make them out to be.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Take this for instance. In 1965 the average new house cost $13,600 while the average annual income was $6,450.

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1965.html

In 2009, the average home price was $178,300 while average income in 2009 was about $50,000.

http://www.northjersey.com/realestate/announcements/83004652_Existing-home_sales_down__but_prices_rise_.html

So despite GDP growth or raw per capita income growth, the wealth of Americans has declined, not increased, taking into account the higher debt burden required to be middle class. People now have to mortgage more than triple their income when it used to be double.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"And I guarantee you Harvard doesn't teach common sense."

Well you know what Einstein said about common sense, don't you?

____________________

Field Marshal:

"So despite GDP growth or raw per capita income growth, the wealth of Americans has declined, not increased, taking into account the higher debt burden required to be middle class. People now have to mortgage more than triple their income when it used to be double. "

Aaron, you are looking at one simply statistic and stat you are looking at had nothing to do with Reagan. First off, Reagan actually decreased housing prices. Well, Volcker did it with sky high interest rates in the early 80's. Second, housing prices jumped mostly during the 60's and 70's because of input inflation- the oil embargo greatly pushed up inflation and housing material inputs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png

In addition, if you look at food, clothing, and other basic utilities divided by income per capita, you would see that most basics have decreased substantially over the time period.

In addition, income mobility increased substantially over the time period. Decreasing the influence of unions is just one reason for the rise. Most people think that the top quintile of income earners is stationary but it is far from the case. Most people in the lowest quintile in 1996 were at least 2 levels above it by 2005.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

____________________

ChicagoKid:

Health care inflation since the early 70's has been up 250% and education inflation up 450% since the early 70's. The education is on all parts of government for giving away too many loans, allowing universities to say, "oh you get government loans so you don't need endowment". I left an out of state school to go to an instate school and its a rip off...

Also with Reagan, spending increased mostly on defense, to defeat the Soviets. Its opinion whether you think it was necessary or not, i do. But its on Bush 1 and Clinton to bring that spending down if it is not needed anymore.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Didn't have the time to keep up with this thread. Just read the last few posts.

Don't forget that an average house built today is more than double in square footage than those build 40 years ago. I've seen that stat a while ago. it's a little over 2500 ft now vs 1200 in the 60's. Not to mention it has far more advancements in systems and materials. Stricter codes, etc..

It's like cars. Average car cost maybe 5 grand in the 70's and it's 25 now. So it's maybe double adjusted for inflation. But look and compare the two. 70's cars are bare bones compared to today's. Look under the hood or under the carriage. I'd guess there are three times the number of parts in todays cars. A bunch of systems that didn't exist back then. Of course you have to pay more to get more.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

FM,

The links you cite don't really say a whole lot. The treasury study basically found that people's incomes increase as they get older. Also that there are periods where the top earners are making a immense amount of money, but they don't always. Not much groundbreaking there...sometimes people make a killing on their investments, other times not. It also found that this dynamic mobility was the same in the previous decade, and other studies have found similar trends for prior decades. So mobility is that same while inequality has still increased. The article tries to say that well, absolute income mobility increases, so increasing inequality doesn't matter. I find that dubious. Just because someone at 55 makes more than he did when he was 30 doesn't invalidate the inequality problem between the upper and lower quintiles. It almost read like a Heritage study; It had kind of a rosy view of how upward mobility takes place. Horatio Alger was even mentioned in a footnote. Anyone today knows that hard work is only one aspect of getting ahead. While an important factor, your work ethic is secondary to who you know.

Then the chart cited seems to indicate that home prices exploded in the 90s.

I mentioned the home price:income ratio to illustrate the higher debt burden. Unless you think people are paying cash for their houses. I will concede that this ratio was worse in the late 70s/early 80s, when it was quadruple. Now it's just over triple. But the fact remains that it's still worse now than it was in the 50s/60s.

Today young people face anywhere from $10-50K debt when they graduate from college. This alone is something prior generations never had to deal with.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think just about everything has increased since Reagan was president including housing, college education and just about everything. The reason that now more than ever we have to fix healthcare is because people were paying a much smaller percentage of their salaries in health care costs when Reagan were president. Hospital stays and seeing specialists has skyrocketed. MOre companies gave benefits in the 80's and unions were stronger. MOre people today work as independent contractors or run their own businesses, and many of these people make too much money for medicaid. That is why healthcare was able to be a smaller priority in 1985 than it is 25 years later.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR