Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are you better off than you were four years ago?
CBS MARKET WATCH ^ | Sept. 10, 2004 | Marshall Loeb

Posted on 09/11/2004 1:03:06 PM PDT by The_Republican

That famous quadrennial question was originally put by Republican challenger Ronald Reagan to Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter in the presidential election debates of 1980.

In the debates for 2004, you can be sure that Democratic challenger John Kerry will put the same crucial question to Republican incumbent George Bush. And the outcome of the election could depend on how America's voters answer that question.

The answer is not clear-cut. It depends largely on which economic data you use, and how you interpret them.

One expert who has a commanding knowledge of those numbers is David Wyss (rhymes with "geese"), the eminent chief economist at Standard & Poor's. He keeps an economic model that aims to forecast the presidential election vote based on changes in the past year of four key economic numbers that determine whether voters are indeed better off.

The most important indicator, he said, is the change in the unemployment rate, because the most important question on a voter's mind is, "Do I have a job?"

The other year-over-year indicators that Wyss incorporates are the growth in real income, the change in the core inflation rate (as measured by the consumer price index) and the change in oil prices.

One month ago, the last time we checked in with Wyss and his model, he figured that the first three indicators favored Bush. The unemployment rate was down from a year ago, personal income was strong and core inflation was down. Only the change in oil prices -- way up in a year -- worked against the incumbent president.

After crunching the numbers, Wyss concluded that the Republicans stood to win a commanding 54 percent of the two-party presidential vote.

So where do things stand now?

Bush is still farther ahead, according to Wyss. "Bush has gained one point from a month or two ago, mainly because the unemployment rate [which is 5.4 percent of the labor force] is coming down faster than I had expected," he said.

In sum, just about all the key numbers suggest that people should be feeling better off than they did four years ago.

However, one significant issue that may be causing grave concern among the public is the high and rising costs of health care. "There is a real crisis coming in health care," added Wyss.

He is shocked that health care costs paid by companies and their workers surged 13.9 percent last year and 11.2 percent this year -- more than 25 percent over two years. Clearly, employers cannot continue bearing such costs. "We may get an upward spiral in the number of companies simply not paying health care benefits," he said

Of course, both presidential candidates have proposals for health care reform, but, Wyss pointed out, "both are pretty vague and neither do the job.

"I can't understand what Kerry's program is, except for cutting administrative costs. In the United States, 25 percent of heath care costs are administrative, double what any other country in the world spends."

Bush would have individuals put money into tax-sheltered health savings plans, from which we could withdraw money to pay medical bills. But the Standard and Poor's economist figures this could work only if the public were required to buy catastrophic insurance to cover really big expenses.

"The real problem is what you are going to have to pay if you've had, say, cancer. I had cancer surgery five years ago. I'm not sure I could get a catastrophic policy at a reasonable cost today."

As for the problem of preexisting condition, Wyss asked: "Who's going to write a policy for Bill Clinton now?"

Until we start making progress on these matters, voters will be distracted.

Unsurprisingly, Wall Street hopes for Bush to be reelected, if only because he would preserve their tax cuts, whereas Kerry has promised to roll back the tax cuts for people who have adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They include many high-rolling investors who are hardly enthusiastic about having to pay higher taxes for their capital gains, dividends, incomes and estates.

Wyss expects the stock market to be wobbly until the election because of all the uncertainty. "But markets will go up after the election no matter who wins, because investors will know what to buy and what not to buy," he said. "The market would prefer Bush to win, but it would prefer that the election be over more than anything else. The main thing is for somebody to win and that the election is settled."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; eletions; gwb2004
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

1 posted on 09/11/2004 1:03:08 PM PDT by The_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

I don't think most people have to check the economic data to determine whether or not they personally are better off.


2 posted on 09/11/2004 1:06:26 PM PDT by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

No but I don't blame that on the government or the president. That is MY job.


3 posted on 09/11/2004 1:06:30 PM PDT by NEBO (If we don't take care of the terrorists, we certainly won't have to worry about the economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
To CBS Market Watch:

I'm much better today than I was a few days ago with your network heading for the ash heap.

4 posted on 09/11/2004 1:07:00 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

NO


5 posted on 09/11/2004 1:07:19 PM PDT by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Yes! I own a home and live in the Free State of Montana now, thanks to George W. Bush!


6 posted on 09/11/2004 1:07:49 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Yes.


7 posted on 09/11/2004 1:07:56 PM PDT by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Well I just have to think what if Gore would have won in 2000 and the answer are we better off today is just a resounding YES...


8 posted on 09/11/2004 1:09:21 PM PDT by tomnbeverly (Do not let the UN make decisions for the protection of the United States... VOTE for George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Heck yes!

I lost a bundle during the tech meltdown. It's just starting to recover now somewhat.

I don't blame Clinton and I don't blame President Bush. It's the market cycle and the big speculative blowoff.


9 posted on 09/11/2004 1:09:28 PM PDT by OpusatFR (Let me repeat this: the web means never having to swallow leftist garbage again. Got it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

I'm super thanks for asking.


10 posted on 09/11/2004 1:09:40 PM PDT by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

No, everything sucks right now for me, but I'm not childish enough to project this into nationwide conspiracy against me like a lot of jerks I see. Life changes like the weather. I just hope the forecast for tommorrow is clear and sunny.


11 posted on 09/11/2004 1:09:40 PM PDT by orangelobster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
As for the problem of preexisting condition, Wyss asked: "Who's going to write a policy for Bill Clinton now?"

Does CBS even try anymore? Yeah, sure, Bubba's poor just like everyone else and can't afford insurance.

Whatever.

12 posted on 09/11/2004 1:10:36 PM PDT by TBarnett34 (The Democrats: 9/10 girlie-men in a 9/11 world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

The real question is:

Are we better off than we expected to be under Gore?

Given how the Clinton-Gore admin failed to respond to
terrorism, the answer is not hard to figure out.


13 posted on 09/11/2004 1:10:54 PM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
You gotta' hand it to SeeBS. It takes hard work to put an article like this together and make it this stupid. The headline asks, "Are you better off...", and then the first paragraph answers, "It depends largely on which economic data you use....

So, according to forgery central, you need data to be able to determine if you are better off or not. Their data, no doubt.

Gee, thanks Dan, now I understand that I have no brain and will consult your magnificant orginization right away next time a question comes up regarding my personal financial situation.

14 posted on 09/11/2004 1:11:35 PM PDT by snopercod (I'm on the "democrat diet". I only eat when the democrats say something good about America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Maybe, maybe not...thanks to Osama bin Laden and his fellow-travelers.

But thanks be to Dubya...without him AMERICA would be much worse off!
15 posted on 09/11/2004 1:13:11 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Yes.


16 posted on 09/11/2004 1:14:45 PM PDT by bad company (What's the font kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

I have my data on spreadsheets.

I'm up from 40% since 2000, well into seven figures.

However, I do not credit the Bush administration, but my own thrift and work.


17 posted on 09/11/2004 1:14:57 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

yes, better job and making more money. Finally cracked into 6 figures.

Also our company is having a record year and my year end bonus will be HUGE!$!$


18 posted on 09/11/2004 1:16:57 PM PDT by Private_Sector_Does_It_Better (The UN did such a great job with the Oil for Food program, let's let them run the whole country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Of course, a man of courage has chosen like minded men to serve this nation and we are forever grateful.


19 posted on 09/11/2004 1:17:56 PM PDT by OldFriend (It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given US freedom of the press)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

No. I was skinnier 4 years ago.

Bus so was Al Gore.


20 posted on 09/11/2004 1:18:16 PM PDT by keats5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson