U.S.A dropped to number 12th on the best country to live in!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 1, 2007 | 06:23 PM
  #31  
s2krn's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
NOT EVEN.
Granted it isn't necessarily his fault, the US during Clinton's admin was way better.
Explain... Were mortgage rates lower, stock market at a higher level, unemployment rate better? What was better during the Clinton admin? It was much more entertaining to hear quotes like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!!" Cigars got a lot more popular during his term for sure.
 
Reply
Old Dec 1, 2007 | 07:52 PM
  #32  
ScrewedUPF150's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 2
From: TX
Iceland number 1???? They can have it I dont wanna be in any frozen tundra. As for the current state of affairs in the US I must say the Bush Admin rates at the bottom. High gas and a war that cant be won costing mega dollars that could be spent at home.
 
Reply
Old Dec 1, 2007 | 08:12 PM
  #33  
PSS-Mag's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 891
Likes: 1
From: Lost some where in the middle of the Ozark Mountains!
Originally Posted by ScrewedUPF150
Iceland number 1???? They can have it I dont wanna be in any frozen tundra. As for the current state of affairs in the US I must say the Bush Admin rates at the bottom. High gas and a war that cant be won costing mega dollars that could be spent at home.
I always thought it was Greenland that was frozen and Iceland was lush.

Word has it that Leif Ericsson named Iceland and Greenland like he did to get explorers to go to Greenland (only to find millions of square miles of ice). Iceland, though Greenland's neighbor, benefits from the gulf and jet streams.

Like a big practical Joke.

I tkink it's pretty darn funny anyway.

Iceland is volcanic, it's suppose to be very pretty.
 
Reply
Old Dec 1, 2007 | 09:00 PM
  #34  
khendrix2374's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
From: Murray , Kentucky
Originally Posted by s2krn
The beauty of living in a free country with many freedoms at your disposal is the freedom of choice. If someone lives in a city too expensive to buy a house or own a vehicle then move. Your income potential is only hindered by your own initiative.

You also have the freedom to read my post fully.

It was stated that the average value of an average American individual is 144K dollars. I Simply stated that that was not true. No chance!
 
Reply
Old Dec 1, 2007 | 09:15 PM
  #35  
Tumba's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 1
From: >wwOwww<
Hank Hill for president
 
Reply
Old Dec 1, 2007 | 09:17 PM
  #36  
s2krn's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by khendrix2374
You also have the freedom to read my post fully.

It was stated that the average value of an average American individual is 144K dollars. I Simply stated that that was not true. No chance!
I read your post fully and fully understood it. I'm making a point. Someone working in New York making the money as someone in Arkansas will have two totally different qualities of life. Point is... if someone feels they don't make enough or it is too expensive somewhere else they can move to better themselves. Your brother living in another city could probably afford to buy a house; therefore increasing his "value".
 
Reply
Old Dec 2, 2007 | 02:19 PM
  #37  
signmaster's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 0
From: Virginia Beach, VA
I agree, net worth and income are two completely different animals influenced by different things.

As a whole, net worth is more influenced by financial decisions. A smart person with lower income can increase their worth a great deal, and a dumb person with great income can be in the negatives.



Khendrix,

Here's the link I posted, it claims lower median net worth.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America's-Wealth-Spectrum
 
Reply
Old Dec 2, 2007 | 02:50 PM
  #38  
PSS-Mag's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 891
Likes: 1
From: Lost some where in the middle of the Ozark Mountains!
Originally Posted by signmaster
I agree, net worth and income are two completely different animals influenced by different things.

As a whole, net worth is more influenced by financial decisions. A smart person with lower income can increase their worth a great deal, and a dumb person with great income can be in the negatives.



Khendrix,

Here's the link I posted, it claims lower median net worth.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America's-Wealth-Spectrum
Yea if I lived in say new york, and only had a one room studio, no car, no boats, no campers, no jet ski's, no wave runners. Hell if I lived anywhere with that life style.... Even on minimum wage....My bank roll would be multi million because I wouldn't be spending my earnings, I'd be earning compound interest.

Just because he doesn't own a car, (that we lose money on....)
He could be investing the equivalent of car payment + gas + insurance each month, earning interest instead of paying.
Same for a house.
Boat
PWC's
Travel Trailer
Tools and equipment
Guns and hunting gear.
Most is a gross loss on money invested.
You aren't likely to get what you paid for it, much less get the cost of ownership back.
 

Last edited by PSS-Mag; Dec 2, 2007 at 02:55 PM.
Reply
Old Dec 2, 2007 | 10:48 PM
  #39  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
THe economy, towards the end, was more stable. Also, there was no crazy war spending for imperialism

Bush quotes are awesome too "we need to let OGBYNs practice their love with women" , or whatever it was.


a whole list:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

sorry craz3d... the clinton economy was smoke and mirrors. The recesion started in about 1998. I don't call that stable. The war spending is NOT for imperialism. We have no design on owning Iraq. They have there own government. We need stable friends in that part of the world. Giving them a democrocy is a very good idea. It is possible that with the right friends and pressures, we could break OPEC. That would only be good for us. Several here expressed the dislike for high gas prices. Who do you think is responsible for that? It most certainly wasn't W. The dumbocrat congress passed bills not allowing for us to drill for oil in the gulf, or anywhere offshore from the U.S. That makes us MORE dependant on forgien oil. No refineries have been built since when? 1976? but our consumption has increased expotentially. Who's fault is that? the dumbocrats. I am so sick of every ill being blamed on W. His is by no means perfect, but the dumbocrats are far worse for our economy.
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 AM.