Does the weak recovery feel more like a recession to you?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The worst recession since the Great Depression may have ended more than two years ago, but millions of Americans aren't feeling much relief.
The Wall Street Journal highlights some sobering economic statistics that explain why this achingly slow recovery feels more like a recession.
For starters, people are making less money:
The income of the median household - which fell about 3 percent during the recession - has dropped another 7 percent since the recession ended.
It's estimated the income of the typical American household - adjusted for inflation - has fallen well below the January 2000 level.
Then there are the jobs: the national unemployment rate remains stubbornly above 9 percent, and almost half the unemployed have been out of work for at least six months.
And having an education doesn't necessarily help. Research shows that since 2009, median incomes of households led by high school graduates, those with two-year degrees and those with bachelor's degrees all fell.
As for the housing market, it still hasn't rebounded: one in five mortgage holders has a loan bigger than the value of their home.
And a new report out suggests the housing market has even further to fall... with home prices headed for a triple-dip. It says by next June home values will have dropped to a new low of 35 percent below the peak reached in early 2006.
One recent poll shows only 1 in 5 Americans think the economy will improve in the next 12 months.
Here's my question to you: Does the weak recovery feel more like a recession to you?
Tune in to "The Situation Room" at 5 p.m. ET to see if Jack reads your answer on the air.
And we'd love to know where you're writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Should smokers and fat people pay more for health care?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Smokers and fat Americans could soon be paying a lot more for their health care.
Reuters reports a growing number of companies are raising health care costs for so-called unhealthy employees.
Translation: people who don't quit smoking, lose weight or lower their cholesterol.
In the past few years, many employers have been trying to get workers to voluntarily improve their health to help bring down soaring insurance costs. They've introduced weight loss programs or classes to help people stop smoking.
But not enough employees have signed up or improved their health. So instead, companies are now going to start making these employees pay more.
One recent survey shows the use of penalties is expected to climb next year to include almost 40% of large and medium-sized companies. That's up from 19% this year and only 8% in 2009.
Penalties include higher insurance premiums and deductibles for those who aren't participating in the company's health programs – and those engaged in risky health behavior, like smoking.
Wal-Mart, which insures more than 1 million people, is one such company. It says smokers consume about 25% more health care services than nonsmokers.
Starting next year, Wal-Mart will charge employees who smoke higher premiums, along with offering a free program to help them quit.
Critics worry these kinds of penalties will hurt poor people the most, since health care costs consume a bigger part of their income and they may not have as much access to gyms or fresh food.
Here's my question to you: Should smokers and fat people pay more for health care?
Tune in to "The Situation Room" at 4 p.m. ET to see if Jack reads your answer on the air.
And we'd love to know where you're writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
How much confidence do you have in the super committee to do anything meaningful about the national debt in the next four weeks?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's been nearly three months since the so-called super committee was created.
We've had months of closed-door, secret meetings - and only a few public appearances - as the panel's deadline rapidly approaches.
The public has been shut out of the negotiations while the lobbyists have had continuous access to committee members. How's that transparency-thingy President Obama promised us working out for you? Sort of reminds me of the health care legislation.
So far there are no signs the committee has agreed to any meaningful cuts.
Democrats proposed a plan for cutting up to $3 trillion... but Republicans quickly rejected it because it addition to the cuts, the Democrats plan also called for tax increases. $1.2 trillion in tax increases - to which the Republicans said, "no chance."
They called the plan "outrageously absurd" and a "non-starter," and some are accusing Democrats of leaking the plan because they think the panel will fail.
The super committee has until November 23. If no agreement is reached, across-the-board "trigger" spending cuts would go into effect in 2013.
House Speaker John Boehner says the trigger cuts are unacceptable, and that it's important for the super committee to meet its goals. A lot of people don't think that's going to happen.
And while the politicians fiddle, our country's $14 trillion national debt keeps growing.
Here’s my question to you: How much confidence do you have in the super committee to do anything meaningful about the national debt in the next four weeks?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
How can the Obama administration justify killing U.S. citizens overseas without due process?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. government has killed three American citizens with drone strikes in Yemen over the past month. Three.
They include the al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, another al Qaeda member and Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman.
The teenager born in Colorado was killed in a drone strike that targeted and killed a prominent militant along with several others. It's unclear if the youngster was a militant himself.
But whether he was or not, the silence coming from the U.S. government regarding his death is deafening.
U.S. officials will only say they didn't know the teen was hit with that al Qaeda member. Otherwise, they have not commented on the drone strike. No one is taking responsibility for his death.
The U.S. drone campaign is becoming an increasingly controversial part of its national security policy. The secretive airstrikes have killed hundreds of foreigners in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya.
But this case is different, it includes an American teenager killed by the United States in a country that we're not even at war with.
The Obama administration has justified attacks against al Qaeda members anywhere in the world. In the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, officials say it was a legal strike because he was planning attacks against Americans.
But not everyone is convinced that killing American citizens anywhere without due process is a good idea. The ACLU has asked for classified documents justifying the killing of the senior Al-Awlaki.
Some, including Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, have even suggested the targeted killing of an American could be an impeachable offense for President Obama.
Here’s my question to you: How can the Obama administration justify killing U.S. citizens overseas without due process?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Why is support for gun control at record lows?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
More Americans are against gun control than ever before.
Gallup's annual crime poll shows support for various gun-control measures at historic lows - including the ban on handguns.
Only 26% of Americans - a record low - now favor a handgun ban; that's down from 60% when Gallup first asked the question in 1959.
Also, the poll shows that for the first time, there's more opposition than support for a ban on semiautomatic handguns or rifles - 53% to 43%.
In 1996, these numbers were nearly reversed. Congress passed a ban on assault rifles in 1994, but the law expired in 2004.
Overall, support for making gun laws "more strict" is at its lowest ever, 43%. As recently as 2007, a majority of Americans favored stricter laws.
* It's worth noting the growing opposition to gun control shows up among all groups.
* Only Democrats, Eastern residents and those without guns in their homes still favor stricter gun laws. And there's not a single group with a majority in favor of the handgun ban.
What's interesting here is Americans are shifting to a more pro-gun stance despite high profile incidents of gun violence - like the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others.
Gallup suggests the reasons for this trend don't appear to be related to crime or to an increase in gun ownership.
Instead, pollsters say the trends may reflect a growing acceptance of guns and support for the Second Amendment.
What was it then-candidate Obama said in 2008? That when people in small towns lose their jobs they get bitter and "cling to guns or religion."
Here’s my question to you: Why is support for gun control at record lows?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
What will the United States be like if there is no middle class?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's called the middle class squeeze, and if it keeps up, the U.S. might not have a middle class one day soon.
A USA Today analysis of Census data finds there are 150 areas nationwide where the share of income going to the middle class shrank from 2006 to 2010.
Middle class households generally means those making between $21,000 and $100,000 a year. It includes the three-fifths of households sandwiched between the rich and the poor.
Experts say this trend dates back to the 1970s. Back then, 53% of the nation's income went to the middle class. In 2010, it was about 46%.
The recent recession has only made things worse as employers cut jobs and hours, furloughed workers and froze salaries. All the while the value of family assets - like homes and investments - went down.
The scariest part is there doesn't seem to be any relief in sight.
Take, for example, my hometown of Reno, Nevada:
Unemployment is at 14% - up from 4% in 2006; and median income has dropped 10% in the same time. Foreclosures are among the highest in the country.
In order to make ends meet, many middle class Americans are cutting back:
Selling off their possessions like cars or furniture, moving in with roommates or family members, cutting cell phones or cable service, shopping at consignment stores, bringing their lunch to work, doing their own household repairs, and cutting back on their 401K contributions.
A sad statement on the middle class that helped build this great country.
Here’s my question to you: What will the United States be like if there is no middle class?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Will President Obama's foreign policy successes help him in 2012?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama may face an uphill battle for re-election... but one area where he can boast about success is foreign policy.
And that's something new for Democrats.
Since the Vietnam war, Democratic candidates for president have been labeled as being soft and inexperienced on military and foreign policy issues.
Think John Kerry getting swift boated, Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis... or Michael Dukakis and that tank.
But not President Obama.
He's presided over the killings of Osama bin Laden and American-born Anwar Al-Awlaki... although it's worth pointing out not everyone thinks the assassination of a U.S. citizen was legal or a good idea.
U.S. support in Libya also led to the toppling of Moammar Gadhafi.
As for the two wars, Mr. Obama is drawing down troops in Afghanistan following an earlier surge.
And, he's taking credit now for "ending the war in Iraq"– even though George Bush really ended the war there in 2008 and we are being kicked out of the country by the Iraqi government.
Nonetheless - despite these successes overseas, it's not clear if foreign policy victories will help the president win a second term.
If unemployment stays at 9% ... it very well may be all about the economy, stupid.
A recent CNN/ORC poll shows that foreign policy is not a top issue on most Americans' minds these days.
Only 23% of those polled say foreign policy is extremely important to their vote for president.
Compare that to 54% who cite the economy. And most other issues rank higher than foreign policy too - including unemployment, the deficit, health care, Social Security, Medicare, Terrorism, Taxes and the size of government.
Here’s my question to you: Will President Obama’s foreign policy successes help him in 2012?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What message does it send when some Democrats are ducking President Obama?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's a time-honored political tradition: Ducking a presidential candidate with sagging poll numbers.
And a year out from the 2012 election, it looks like some Democrats can't get far enough away from President Obama.
Plenty of Democratic lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, insist that this president is not a political liability.
But as Politico reports, there are growing signs that he is just that.
Take, for example, recent trips that Obama made to Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania - all states where he won in 2008.
In North Carolina, six Democratic House members didn't join the president. Only two lawmakers showed up: a senator who isn't up for re-election until 2014 and a veteran congressman who represents a majority black district.
When the president visited Pittsburgh, no members of Congress attended any of his public events, although a few met him at the airport.
In Michigan, none of the 15 members of the state's congressional delegation showed up with Obama in Detroit. This is a city the president won with 74% of the vote in 2008.
Part of the issue in Michigan might be the president's push for free trade in a state with strong unions.
Some believe that these Democrats' efforts to dodge the president will only backfire.
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell says it's "political idiocy" and calls these members of Congress "complete wusses."
Maybe, maybe not. But if Obama's approval ratings continue to hover in the mid-40s and unemployment stays stuck at 9%, don't be surprised if Democrats keep covering their political backsides.
Here’s my question to you: What message does it send when some Democrats are ducking President Obama?
Is America in denial about its decline?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"America must manage its decline."
That's the title of a sobering piece in the Financial Times.
The article explores what the U.S. must do to come to terms with its changing role in the world. If the U.S. and its leaders could actually acknowledge that our global power is in decline today, it would be easier to figure out what comes next.
But politics being what it is, big surprise that no one is being honest here. Instead, it's practically unacceptable to suggest that there may be no "coming back" for the United States of America. And that is the cold, hard truth: There may very well be no coming back.
For now, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy and the top military and diplomatic power. But - a time when China will become the largest economy doesn't seem all that far away.
This article suggests that's why now is the time for America to have a "rational debate about what 'relative decline' means." Decline may not necessarily mean the end of prosperity, but it likely means making choices and alliances.
Turns out, those who refuse to even talk about decline may actually speed up the whole process. By not addressing our changing position in the world, we won't be dealing with other issues that need attention now: Things like deficits and educational reform.
Lastly, the Financial Times article says managing decline has as much to do with psychology as with politics or economics.
Listen, because this is interesting:
Britain had an easier go of it at the end of World War II because it was essentially handing over superpower status to the U.S., a country with a shared heritage. But this could be a much more difficult task for the U.S. if we have to eventually hand over power to China.
Here’s my question to you: Is America in denial about its decline?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What's at stake for Rick Perry in tonight's debate?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
One of the best lines of the campaign so far is: Rick Perry "went from frontrunner to roadkill in a matter of weeks."
Credit the Daily Beast and a fine article titled "What's wrong with Rick."
The article examines the Texas governor's spectacular rise - and fall - in the Republican race for president... and how he still might pull off a comeback.
Headed into tonight's debate, Perry is a distant third in the race.
Our new poll shows Perry at 13% - that's down from 30% and the front-runner position just last month. Both Mitt Romney and Herman Cain now have a double-digit lead over Perry.
So what happened? Well, for starters, the debates happened.
Although Perry is a gifted politician who can work a room or get a crowd excited, he just hasn't been able to hack it during the debates against his more able competitors. Perry also comes under fire for his positions on Social Security and illegal immigration.
Plus, as Perry has stumbled through debate performances, his message of job creation in Texas has been lost. In fact, Perry was practically ignored in last week's debate as most of the focus went to Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan.
But even if Rick Perry seems like a real long shot right now - this is still presidential politics, it's still early, and a lot can happen.
For one thing, Perry has raised a boatload of money: $17 million in just the first 7 weeks of his campaign. And in the game that is presidential politics - money talks.
Then there's this: two-thirds of Republicans say they still may change their minds when it comes to which candidate they'll back.
The Daily Beast column suggests what perry most needs is to return to the street campaigning that he does best. But he also can't keep showing up at these debates and getting his head handed to him. He gets another shot tonight.
Here’s my question to you: What’s at stake for Rick Perry in tonight’s debate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments