Are you better off today than 4 years ago?

[Blart]

For anyone with a short memory, this is what the USA looked like 4 years ago.

September 2008
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YsDmPEeurfA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
Our President, after 8 years of neocon policies, wars, and corporate scandals, went on TV to announce that he'd led us into the worst financial crisis of our lifetime.

Here's what happened after the neocon policies were replaced,

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fouryears_fig1_web-2.png



Liberal spin! Every country recovers from a recession, that's no big deal.

Not exactly - a recovery takes good policy. Consider countries that elected conservatives who slashed spending and attempted to balance the budget during a recovery, such as David Cameron.

Paul Ryan wants us to follow the same policies of austerity as the UK. Here's what that looks like,

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/03/opinion/090312krugman1/090312krugman1-blog480.jpg

Could Obama be doing more to help the recovery? Duh.
Could he be doing worse? Yes - he could implement the Ryan Plan.

[Mecklomaniac]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eEOgOmNmH-E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Paul Ryan in Ohio: "If we fired Jimmy Carter then, why would we re-hire Barack Obama now?"

"The Jimmy Carter years look like the good old days compared to where we are."

[Blart]

I'd take the peace-loving, homebrew-legalizing Carter over Nixon, or really any GOP president in the last 40 years.

[Jetmeck]

Good chit but don't expect any republican asshole on here to admit to a single fact.

[Arkie]

There are 3 million fewer jobs today than 4 years ago. So, that's at least 3 million that were better off 4 years ago. Less employed are supporting a growing population, so the employed are doing with less too. On top of all that, wages haven't kept up with inflation. The bottom line is there are millions more people better off 4 years ago, but it isn't all Obama's fault. I think it will still get worse before it gets better regardless of our hood ornament.

[Jetmeck]

There are 3 million fewer jobs today than 4 years ago. So, that's at least 3 million that were better off 4 years ago. Less employed are supporting a growing population, so the employed are doing with less too. On top of all that, wages haven't kept up with inflation. The bottom line is there are millions more people better off 4 years ago, but it isn't all Obama's fault. I think it will still get worse before it gets better regardless of our hood ornament.

get a clue............ever heard of a recession.

wages have been stagnate for decades except for the upper rich.

millions of jobs loss because of Bush's fault..........Obama stopped the bleeding.

some of you unable to admit he stopped it and it is slowly getting things on the way back even without republican help are clueless and unable to understand the truth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For anyone with a short memory, this is what the USA looked like 4 years ago.

September 2008
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YsDmPEeurfA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
Our President, after 8 years of neocon policies, wars, and corporate scandals, went on TV to announce that he'd led us into the worst financial crisis of our lifetime.

Here's what happened after the neocon policies were replaced,

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fouryears_fig1_web-2.png



Liberal spin! Every country recovers from a recession, that's no big deal.

Not exactly - a recovery takes good policy. Consider countries that elected conservatives who slashed spending and attempted to balance the budget during a recovery, such as David Cameron.

Paul Ryan wants us to follow the same policies of austerity as the UK. Here's what that looks like,

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/03/opinion/090312krugman1/090312krugman1-blog480.jpg

Could Obama be doing more to help the recovery? Duh.
Could he be doing worse? Yes - he could implement the Ryan Plan.


Eeeeek! Yikes!

More of those "fact" thingees republicans are allergic to.

[Fedaykin]

There are 3 million fewer jobs today than 4 years ago. So, that's at least 3 million that were better off 4 years ago. Less employed are supporting a growing population, so the employed are doing with less too. On top of all that, wages haven't kept up with inflation. The bottom line is there are millions more people better off 4 years ago, but it isn't all Obama's fault. I think it will still get worse before it gets better regardless of our hood ornament.

And all that started with a fellow named Reagan, who decided to ditch 50 years of successful economic policy in favor of voodoo economics.

[Meck77]

I honestly don't know too many people that are better off. I know plenty of people who have lost their homes, businesses, got divorced etc though. Blame whoever you want but people are not better as a whole.

[SoCalBronco]

I'd take the peace-loving, homebrew-legalizing Carter over Nixon, or really any GOP president in the last 40 years.

If you'd take Carter over Nixon, or any recent President over Nixon for that matter, then I can't really do anything except shake my head.

[barryr]

Only the wealthy have made out well the last 4 years. Everybody else has pretty much less money in the bank, even those that still have their jobs and their house.

[ghwk]

Only the wealthy have made out well the last 4 years. Everybody else has pretty much less money in the bank, even those that still have their jobs and their house.

So you agree the system is tilted in favor of the wealthy! Wow I never thought I'd see the day!

[Meck77]

Only the wealthy have made out well the last 4 years. Everybody else has pretty much less money in the bank, even those that still have their jobs and their house.

I guess it depends on what your definition of wealthy is. The wealthy people I know are spending a lot less money, scaling down their businesses, and just trying to keep people employed and not hiring much at all. That is not better off.

[SoCalBronco]

The 4 year inquiry is kind of a form of intellectual laziness. There are many reasons for why we are where we are at this time, that's true of families on a micro level and its also true for the nation as a whole on a macro level.

The world is often a gray place. There are many things that I have issues with Obama about and that he's failed at, but there are also areas where he's made some progress and then there are ofcourse many areas where it would be impossible to expect significant advancement in one term. The inquiry is too simplistic. That doesn't mean I agree that Obama should have an unlimited term to fix any problems. While it is true that Republicans have obstructed him the last two years, he also had two years where he was in complete control of all branches of the government, by sizeable margins as well. There have been recent US Presidents who achieved tremendous things in both domestic and foreign affairs without having a single house of Congress for any part of their term. So opposition party obstruction alone is insufficient to automatically mandate another term. While in some respects the GOP obstruction in the last four years has been more extreme than usual, I'm not willing to say that Obstruction is always a bad thing, there are almost always disagreements on philosophies and such and the President shouldn't have carte blanche to initiate any policy he wishes in order to be fairly judged. If McCain had won the presidency, Democrats would be cheering obstruction, not necessarily because they hated McCain (they might), but rather on grounds of principle and policy disagreement. After all, the Congress is up for election too. Congress, ofcourse, is currently even more unpopular than the President, although its like a comparison among losers, which is to say, neither of whom looks good.

These are difficult questions. From a quantitative aspect, I probably would side closer to the administration's view on more issues, but I agree with Romney-Ryan on the need for drastic entitlement reform, which I view as the single most important issue. So its a tough balancing test. I'm not willing to simply condemn Obama because of a comparison between 4 years ago and now (and I'm not sure we're worse now than we were then, things were pretty bad in the fall of 08 in many respects). I'm not sure the progress we made is sufficient though. It's a close call. I lean to Romney-Ryan right now, even though I have some real doubts on their positions with respect to taxes and Global warming, but I could still go either way, or (more likely) abandon the top part of the ballot. Actually, without Ryan, I would be secure in a clear vote against Romney since I have disliked him for some time now (since 08 GOP primary), but Ryan is keeping him in the game for me. We'll see. All I know is the 4 year test alone is kind of stupid (and does not necessarily lead to an anti-Obama position). Sorry for the long meandering rant.

[barryr]

So you agree the system is tilted in favor of the wealthy! Wow I never thought I'd see the day!

So you agree the democrats cater to the wealthy? Wow, I never thought I'd see the day!

[barryr]

I guess it depends on what your definition of wealthy is. The wealthy people I know are spending a lot less money, scaling down their businesses, and just trying to keep people employed and not hiring much at all. That is not better off.

True, the small businesses have been hurt for the most part and will only get worse if Obama is still in the WH 4 more years. The unemployment rate will rise unless Obama expands the IRS even more than he already has.

[ghwk]

So you agree the democrats cater to the wealthy? Wow, I never thought I'd see the day!

See you can vote for Obama now, proof he's on your side!

[Garcia Bronco]

As if the President decides such things....good grief.

[Jetmeck]

Only the wealthy have made out well the last 4 years. .


ok then....yet you still insist on more tax breaks for the rich.

OMG.......stop the spending.......well except for this.

[Jetmeck]

I honestly don't know too many people that are better off. I know plenty of people who have lost their homes, businesses, got divorced etc though. Blame whoever you want but people are not better as a whole.


No things in general are not great but compared to the condition we were in when it was handed to Obama things are great.

If your so concerned about it then get off your ass and call your republican representative and tell them to quit blocking jobs and tax cuts for the middle class.

We will never know how well the economy could be at this time because of republican obstruction.

The above statements are reasonable and factual.........deny your heart out.

[Jetmeck]

I guess it depends on what your definition of wealthy is. The wealthy people I know are spending a lot less money, scaling down their businesses, and just trying to keep people employed and not hiring much at all. That is not better off.

you don't know any wealthy people

[SoCalBronco]

you don't know any wealthy people

I've already said my piece above about the 4 year issue, but just FYI, Meck is probably the wealthiest person on this entire forum, so yeah, I'd bet he knows quite a few wealthy people.

[Jetmeck]

I've already said my piece above about the 4 year issue, but just FYI, Meck is probably the wealthiest person on this entire forum, so yeah, I'd bet he knows quite a few wealthy people.

Hence his policies......good for him but anyone in the middle class supporting republican policies are ****ing themselves financially.

[24champ]

There are 3 million fewer jobs today than 4 years ago. So, that's at least 3 million that were better off 4 years ago. Less employed are supporting a growing population, so the employed are doing with less too. On top of all that, wages haven't kept up with inflation. The bottom line is there are millions more people better off 4 years ago, but it isn't all Obama's fault. I think it will still get worse before it gets better regardless of our hood ornament.

Plus median level income levels have dipped from 55k to 51k. That's 4k in income the middle class is losing. With a lousy job growth and other bad economic factors, I don't see how we're better off now than 4 years ago.

You also won't see small business, businesses in general talked about a lot in this DNC in Charlotte. It's all about the government from the left's point of view.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So you agree the democrats cater to the wealthy? Wow, I never thought I'd see the day!

Wait....I thought they were socialists? Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you'd take Carter over Nixon, or any recent President over Nixon for that matter, then I can't really do anything except shake my head.

I'm all for restoring the top tax rate to what it was under Nixon. :thumbsup:

As crooked as Tricky Dick might have been, he was still a much better president than either Reagan or the two Bushes.

God, how sad is that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are 3 million fewer jobs today than 4 years ago.

Yet more private sector jobs were added in the last two years than during the entire eight years Bush was in charge.

That's how miserable the GOP's record on jobs is.

[Meck77]

you don't know any wealthy people
You got it all figured out. Yeah man. I don't know anybody important.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4263/airforce41.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/airforce41.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You got it all figured out. Yeah man. I don't know anybody important.

So a quickie, purchased photo op means you "know" the president now?

Whatever bolsters your sense of self-importance, I guess.

:D

You don't like the man, didn't vote for him, and you're against almost everything he stands for, but you're more than willing to use a photo op for your own self-aggrandizement.

[24champ]

Yet more private sector jobs were added in the last two years than during the entire eight years Bush was in charge.

That's how miserable the GOP's record on jobs is.

The fact is, the economy has gained just about the same number of private-sector jobs (Obama’s preferred measure) in the 27 months since the most recent job slump hit bottom as it did in the 27 months following the bottom of the first Bush slump. And looking at total jobs — the broader and more customary measure — Bush’s post-slump job creation record was significantly better than Obama’s.


Obama is referring to the increase in private-sector jobs from February 2010 to May 2012. He uses February 2010 as the starting point, because that was the low point for private employment at 106,773,000 jobs. It’s been going up ever since. Right now, it’s at 111,040,000 — an increase of 4,267,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, the president is correct about the number of jobs created in the last 27 months.

But then he uses an economic sleight of hand when he compares his best 27-month period with the first seven years of President Bush, ignoring the fact that Bush inherited an economy on the brink of a recession.

Soon after Bush took office, the U.S. economy officially fell into a recession — which lasted from March 2001 to November 2001, as measured by the National Bureau of Economic Research. There is always a lag in job growth after a recession officially ends, and the low point for private-sector employment was not reached until July 2003, when it fell to 108,232,000. By October 2005, which would be 27 months after the job slump ended, the U.S. had 112,491,000 jobs — an increase of 4,259,000 jobs. That’s nearly identical to Obama’s best 27 months after the recession, as you can see from the chart below.
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

[Odysseus]

Hence his policies......good for him but anyone in the middle class supporting republican policies are ****ing themselves financially.

I don't like what I am seeing from the Democrats but I like even worst what the Republicans are proposing.

The biggest issue, economically, is there are no good choices. Salaries will continue to go down and competition will continue to increase.

Global...economic...meltdown......say it with me.

Everybody is scaling down and spending less. The rich people are cornered. If your retirement plan is setup to pay you 5% and now you have to deal with 2% that is huge difference in return. You've worked hard for the money. You deserve better. The problem is they don't deserve MORE than others or the first slice of the pie.

I fault the Democrats for not understanding business. I fault the Republicans for not understanding business with compassion. "Let them eat cake" does not end very well for anybody.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

The part about Bush's "slump" (talk about the euphemism of the century!) is prime example of cherry picking insofar as no mention is made of the fact that (a) Bush presided over the first net job loss since Hoover, (b) there was zero net job growth (for the first time in several decades) under Bush, and (c) Bush's job creation numbers conceal the fact that the jobs added were simply low-paying service sector jobs that replaced all of the good-paying jobs that were shipped overseas on Bush's watch.

[Pony Boy]

Bush's job creation numbers conceal the fact that the jobs added were simply low-paying service sector jobs that replaced all of the good-paying jobs that were shipped overseas on Bush's watch.

Versus the “Omama stimulus” that has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

[Mecklomaniac]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ramirez-reaganmetric-lg.jpg

• Median incomes: These have fallen 7.3% since Obama took office, which translates into an average of $4,000. Since the so-called recovery started, median incomes continued to fall, dropping $2,544, or 4.8%.

• Long-term unemployed: More than three years into Obama’s recovery, 811,000 more still fall into this category than when the recession ended.

• Poverty: The poverty rate climbed to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009, and economists think it may have hit 15.7% last year, highest since the 1960s.

• Misery Index: When Obama took office, the combination of unemployment and inflation stood at 7.83. Today it’s 9.71.


According to left leaning Third Way Democrat voter registrations in key swing states are down 800,000. So I guess we are better there.

[24champ]

If swing voters thought the economy was doing fine and if they really loved abortion and gay marriage, it would have been a great night for the Democrats. But polls suggest that is very far from what swing voters think.


The unemployment rate for women between the ages of 25 and 34 was 7.8% in February of 2009 (Obama’s first full month in office) and is 8.6% today. That’s not only higher than it was when Obama took office, it’s also higher than the overall unemployment rate, higher than the rate for men of the same age (and than the rate for all men), and higher than the rate for women in any other age group. Many of these women entered the workforce at a particularly bad time, and for them there has basically been no recovery from the collapse of the labor market in 2008. Here is what unemployment has looked like for women in that age group over the Bush and Obama years.

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u1842/2012/09/Unemployment25-34.jpg

Obviously these women understand that the disaster began at the end of the Bush years. But they also know that for them things have not gotten any better in the Obama years. They are worse off than they were four years ago, and (perhaps more important) they are not on an upward trend; they are not recovering. If this is what your presidency looked like for a key constituency of yours, wouldn’t you do your best to talk about something else?


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315953/democrats-first-night-yuval-levin#comments

[TonyR]

Versus the “Omama stimulus” that has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Sigh. Almost 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts. It wasn't just about jobs.

[peacepipe]

Versus the “Omama stimulus” that has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

lets use an example,lets say Company A is building bridge,does that 666 billion include cost for insurance,supplies,1-3 cranes. you do understand that a business is going to charge for that?

You're taking a real simpleton view of that. but then again you are a conservative,simpleton views are what you & your ilk tend to understand.

[Requiem]

Yes I am.

[mhgaffney]

No, of course we are not better off.

Problem is, the Repukes offer no alternatives -- just more of the same.

[W*GS]

No, of course we are not better off.

When was America at its best, gaffe?

Pick a period.

Then tell us why.

[Requiem]

When Andrew Jackson was President.

[ant1999e]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fact-check-4-5-million-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html


However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

...historical analysis of job growth percentages shows that Obama still fares better than some recent presidents (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AqCLlO3MugmxFTpFczgGRzdg24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTFkcWh pdTZuBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ 0JvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1OGc1cWgyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDZDcxMGY4MTMtZjVhMS0zYTM0LTgyYjItODVhNTQzNW EyZTNkBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3Rv cnlwYWdl;_ylv=0/SIG=126lkq8t1/EXP=1348095060/**http%3A//www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm). As of July, Obama is averaging +0.84 percent annual job growth in his term (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=An.SbDjDz_IvGH1oD7FzaEFg24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTFkbml nNzJjBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzYEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ 0JvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1OGc1cWgyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDZDcxMGY4MTMtZjVhMS0zYTM0LTgyYjItODVhNTQzNW EyZTNkBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3Rv cnlwYWdl;_ylv=0/SIG=12s8qtflg/EXP=1348095060/**http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms). That places him ahead of Bush, who saw +0.51 percent growth in his first term and -0.84 percent in his second term. Obama is also tracking better than George H.W. Bush, who presided over +0.69 percent growth during his one term in the White House.

[Mecklomaniac]

Northern European countries topped the overall ranking of a global competitiveness report released Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, as the United States slipped for the fourth year in a row.

“In addition to the burgeoning macroeconomic vulnerabilities, some aspects of the country’s [United States] institutional environment continue to raise concern among business leaders, particularly the low public trust in politicians and a perceived lack of government efficiency,” said the WEF, a think tank that also hosts the annual meeting of global business and political leaders in the Alpine town of Davos, Switzerland.

This year’s survey showed the U.S. fell to seventh position from fifth in the global ranking but the country remains an innovation powerhouse and its markets work efficiently, the WEF said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443686004577633410066066848.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have to laugh at the ditto monkeys who seem to think all those good jobs and all the manufacturing plants, etc., that were shipped overseas on their hero's watch are just going to magically come back to America.

Just another example of these idiots trying to blame Obama for their hero Dumbya's actions.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/579840_522610301089856_1254517292_n.jpg

[TonyR]

Look, one can think that Obama’s policy were wrong and that other policies would have created more jobs, etc. And if one thinks that, then one should do one’s best to make that case. (Indeed, one of my criticisms of the Romney campaign is that they infer that something better could have been done without actually laying out an argument for what that might have looked like). However, what one cannot do is assert that the job situation is worse now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. Further, one cannot pretend (though many try anyway) that the trends were made worse by Obama policies. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/contemplating-the-four-years-question/

[spdirty]

Are you better off today than 4 years ago?


On a personal level yes. On a money level, hell no.