Romney: "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" Answer: "Yes."

[retromike22]

That question is probably the most common one asked when a President runs for reelection, and Mitt Romney alluded to it in his acceptance speech:

That's why every president since the Great Depression who
came before the American people asking for a second term could
look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction,
``You're better off than you were four years ago.''  Except
Jimmy Carter.

And except this president.
   (APPLAUSE)
   This president can ask us to be patient.  This president
can tell us it was someone else's fault.  This president can
tell us that the next four years will get it right.  But this
president cannot tell us that you're better off today than when
he took office.

First off, he forgot about the first George Bush. But that's not what I wanted to focus on. My point is, when Romney (or any person wishing to see Obama lose) asks the question "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" it always clashes with the phrase (and reality) that "Obama took power in a crisis." And the fact is, that crisis did not become worse, it has not been at the same level, but it has improved.

1. Jobs


More jobs are being added now than when Obama first took office. It's not sky high, but it's not a loss of jobs, which is what would be the case if things were worse from 4 years ago. But let's not just look at 4 years ago, let's see everything since 2001.



Look at now, vs. 4 years ago. You cannot make the argument that the job creation rate is worse than it was 4 years ago! If it was worse, wouldn't it have been, lower, like -3,000? It's not even stagnant from 4 years ago, it's improved.

2. Obamacare.



Although some people may have an unfavorable opinion of Obamacare, and of the individual mandate, the truth is that when it comes to the individual policy changes, a strong majority of Americans favor those changes. It is a fact that Obamacare will allow 30 million people to have health insurance, and I'm one of them. Because of that bill, I (along with many of my friends) are able to be covered by our parent's health insurance. That alone is something better than it was 4 years ago. I think people are greatly underestimating the number of young people who will vote for Obama on that reason alone.

I think those two main reasons are why the question "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" has the answer: yes.

And the reasons why foreign policy is such a minor issue in this election:

3. The Iraq War is over.

4. Osama bin Laden is Dead.

Here's a nice list of Obama's accomplishments since 2009, with citations for each:
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Must we have propaganda posted here?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This thread is unnecessary.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This thread is unnecessary.

Tell that to Winfield, whenever he posts on this board.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This thread is unnecessary.

Tell that to Winfield, whenever he posts on this board.

He's been told that enough I'm sure.

[fezzyfestoon]

This thread is unnecessary.

Tell that to Winfield, whenever he posts on this board.

He's been told that enough I'm sure.

Yeah, really. He's been told that pretty much every day since 2008.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

On a Macro level things are better in that the economy has been growing and that jobs are being created and not lost. But the strength of the recovery has been so weak and so slow relative to the depth of the crisis, to the point that there are still large numbers of people out of work and incomes have dropped like a rock, even while we were technically "recovering".

[Donerail]

3. The Iraq War is over.

And Libya and potentially Syria have been started.

4. Osama bin Laden is Dead.

And we're still in Afghanistan.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yes, Yankee. Maybe we could have gotten a bigger stimulus and more meaningful health/financial reform had the Repugnicans made their first priority helping the economy instead of sabotage meant to bog down the President.

And SJoyce,

[Donerail]

Yes, Yankee. Maybe we could have gotten a bigger stimulus and more meaningful health/financial reform had the Repugnicans made their first priority helping the economy instead of sabotage meant to bog down the President.

And SJoyce,

I'm sorry, I have issues with attempting to build the infrastructure of a foreign country while bridges here are crumbling.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, Yankee. Maybe we could have gotten a bigger stimulus and more meaningful health/financial reform had the Repugnicans made their first priority helping the economy instead of sabotage meant to bog down the President.

And SJoyce,

I'm going to bite and make a decent response.

Obama was never trying to court Republicans for the stimulus package. His advisors wanted to push through a smaller one that had more job creation instead of tax cuts, but Obama wanted to do the opposite.

The problem with the stimulus was it's aim. It did not tackle job creation. It did not include shovel ready jobs. I would have supported a bill that had vast amounts of nation building projects, updating our infrastructure, and streamlined other types of industries. Instead, we got a watered down bill that did not have bipartisan support anyway, did not create many jobs at all, and just ran up our budge deficit. Obama could have done so much more with $800 billion that would have actually put people to work, created demand that government sometimes must create, and fixed some of our aging highways/bridges and other public buildings. The stimulus was a huge opportunity missed.

And yes, Obama has created jobs, but any fool in the White House would have. It is the law of cycles. An economy will not go down forever, and the recession of 2008 was so awful that we were bound to bounce back somewhat eventually, and we have. That said, the recovery has been extremely weak, and analysts are now saying we may be on the brink of yet another recession.

So while you might be better off than you were in 2008, and many of us are, we aren't THAT much better off. Our portfolios might be up, but wages are still down, incomes are in the toilet, more people are dropping out of the workforce every day, and people are losing hope.

[Vosem]

I'm going to leave it to people who are better-versed in economics and more awake than me to quibble, but Obamacare certainly doesn't have easy-to-understand plan summaries. That's something literally everybody, including Obama himself, should be able to agree on.

[NHI]

This thread is unnecessary.

[J. J.]

The answer is only yes if you like a small government.  I can tell you that in my neighborhood, most people are not better off.  My neighbor is on welfare and another is in bankruptcy.  Businesses have closed. 

If you knew my neighborhood, you would know what an indictment of Obama that is. 

[7,052,770]

3. The Iraq War is over.

And Libya and potentially Syria have been started.

We didn't lose a single solider in Libya.  Comparing it to the Iraq quagmire is downright dishonest.

[The Mikado]

3. The Iraq War is over.

And Libya

And ended.  With 0 American (or NATO in general) lives lost and at a cost of less than .1% that of the War in Iraq, as well as a result that, so far, looks better than many were expecting at the time.  Libya is one of the great successes of this Administration.

[Beet]

Must we have propaganda posted here?

Oh brother. It's called making the case. I understand you think the health care bill is too moderate and that the Democrats' campaign finance positions are too moderate, however the US political spectrum is different from the UK political spectrum. We're more to the right here. Things generally revolve around a political center that is far to the right of the UK.

In any case, I think most people have already know about the employment statistics, as they've been widely distributed. What hasn't been widely publicized is the primary reason why this recovery is slower than average, which is private sector deleveraging, which is a good and necessary thing. That is also the reason why large deficits are justified at this time. They only partially offset private sector austerities; in fact they help the private sector complete its own austerity while still earning sufficient income to keep the economy growing.

The issue really comes down to this-- to get faster job growth, we need more expansionary policies. The issues are different in the US than in Europe, but the principle is the same. Speeding up the recovery means expansionary monetary policy (in the form of unconventional tools) and expansionary fiscal policy (in the form of deficits). But Republicans oppose both. They're running on jobs but they oppose measures that would actually lead to more job creation, except for the very narrow deregulatory ones that fit into their ideology [and which also happen to be at the root of some of the big failures that led to the mess to begin with]. There has never been a deregulation-led boom that hasn't been accompanied by a private sector debt binge, followed by a recessionary hangover. The broader issues here require more progressive policies, not less.

[Free Palestine]

The death of Osama bin Laden hasn't really made us better off than we were four years ago, anyways.  He was pretty much just a boogeyman by the time of his assassination.

[Donerail]

3. The Iraq War is over.

We didn't lose a single solider in Libya.  Comparing it to the Iraq quagmire is downright dishonest.

Libya was worse than Iraq. In Iraq you had the Iraq Resolution which gave some legitimacy to it. In Libya all you had was a 'constitutional law professor' completely ignoring the Constitution, as well as the War Powers Resolution, to conduct a unilateral war (did I mention he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner? Irony...) without any Congressional approval, charges of which he responded with some nonsense about how missile strikes weren't really "hostilities". War is a decision that can not be made by the President alone, based on a whim, with no vital interest of the US at stake. He completely ignored the Congress and House Resolution 292. It's worse than Bush, and he should really give back his Nobel Peace Prize, if not be removed from office.

3. The Iraq War is over.

And Libya

And ended.  With 0 American (or NATO in general) lives lost and at a cost of less than .1% that of the War in Iraq, as well as a result that, so far, looks better than many were expecting at the time.  Libya is one of the great successes of this Administration.

Ignoring the Constitution should never be considered a "great success", and switching from one despotic tyrant to many smaller tyrants, who imprison political prisoners, torture civilians, fight each other, and exact revenge for perceived slights.

[Link]

My neighbor is on welfare and another is in bankruptcy.  Businesses have closed. 

If you knew my neighborhood, you would know what an indictment of Obama that is. 

Lol.  Just because something unfortunate happened in the J. J.verse doesn't mean it is an indictment of the President.  Even in the rip roaring economy of the Clinton years there were people on welfare and people going bankrupt in your neighborhood.

[angus]

Must we have propaganda posted here?

The question begs it, though.  It was a cute and clever line in a speech--one time, thirty years ago; gotta give the speechwriter credit.  okay--but we really need to stop trotting out that question in every campaign.  I'm four years older than I was four years ago, and when you're over 40, even over 30, you're never better off than you were four years ago.  Four years ago I had perfect eyesight, just I had all my life.  Today, I need glasses to read this.  Four years pass by, and everything about you is wider, more hairy, and closer to the ground.  More lower back pain.  More stress.  More schit to worry about.  More bills to pay.  My sons shoes are more expensive now than they were then.  My car has more fancy gadgets that I have to learn how to use than the car I had four years ago.  Life never gets simpler as you get older.  Three billion years ago, life was simple.  There was only one kind:  that first single-celled organism that arose from pond scum.  But every day since then things have gotten more complicated, more dangerous, and more stressful.  For everyone.  And none of it has anything to do with the federal government.  And everyone who is reasonably intelligent understands this.  Any thread created about this particularly superficial question must be a deliberately provocative one.

[Zioneer]

3. The Iraq War is over.

And Libya and potentially Syria have been started.

The Libyan "war" is already over and done with. We didn't need to do much there, and we're already out of there. It's really not a problem anymore at all.

[Donerail]

3. The Iraq War is over.

And Libya and potentially Syria have been started.

The Libyan "war" is already over and done with. We didn't need to do much there, and we're already out of there. It's really not a problem anymore at all.

Such a convincing argument you make! "Don't worry, even though he started another war and violated the Constitution then, there's no way whatsoever that's a sign he'll do it again! Please ignore his track record and instead let's talk about hope, change, and old tax returns!"

[7,052,770]

It wasn't a GD war...it was more akin to Clinton's bombing of Iraq.

It's perfectly legitimate (and possibly correct) to opposite it, but to even compare it Iraq and Afghanistan is dishonest and asinine...

[Donerail]

To even compare it Iraq and Afghanistan is dishonest and asinine...

You're right, to try to downplay Libya by comparing it to Iraq and Afghanistan, or any other conflict that wasn't solely unilateral, is dishonest.