Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan first used the question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" to devastating effect against Jimmy Carter.
So now, with the election three months away, I thought it would be interesting to pose it here, but with a twist: instead of just saying whether you're better off, also include your Presidential preference.
Four years ago, the nation was shedding 500,000 - 800,000 jobs per month; the stock market was half of what it is today -- so my 401K took a brutal hit; GDP dropped by 6%.
Today, jobs are mildly gaining; the stock market has largely rebounded; GDP is rising and inflation is low. Interest rates for businesses are low and available.
There is no rational conclusion that today is worse than 4 years ago -- except that we are 4 years more gray.
Anyone who doubts whether they're better off now than they were four years ago should take a look at Obama's accomplishments, and think about how they apply to you. I'd also encourage people to not just think about how they've benefited as individuals, but how the country may be better off as a whole.
Anyone who doubts whether they're better off now than they were four years ago should take a look at Obama's accomplishments, and think about how they apply to you. I'd also encourage people to not just think about how they've benefited as individuals, but how the country may be better off as a whole.
The country may be better off as a hole, but it is not better off as a whole.
From Obama's first budget message, weeks after inauguration, in which he basically said if you have made anything of yourself then you have your foot on the necks of the poor, to "the private sector is doing fine," to "you didn't build that", he is well on the way to turning the country into a hole.
Whether he meant "you didn't build that" about the businesses, or the roads and bridges for which business owners paid a disproportionate share, it is clear that the man believes government is the root of all growth and progress.
One question: how did we ever get out of the Panic of 1896?
The country may be better off as a hole, but it is not better off as a whole.
From Obama's first budget message, weeks after inauguration, in which he basically said if you have made anything of yourself then you have your foot on the necks of the poor, to "the private sector is doing fine," to "you didn't build that", he is well on the way to turning the country into a hole.
Whether he meant "you didn't build that" about the businesses, or the roads and bridges for which business owners paid a disproportionate share, it is clear that the man believes government is the root of all growth and progress.
One question: how did we ever get out of the Panic of 1896?
Got the ACTUAL quote?
What I read you have nothing specific to show that the economy 4 years ago was better but you hate Obama anyway.
There is only one thing worse than blindness. That is seeing things that aren't here.
Why are you mentioning the Panic of 1896, which was caused by gold and silver standards and not in the least comparable to today's economy.
Anyone who doubts whether they're better off now than they were four years ago should take a look at Obama's accomplishments, and think about how they apply to you. I'd also encourage people to not just think about how they've benefited as individuals, but how the country may be better off as a whole.
What I read you have nothing specific to show that the economy 4 years ago was better but you hate Obama anyway.
There is only one thing worse than blindness. That is seeing things that aren't here.
Why are you mentioning the Panic of 1896, which was caused by gold and silver standards and not in the least comparable to today's economy.
Oh, you got me. I'll admit it. The economy is better now than it was on this date four years ago. And I personally am much better off than I was four years ago.
The economy has had natural cycles of expansion and recession for all of American history, and always will. For most of history, government had little or no role in extricating us from a recovery. The Panic of 1896 comment was an ineffective way to refer to this fact.
Today, one inane idea after another gets floated, and the ones that have made it into policy have often been garbage that distorted things temporarily and made us poorer. We did not improve our position--we worsened it--by paying too much for roadworthy cars in order to crush them. The temporary gimmicks like the homebuyer credit just sprayed money around at random; depending on the program, if you bought a car on the wrong day or bought a house on the wrong day or even hired an employee on the wrong day, you lost the Stimulus Lottery. I hate the policies of Barack Obama; I admire the man for his amazing, historic accomplishment in winning the nomination and the election against very long odds. Now I wish he would go be historic and amazing somewhere other than Washington.
Back to the basic questions of the thread: the economy is better than it was four years ago by virtue of the weakest recovery in six decades. We should be way ahead of where we are. And I'm not buying the notion that this was the biggest, baddest, ugliest recession ever. I was paying attention in 1980-1982, with inflation in the teens, the prime business borrowing rate at 21%, not a piece of collateral or any treasury bond ever issued was worth what had been paid for it, and the banking system, on a market value basis, was in worse shape then than at any time since. As for being better off personally, I built that, in spite of a doubling of the regulatory hassles of simply doing business.
A better question is who will you be better off with or not as bad off with 4 years from now? It took Bush who was given a budget surplus 8 years to drive us into the ditch. From where we sit now, it won't take that long for someone who wants to even expand on his polices to drive those of us who aren't insulated from the consequences of trickle up economics off a cliff. As long as lobbyists swarm Washington and representatives have to spend most of their time raising money from special interests to even have a chance to be elected, things won't change as far as economic fairness goes. Obama's biggest accomplishes have been things he's been able to do without an obstructionist Congress.
Our system of three branches of Government as checks and balances intended to be that when one goes against the good of the country, the others will keep it in check. When Nixon abused the system, that's what happened. Lately our government's been so corrupted, that when one branch goes "rouge" and starts to put everyday people on the same footing as the privileged few, big money will put a stop to it. Too much of this country's wealth has been locked up by too few away from the many Americans whose hard work and productivity created it. We no longer have a viable base of a middle class left with the means to purchase even the goods and services they created, so economic activity is minimalized.
Last edited by benshaton; 08-07-2012 at 11:35 PM..
The economy is largely cyclical. Of course, policy can make things better or worse and recoveries faster or slower. To give any president full credit or blame for whatever the current situation may be, is a bit of an overreach.
There is so much more at work when considering the U.S. economy.
Credit Bush for the good economy for much of his term when it was on a recovery from the slowdown at the end of Clinton's term. Credit Clinton for a good economy that was on a rebound from a slowdown during an otherwise okay H.W.'s term... which was rebounding even before the election. Blame Clinton for the tech bust, give him credit for it's rise. Blame Bush for the housing bust. As for housing, bad policy from way back finally caught up with us. The 70's were crappy and Carter did nothing to improve it. Good policies surely could have helped. This current recovery could have been much better, I think.
Who's to blame? The stubborn-ideologue authoritarian-wannabe president that that throws money at the most bizarre things, spending money that doesn't exist and very likely never will, or an obstructionist congress that's trying to keep this guy under control?
My whole life, regardless of who is in the White House or the status of the economy, has lumbered steadily forward with few setbacks. My profession isn't affected nearly as much by recessions as others are.
Last edited by northbound74; 08-08-2012 at 12:18 AM..
5.6 Trillion of new debt.........my baby's grand kids are worse off.
No, they are not. It is better to have $5.6 trillion in new debt at 1.5% interest than a depression.
Besides, the debt would have increased by that amount had McCain won, as it was caused by lower tax revenue and automatic payments (unemployment, Medicaid, etc.) due to the economic slump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
