In 1980, Ronald Reagan was able to rhetorically turn a close election a week before the polls into a comfortable Election Day victory by famously asking, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
While President Obama’s speech last night was generally well received, he did have to backtrack from his soaring rhetoric about change we can believe in. And so, he argued last night, ”Our problems can be solved, our challenges can be met.”
But he was forced to concede that it would be a harder and longer road that he and others had hoped.
“I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy,” President Obama said. “I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades.”
”Yes, our path is harder – but it leads to a better place,” he added.
But he had to. The reality greets us in the morning. Only 96,000 jobs added in August, lower than expected. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.1%.
Ever since Reagan’s infamous words, every challenging party has echoed the rejoinder – are you better off now that you were four years ago? It’s a personal call that I have seen repeated on social media sites by giddy conservatives looking to make hay.
But the real answer is far more complex. Most Americans are worse off than they were four years ago, whether we take that jumping off point as this date four years ago or January 2009.
Jobs are about the same, unemployment rates around 8 percent, RDI (Real Disposable Income), which happens to be the measure most political scientists believe is the crippling point, is about the same.
Game over?
Not quite.
As a New York Times article points out: “If Mr. Romney believes the ‘Are you better off?’ question will be political kryptonite for President Obama, he will have to reckon with an economic scorecard that is more mixed than he and other Republicans are claiming on the campaign trail.”
“People are not better off than they were four years ago, in the sense of where the economy is today compared to where it was,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard, ticking off statistics from the unemployment rate to housing prices. “But certainly, things could have been a lot worse. You can decide whether the glass is half-empty or half-full.”
The better argument is expressed by Lawrence Summers, who was President Obama’s chief economic adviser: “We avoided falling into the abyss, and it was an open question whether we would… It may not be easy to explain, but it’s right. It’s the truth.”
And therein lies the critical point. In a frightening four-day period in 2008, we almost saw the total collapse of the world financial system.
Despite a weekend spent attempting to save Lehman Brothers, on Monday, September 15, 2008, the investment giant declared bankruptcy. Stock markets tanked, AIG (American International Group) nearly collapsed, Morgan Stanley nearly collapsed, even Goldman Sachs was in trouble, banks in Europe teetered, and some accounts tell a chilling tale of just how close the system came to imploding in a way that might have marketed the end of this nation as we knew it.
Four years ago, we had to make the decision to bail out the US automobile industry. It is still a matter of controversy. But at the end of the day, how much worse would we be right now if that industry with its economic production and huge numbers of jobs had failed?
The point is, that no matter what you think about the economy today and what you think of President Obama himself and the job that he did, we are immensely better off today than we were four years ago. The system is sound and stable at the moment.
We may have problems. We may be recovering far slower than anyone thought or hoped for. But as a nation, we are more sound, as we no longer stand on the precipice of disaster.
What does this all mean? In our view, this election is not going to be won or lost on that simple question. Instead, it will come down to who can best articulate a vision for the future.
That is where things get interesting.
Can Republicans and Romney win on essentially a one-trick pony of tax cuts and shrinking the size of government?
Can President Obama convince Americans that we need to stay the course, that his modest vision is better for the middle class?
The numbers right now suggest a toss-up. President Obama needs to get the public to remember what caused this problem and give him more time to solve it, while Mitt Romney needs to convince the voters that President Obama has already had enough time.
To me, the critical question will not be are you better off now than four years ago, but rather, under whose policies and leadership do you think you will be better off under, in another four years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
My view: only fools think it doesn’t matter if we’re better off than we were four years ago.
If someone–Democrat or Republican (or other) will tell me exactly what they mean by “better off” then I will happily engage the discussion. Like so many of our “national debates” the powerful of both parties draw us into a meaningless discourse in which the terms are undefined and the parameters unclear.
To be specific: I have a friend who is financially worse off (lower income) than four years ago. But with tears in his eyes he tells me that his life has never been better because he realizes that for too long he traded time with his family for earning more, working longer hours in order to have the good life that remained outside his grasp. Is he better off? Yes. I also have a friend who earns more now than he ever imagined possible. He has more choices and uses some of his gain to help others. He too, I am sure, would say that he is better off but the reasons are not all about the extra money but his ability to do something meaningful with it (he is starting a family foundation to support non-profit efforts dealing with child abuse).
I am not suggesting that there are not others who are worse off (along either of these dimensions or other ones) but only that “better off” or “worse off” is contextual, local and personal and not dependent on the many macro factors over which we have no control. Next time you hear a politician ask the question, ask them back: “better off in what way?” Then we will have something to talk about.
I echo Robb’s sentiments.
“only fools think it doesn’t matter if we’re better off than we were four years ago. “
I don’t believe anyone said it doesn’t matter…
Look at the “headline”.
The headline means that the nation is undoubtedly better off than we were four years ago when we were on the verge of collapse. But that’s the not going to be the deciding question for this election.
375,000 people quit looking for a job last month, these numbers never really get mentioned that much. True unemployment numbers are actually over 15,000,000 and when you add in the underemployed it shoots to over 23,000,000. About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. My son-in-law just graduated with a masters and whenever he applies for a job in his field there are routinely 300 other applicants. “It could’ve been worse”, “it’s Bush’s fault”, “the world almost ended”, etc. are the only answers the Democrats can come up with. They have no clue how to move forward, it’s time for a change.
So you do not believe that the world’s financial system nearly collapsed following September 15, 2008?
Basically all I’m arguing is that the “are you better” argument is not the end of story.
“So you do not believe that the world’s financial system nearly collapsed following September 15, 2008?”
You know and the Democrats know that one will never know how things would’ve played out but it’s a great punching bag for Obama to use as an excuse for his poor performance in his almost four years as president. Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but under Obama it has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in our history.
National debt just went over 16 trillion. We now have a new record number of food stamp recipients of over 46 million which comes out to 1 in 7 Americans. I can go on and on, the numbers are ugly. Now honestly to all of you Democrats, if a Republican was in office with these lousy stats you wall would be screaming that he had to go.
[i]”Only fools?[/i]
I invite you to my office. We will contact several of my 840 small business customers located throughout California and we will ask them if they are better off. We will ask them how they feel about all the employees they have had to let go over the last four years. More importantly to this conversation, we will ask them how they feel about their lack of certainty concerning the economy and why they are not hiring again.
We will ask them what they think about public-employee unions with workers retiring in their 50s with full pay pension and benefits for their rest of their lives. While we are at it, we will ask them how many paid days off they get, how many hours a week they work, and how many vacations to Europe they have taken. We will ask these things and ask them to tell them how they feel about the same for city, county, state and federal workers (aka, the taxpayer funded workforce) and the Democrat-union power that keeps them richly rewarded at the expense of just about all other public services.
We will ask them about their problems securing working capital after government bailed out the big banks and then hammered the small banks with increased regulations and restrictions… and how this combined with economic uncertainty from Obamacare, Algore-scare, and threats of greater taxation… caused their community banker to stop returning their calls.
We will ask them how they feel about the government bailing out GM and Wall Street and not main street.
Then we will call the 78 borrowers of mine that could not pay their small business loans. We will aks them how they feel about losing everything they worked for.
We will ask all of them what they think of Obamacare, and the regulatory environment, the cost of energy, and the tax rates they pay.
“Only fools?”
Only fools have their head buried up their love-fest for this incompetent President and his cast of equally inexperienced and unknowing clowns.
Only fools are ignoring the last four years that has led to an explosions of debt , the erosion of a culture that values: free enterprise, self-determination, hard word and success.
The biggest fools are our youth and the people that claim to advocate for them. They are being screwed big time. They are screaming support for the very man, the very Party, the very ideology that is mortgaging their futures. In their blind, professor-brianwashed, hormone-driven, enthusiasm for the cool Obama factor, they are ensuring that they are perpetually and chronically reliant on a Greece-style moocher-looter political co-dependency system.
We have four-year terms for a reason. Obama made commitment after commitment to get elected, and he has failed on every one of them.
He is in way over his head.
He is an empty chair.
Time to grow up, stop acting like fools, and elect a boring and competent President to help lead us back to the greatness we deserve.
I am better off than I was four years ago.
My children, young adults, are better off than they were four years ago in terms of job prospects.
My business is better off than it was four years ago.
Millions of American are better off than they were four years ago due to changes in the health insurance laws and regulations.
In my opinion, the nation is better off than it was four years ago by many measures.
Al Qaeda is definitely not better off than it was four years ago.
“My children, young adults, are better off than they were four years ago in terms of job prospects.”
Really? Maybe YOUR kids are, but nationally Forbes says it’s quite a different story:
“About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41 percent, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields.
Out of the 1.5 million who languished in the job market, about half were underemployed, an increase from the previous year.”
Jeff Boone: “Time to grow up, stop acting like fools, and elect a boring and competent President to help lead us back to the greatness we deserve.”
Yeah, like George W…
Oops…been there, done that.
[i]National debt just went over 16 trillion.[/i]
There is a bipartisan process in place to deal with the national debt and the deficits. Creation of that debt is a shared responsibility of both parties. Gradual reduction is their shared responsibility as well.
[i]We now have a new record number of food stamp recipients of over 46 million which comes out to 1 in 7 Americans.
[/i]
Yes, we are still slowly coming out of recession. That number will go down as the economy grows.
[i]Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but under Obama it has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in our history.[/i]
I invite you to look at the pace of recovery from the Great Depression. I believe your statement is incorrect. The recession we are emerging from is the worst since that Great Depression.
“Jeff Boone: “Time to grow up, stop acting like fools, and elect a boring and competent President to help lead us back to the greatness we deserve.”
Yeah, like George W…
Oops…been there, done that.”
We’ve already been there, done that with Carter and unfortunately we went there again.
Mark, W was boring, but not competent. His resume was almost as thin as Obama’s except for his experience as governor of Texas.
Let’s stop doing the Bush thing please. It is old and tired. We are not electing Bush. Romney is not Bush. Romney and Ryan and a much stronger ticket than Obama Biden if you care about the economic strength of this country.
By every measure that we should care about at this point in time, Obama has been a dismal failure.
“Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but under Obama it has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in our history.
I invite you to look at the pace of recovery from the Great Depression. I believe your statement is incorrect. The recession we are emerging from is the worst since that Great Depression.”
Not according to Forbes:
“Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but, under Obama, the worst recession since the 1930s has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in the history of the republic. In a very real sense, there has been no recovery at all—things are still getting worse.”
Rusty: “We’ve already been there, done that with Carter and unfortunately we went there again”
Name a republican administration in the past 20 years that has brought us strong economic growth and an improvement in the lives of the middle class and poor? How many jobs each month were we losing during the 8 years of the second Bush administration? What was the economy like during Daddy Bush’s four years? Go on, tell me again how great the republicans have been when they were in the White House. I’m not saying that the Democrats are perfect, or that President Obama is the greatest man to ever hold the position. I am saying that he is a far sight better than the man who was there the previous 8 years, and will do far less harm than the alternative.
Jeff: Can you say Citizen’s United?
I will never vote for another republican president until the current Supreme Court Majority has retired. Mitt Romney will devastate our future if he is elected.
rusty: I don’t see how Forbes makes that analysis, since the Great Depression — which was marked by two sharp recessions — lasted from 1929 to almost 1940.
Jeff: [i]Let’s stop doing the Bush thing please.[/i]
Then Republicans should stop asking if we were better off than we were four years ago — when Bush was president.
[i]We are not electing Bush. Romney is not Bush.
[/i]
Like Bush, his fiscal policies don’t add up. Like Bush, his proposals would likely expand the deficit and the debt. Unless, of course, he doesn’t mean what he says. Which, given Romney’s character and track record, seems quite possible.
He’s also got the same foreign policy advisers that Bush had. Like Bush, his foreign policy would be a disaster. Romney is very similar to Bush.
Jeff Boone: “Let’s stop doing the Bush thing please. It is old and tired”
The Bush/Chaney administration was the most incompetent administration in our modern history. Rape and Pillage is how I would describe their approach to the job. You don’t get to ignore that atrocity. The fact that in four years President Obama has brought us back to any level of economic recover after what he inherited is an accomplishment, especially as the congressional republicans have stated that their only priority has been to make him a one term President.
Mitt and Paul will simply continue the Republicans march to failure that we have witnessed in the past 20 years. They are great at putting money in their own pockets, and those of their friends, but have destroyed the middle class and our economic future. The Democrats really aren’t a whole lot better, but they are better.
From Tim Egan in the NYT “Bill Clinton went right to the firing argument in his summary of the Republican view: “We left him a total mess, he didn’t clean it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.’ ”
Forward or back that is the question?
Bush and Obama were both disastrous for the US economy. Both ran up terrible deficits, though Obama did so at a faster rate. Now that we recognize that these disastrous deficits are killing our economy, we need to put someone in place who can deal with them. It is Obama whose deficit spending is similar to Bush.
[quote]the critical question will not be are you better off now than four years ago, but rather, under whose policies and leadership do you think you will be better off under, in another four years.
[/quote]
[quote]By every measure that we should care about at this point in time, Obama has been a dismal failure.[/quote]
I am in complete agreement with Robb’s viewpoint on this question.
In assessing one’s well being there are many aspect of one’s life other than just the number of dollars in the bank account. True. that is an important parameter, but it is only one. To me there are many measures that we should care about at this point in time in which I, my children, all of my patients, and many but of course not all of my acquaintances and their children will be far better off under Obama/Biden. I’ll list:
1) Anyone with insurance and a child between the ages of 22 and 26. Especially if, as I do, that child has a life
threatening illness. It will not be either emotionally or financially beneficial to us if her health care were to
bankrupt me as I approach retirement.
2) Anyone whose health insurance is job dependent
3) Anyone who has a pre existing condition ( my own families example, non of us would be insurable due to
managed but “pre existing conditions”, yes, all three of us.
4) Anyone who happens to be gay and wants all the same civil right afforded to straight couples, such as
hospital visitation rights. Likewise those whose love of country is such that they want to serve in the military
but were previously denied that right because of whom they personally love.
5) Anyone who obtains their contraception through their health plan
6) Anyone who depends on Planned Parenthood for their preventive health screenings
7) Anyone who was brought to this country as a child, has worked hard, been successful, played by all the
rules and now cannot get the benefits of that hard work
8) Any woman who works the same hours as the man working beside her and makes less money. Can anyone
really tell me why my daughter should make less than my son for exactly the same work ?
9) The 1/2 the population that the Republicans want to tell what medical procedures they must, and what medical procedures that they cannot have done.
There is a long list of factor far beyond just the current numbers that we all “should care about”.
Mark: [i]Name a republican administration in the past 20 years that has brought us strong economic growth and an improvement in the lives of the middle class and poor[/i]
Reagan.
[i]Jeff: Can you say Citizen’s United?[/i]
Mark: can you say… [url]http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php[/url]
Look, I agree with you that big dollar donors are corrupting the political process, so why did you not complain about Soros and Union money propping up Democrats and promoting a left political agenda?
At leats corporation are tax entities. They deserve representation in the political process, do they not? Unions are not taxed, yet historically they have spent much MORE money influencing the political process.
[quote]I invite you to look at the pace of recovery from the Great Depression. I believe your statement is incorrect. [/quote]What really brought us out of the Great Depression was a little event known as WWII. Don’t think I’d suggest using that recovery mechanism.
Jeff
[quote]At leats corporation are tax entities. They deserve representation in the political process, do they not? Unions are not taxed, yet historically they have spent much MORE money influencing the political process.
[/quote]
On what are you basing the assertion that “tax entities” “deserve representation in the political process?
I note that you did not use the words “have a right to” but rather the word “deserve”. I have truly never considered the possibility that being a “tax entity” gives such an entity any special rights or considerations.
[i]Mark West: “Name a republican administration in the past 20 years that has brought us strong economic growth and an improvement in the lives of the middle class and poor
Jeff Boone: “Reagan.”
[/i]
Jeff: I am happy to debate you on the economic prowess (or lack thereof) of Ronald Reagan, who I like to call the architect of the destruction of the University of California, but as he left office in 1989 you have to use some fuzzy math to make him fit. Since Reagan left office, we have had 12 years of Republican administrations and 12 years of Democratic ones. On the economic front, your side doesn’t look so good. On the foreign policy front, your side is an abomination. On the Supreme Court? I rest my case.
I watched most of the DNC Convention (as much as I could without throwing a shoe through my TV). There was a very LARGE contrast between Clinton and Obama. Clinton moved moderates toward the Democrats, and Obama scared them back away.
Here is the difference… one that my left-leaning friends are apparently blind to.
Clinton both slams, and demonstrates respect and acceptance, of the competing worldview. The words of Clinton sting like does the feeling of losing a game, but with the expectation that he understands you will come back to play again.
Obama demonstrates that he doesn’t even understand competing worldviews. Obama demonstrates that he is myopic and shallow in his ideological comprehension and vocabulary. Obama’s words don’t just sting. They cause the anger of rejection. Obama’s words are disrespectful to conservatives. He is dismissive of their ideas… as if they don’t even have a place in national dialog.
Not only does this cause the divisiveness and polarization we see amped up today, but it is also turing off more and more moderates that have that nagging “Obama is incomplete” and “Obama is in over his head” feeling.
The guy has just not had enough real life experience to understand. He does not “GET IT”. He needs to go away.
Obama is like a boat. The happiest days are the day you acquire it, and the day you get rid of it.
“Obama is like a boat. The happiest days are the day you acquire it, and the day you get rid of it.”
LOL, that’s a perfect analogy though many weren’t happy the day they got it. (In their case it was left in their driveway by a relative)
The Democrats ruled all three branches the first two years of Obama’s reign. If they were really for equal pay for women why didn’t they push it through then? This and most of their policies are just about devisiveness and nothing more. They’ll do anything to get elected.
Jeff Boone: “Not only does this cause the divisiveness and polarization we see amped up today…”
[b]Amped up[/b]?
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, [b]”Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[/b]
I think not.
[i]”Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”[/i]
Mark, that message was directed at the leaders of other countries. At least that was the context. For some reason the left ran with that as evidence (and about the only bit they could come up with) that Bush didn’t care about them or was dismissive of them. These same people failed to give Bush credit for his constant comments that he welcomed and respected debate and different opinions, but that he was the “decider”.
Obama demonstrates that he does not respect different opinions and he also makes his decisions lacking the same transparency that we got from Bush (except for national security decisions which demand a level of secrecy). With Bush you knew where he stood because he told you. With Obama, he is a silver-tongue snake oil salesman slithering around with nuanced position that prevent direct identification of ideas and intent; but if you really listen and add up the total sum of his words, you can understand where he stands… and it is far left of center and lacking a complete picture of what America has been and should be about.
[i]LOL, that’s a perfect analogy though many weren’t happy the day they got it. (In their case it was left in their driveway by a relative)[/i]
Yeah… I remember being both dissapointed and emotionally proud of our country at that point. I still am. We gave him a shot. He failed. Time to move on.
Another boat analogy for Obama.
A boat (Obama) is a just a hole that you keep throwing money into.
Mark, I think the state public employee unions and state politicians are the architects of the destruction of the University of California. What did Reagan have to do with this State insitution?
It is ancient history I know Jeff (and off topic), but you need to recall that Reagan was once the Governor of California.
Oh yeah… I didn’t connect the dots on that. I really do not know the history of Reagan’s actions related to the CSU and/or UC system.
How about later I buy the beer and you supply the information?
Last four years…
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HIqZzf1frbA/UDoaBSzN07I/AAAAAAAADjY/0rK24SxspIs/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-08-26+at++Sunday,+August+26,+8.42+AM.png[/img]
Jeff, that’s some powerful graphs you put up. “Are we better off than we were four years ago” usually applies to one’s economics. The Democrats know we are much worse off economically so they have to try and change the conversation to feel good policies. For instance, your child can now stay on your insurance until they’re 26.
The inconvenient truth that the Republican rank and file don’t want to accept is that their leadership has failed to live up to the reputation of economic growth and prosperity for more than a generation, and instead have been responsible for the massive accumulation of wealth amongst an ever smaller group, and at the same time, the systematic destruction of individual rights.
These poor sops have been duped into believing that as long as they remain faithful, they will be included in the inner circle, or at the very least, will have some of those riches trickle down to their pockets. Unfortunately, they are more akin to an English enlisted man during the Napoleonic era who, after helping to sack a French city (bringing riches to his officers) is then selected at random and strung up from the city gates in order to keep the rest of the unwashed in line.
So, Jeff and rusty, do you consider [i]median household income[/i] to be a [i]leading[/i] indicator, a [i]coincident[/i] indicator, or a [i]lagging[/i] indicator?
Do you believe that a policy of fiscal austerity will improve median household income?
Do you believe that Romney/Ryan would actually implement a policy of fiscal austerity?
If so, how would that be implemented with an increase in defense spending?
[quote]your child can now stay on your insurance until they’re 26.[/quote]
I wonder if the author would feel the same that this is a “feel good policy” if it were his child’s life that were on the line ?
Also, for those who insist on looking only at the current numbers as indicators and insist that only the economy matters, do you not understand how very short sighted this view is. How strong an economy do you suppose we can build for the future if we undercut the health, education and thus the opportunities for todays students ? The economy of this country is dependent, whether one wants to admit it or not, on the well being of the middle class. If we support programs that help people at the bottom enter the middle class, and help those in the middle class to improve their personal economic status, do you not truly not see that they will do better economically as individuals and will propel a stronger overall economy ?
[i]How strong an economy do you suppose we can build for the future if we undercut the health, education and thus the opportunities for todays students?[/i]
Medwoman…
Three points:
1 – Why spend anything to educate students if they cannot find a job after they graduate? Republicans have not been the Party responsible for the hyper-inflated cost of higher learning. Republicans have also not been responsible for reductions in state funding to colleges. Lastly, Republicans are not the Party protecting the crappy K-12 education status quo.
2 – Who said anything about undercutting? The metaphor is trimming back the overgrowth. Don can appreciate that metaphor.
3 – We cannot afford your worldview vision of a government providing this massive safety net. See Greece. Certainly we are not Greece, but that is the same trajectory you seem to support.
Jeff Boone: “Why spend anything to educate students if they cannot find a job after they graduate?”
So…once again, how many jobs did Bush/Chaney create? I bet they created more billionaires amongst their friends than they did jobs for our citizens. You cannot run away from the record. The Republican party has been an economic failure during the entirety of our adult life.
How does that definition go…’Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.’
“How does that definition go…’Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”
Great point, that’s why we can’t afford another 4 year of Obama.
Mark, I just can’t get into that looking-backwards-blame line of thinking. Your “insanity” point more applies to supporting Obama since he is the here and now. Bush/Chaney are gone and Romney/Ryan are nothing like them in terms of experience and message.
There is a principle in project management “ETC”. Estimate to Completion is a tool for pulling project stakeholders away from a potentially destructive connection with the past. That tendency is described by the gambler who wins big, and then loses… but cannot stop thinking about his previous winnings so he doubles-down to make up for it. He can’t accept that he already lost those prior winnings and chases a dream that he simply needs to keep playing the same game to win them back. It typically ends up that his eventual losses exceed his prior winnings.
In project management, at each milestone we ask the simple questions:
What are the costs and risks from this point forward?
Based on these things, do we need to kill or change the project?
Obama’s problem is that he continues to double down on his same game even though it has been disastrous. The Romney/Ryan game is not the same that prior GOP administrations have played. We know that both Party’s overspent. The current Republican Party will not stand for continued overspending. Today Bush would never be elected for his second term. There is so much anger and concern over the big spike in debt and deficit spending that the game has changed.
Obama is selling nothing new. He is sticking with his plan, his project, his ideology. He is that gambler that will ensure that when he is done, the US will lose much more than it has won.
I just read that with the continued failures of job growth (much less than our population growth) over the last four years… that combined with the job losses from the Great Recession have taken as back to the end of the Reagan Presidency. How is that for looking back. It seems to suggest that even the Clinton economy was largely false and inflated.
However, none of this really matters. What matters is where do we go from here. What is the project going forward, and who is best suited to lead us?
That project is definitely not the Democrat’s plan. That person is definitely not Obama.
Don wrote:
> I am better off than I was four years ago.
I am happy to hear that, since I don’t hear it from many people (especially business owners in Davis)…
> My children, young adults, are better off than
> they were four years ago in terms of job prospects.
Wouldn’t things be even better if they had “jobs” rather than “job prospects”?
I know that some people are doing better than they were four years ago and that there have been many changes for the better, but it is sad to say that especially here in Davis “most” people are probably not better off.
In the past 4 years the median home price in Davis has dropped from a little under $500K to a little over $400K and UC tuition is up from under $10K to over $15K. With home price drops even worse in most of the region a lot less UCD families have the ability to borrow on home equity loans to help students and as a whole most of the students I talk to seem to feel that they are worse off than the typical UCD student 4 years ago.
Then Robb wrote:
>If someone–Democrat or Republican (or other) will tell me exactly
> what they mean by “better off” then I will happily engage
I think “better off” means different things to different people. When I moved to Davis we were making a lot less money and had a smaller home, but I felt we were “better off” since my wife was able to stay home with the kids. Sadly in the past few years I have had to work longer hours to make the same amount of money (with almost everything we buy costing more). We are still “better off” than most people (especially a few of the stay at home moms my wife used to hang out with that have had to go back to work part or full time to help pay the bills)…
Jeff:[i] “What is the project going forward, and who is best suited to lead us?”[/i]
If you can discern what it is from the many things Mitt Romney has said, or from the things Ryan has put forward (which are directly contradicted by Romney), be sure to let us know.
[i]The Romney/Ryan game is not the same that prior GOP administrations have played.[/i]
Yes it is. More tax cuts, more defense spending, terrible foreign policy.
[i]The current Republican Party will not stand for continued overspending.[/i]
Sure they will. They want to increase defense spending. Why should we believe “the current Republican Party” about anything regarding fiscal policy? Their fiscal policy doesn’t add up. Their track record over decades is terrible. How will they pay for the tax cuts and defense spending and balancing the budget and reducing the debt? They won’t. They never have, and they never will. Mitt Romney has changed positions on every issue. Why should we believe him about anything?
Don. This was the 2000 GOP Party Platform Preamble:
[quote]” The twenty-fifth man to receive our party’s nomination…
Under his leadership, the Republican Party commits itself to bold reforms in education — to make every school a place of learning and achievement for every child. We will preserve local control of public schools, while demanding high standards and accountability for results.
We commit ourselves to saving and strengthening Social Security. After years of neglect and delay, we will keep this fundamental commitment to the senior citizens of today and tomorrow.
We commit ourselves to rebuilding the American military and returning to a foreign policy of strength and purpose and a renewed commitment to our allies. We will deploy defenses against ballistic missiles and develop the weapons and strategies needed to win battles in this new technological era.
We commit ourselves to tax reforms that will sustain our nation’s prosperity and reflect its decency. We will reduce the burden on all Americans, especially those who struggle most.
We commit ourselves to aiding and encouraging the work of charitable and faith-based organizations, which today are making great strides in overcoming poverty and other social problems, bringing new hope into millions of lives. For every American there must be a ladder of opportunity, and for those most in need, a safety net of care.
We recommit ourselves to the values that strengthen our culture and sustain our nation: family, faith, personal responsibility, and a belief in the dignity of every human life.
We offer not only a new agenda, but also a new approach — a vision of a welcoming society in which all have a place. To all Americans, particularly immigrants and minorities, we send a clear message: this is the party of freedom and progress, and it is your home.[/quote]
With the exception of 9-11 and the resulting wars, I think the GOP and Bush attempted to do exactly this.
The Romney/Ryan platform may have similar tones (because they are both fundamentally Republican and Conservative) but they are not the same no matter how hard you scratch yourself to make it so.
Don, do you not have a problem with our debt? Of budget deficits? The fact that Obama has not passed a federal budget in over three years?
You must not since you support a President and a Party with a plan only to increase it with greater entitlement spending.
The Defense budget increases being proposed by Romney are only a tiny sliver of the pie of spending compared to non-defense spending. The argument against romney’s plan to increase defense spending is a red herring.
Here is a great chart illustrating the history of defense spending per DDP, and the Obama and Romney plans.
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20120829_military.png[/img]
Do note that defense spending has been cut by Obama.
Let me look for something similar for non-defense spending.
[url]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20120829_military.png[/url]
Jeff, when exactly did you develop a problem with our debt and budget deficits? January 2009?
Do you not have a problem with the fact that [b]Congress[/b] has not passed a federal budget in over three years? The President doesn’t “pass” anything.
Did you support the compromise that Obama and Boehner had nearly reached, which was scuttled by Ryan and Cantor?
You apparently support a party with no plans that pencil out in any way to reduce the deficit or the debt. The Romney plan, which might be the Ryan plan, or might not, depending on what you believe, is not just smoke and mirrors. It is a lie. It doesn’t do what they promise. Romney would be a fiscal disaster.
[i]”The argument against romney’s plan to increase defense spending is a red herring.”
[/i]
How so? Please explain to me: Romney will increase defense spending, and lower taxes on the wealthy. How, then will he balance the budget?
[i]Do note that defense spending has been cut by Obama.
[/i]
He ended one war. And unlike his predecessors, he actually put the cost of the wars in the budget.
Interesting how he uses the language of grade school report cards…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/doover.jpg[/img]
Democrat Party Platform 2008:
[quote]We will start by renewing the American Dream for a new era – with the same new hope and new ideas that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards the New Deal and John F. Kennedy to the New Frontier. We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who are in danger of losing their homes, and those who – no matter how hard they work – are seeing prices go up more than their income. We will invest in America again –in world-class public education, in our infrastructure, and in green technology –so that our economy can generate the good, high-paying jobs of the future. We will end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care, protect Social Security, and help Americans save for retirement. And we will harness American ingenuity to free this nation from the tyranny of oil.
The Democratic Party believes that there is no more important priority than renewing American leadership on the world stage. This will require diplomatic skill as capable as our military might. Instead of refusing to confront our most pressing threats, we will use all elements of American power to keep us safe, prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating our nation from the world, we will enable America –once again –to lead.
For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure. Today, we commit to renewing our American community by recognizing that solutions to our greatest challenges can only be rooted in common ground and the strength of our civic life. The American people do not want government to solve all our problems; we know that personal responsibility, character, imagination, diligence, hard work and faith ultimately determine individual achievement. But we also know that at every turning point in our nation’s history, we have demonstrated our love of country by uniting to overcome our challenges—whether ending slavery, fighting two world wars for the cause of freedom or sending a man to the moon. Today, America must unite again –to help our most vulnerable residents get back on their feet and to restore the vitality of both urban centers and family farms –because the success of each depends on the success of the other. And America must challenge us again –to serve our country and to meet our responsibilities –whether in our families or local governments; our civic organizations or places of worship.
Americans have been promised change before. And too often we have been disappointed.[/quote]
Seemed to have missed the mark quite a bit.
[quote]Obama is selling nothing new[/quote]
Unless you consider :
The equal pay for equal work
The ACA
His support for The Dream Act
The end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
His two choices for the Supreme Court
His effective action against Osama Bin Laden ( whether you agree with it or not )
as “nothing new”.
Medwoman, except “equal pay for equal work” (which in my opinion is another mistake of the women’s movement that fails to factor reasons and consequences), these are all his past accomplishments. What NEW is he selling? How is he going to address the huge budget gap?
[i]He ended one war. And unlike his predecessors, he actually put the cost of the wars in the budget.[/i]
Don, he does not have any approved budget, so how can he put it there. His budget proposals have been rejected unanimously by both Parties in both houses.
Jeff
Again I would ask you. How can you justify paying my daughter less for working at the same job, for the same number of hours as my son ? Just as I have asked you in the past, how can you justify my athlete daughter from having the same opportunities to excel in her sport as are offered to my athlete son ?
Jeff
[quote]these are all his past accomplishments[/quote]
If I approve of someone’s past accomplishments ( which I obviously do ) why would I not support furthering the same type of objectives rather than promoting someone who has vowed to undo much of what I support ?
And I remain interested in hearing your clarification about why you feel that “tax entities” should have a political representation.
[i]”Again I would ask you. How can you justify paying my daughter less for working at the same job, for the same number of hours as my son?”[/i]
All things being equal, I would not justify paying any woman less than any man. However, in my experience, there are often material differences in the career motivations of men and women that justify a difference in pay. Last I checked there are some biological differences. There are also still some cultural differences. These exist even though the militant crusaders of the gender wars would just like us to ignore them.
Frankly, I think the women’s movement has done a lot of damage to women’s quality of life. Trying to make it all unisex has caused a significant increase in the amount of life-stress a woman has to deal with… especially a woman with children. We should have been focusing more on woman’s needs, and not so much on women’s rights. For example, we should be working on policies that respect and support maternity and child rearing. Instead, we have this divide between single career women and those that want a life allowing more traditional wife/mother designs. However, the working world is hostile to them. In fact, it is childless career women that I see being most hostile to women requesting things like work schedule changes to support them raising their kids.
My view of the extreme women’s movement is similar to my view of socialists. There is that continued frustration over a lack of control to get the required other party to bend to their will. Men might evolve (devolve) like the Sea Horse to care for the young while the mom just pops them out and goes back to her career. Just like producers might bend to the will of looters to grow the economy while paying ever increasing taxes. However, I think neither will happen and all parties will remain quite frustrated until there is a new awakening of reality.
Jeff Boone: “[i]Mark, I just can’t get into that looking-backwards-blame line of thinking.[/i]”
Well I don’t blame you, I wouldn’t want to run on the Republican record either. Every Republican administration in the past 20+ years has ended with a poorer economy than when it began. The past one put us into the worst recession in our history. During the same period, every Democratic administration has resulted in an improved economic situation for the Country. Again, I see why you don’t want to look backward.
[i]Your “insanity” point more applies to supporting Obama since he is the here and now.
[/i]
Elect a Republican President, see the economy go into the toilet. Elect a Democratic one, and enjoy the prosperity. Insanity is electing another Republican.
[i]Bush/Chaney are gone and Romney/Ryan are nothing like them in terms of experience and message.
[/i]
If they are different, it is only for the worse. Rape and Pillage is what they favor, just like their predecessors, but don’t worry, as long as it is ‘legitimate’ no one will get pregnant.
I think Jeff just illustrated very clearly why Republicans won’t be getting the women’s vote. I really have felt many times over the last few months as though we’ve regressed to the 1960’s in our discussions of issues important to women.
[i]”these are all his past accomplishments…”[/i]
And they are mostly things Republicans have promised to undo.
In the event of Republican control of the White House and Congress:
The ACA will be overturned (and definitely not replaced; that is a flat-out lie by Romney).
Any vacancies on the Supreme Court will be filled by jurists similar to Scalia, and there are already three justices clearly prepared to overturn Roe v Wade.
The DREAM Act executive action announced by the President will be rescinded.
A Romney Justice Department would likely argue on behalf of DOMA, and would possibly act to reinstate DADT.
So unfortunately, there are a lot of ‘negative’ reasons to oppose Romney/Ryan. Their promises to undo the progress the Obama administration has made on these issues which you call his ‘past’ accomplishments. They aren’t permanent. And assuming you believe what Romney says (and I don’t know why you would, given his record), he is likely to accede to Tea Party Republican demands that they be overturned.
Am interesting contrast in style between Romney and Obama in their presidential runs:
“Man of the people” Obama, who manages to create a populist persona that seems to be taken at face value by both those on the right (for which he is a commie/socialist pinko) and the left (a man of social justice & compassion). The record shows that there has been little shift in the policies under the Obama adminstration as compared with the previous Bush adminstration; and consolidation of wealth to those already wealthy has continued apace. It is my contention that Obama has succeeded in his job of putting a populist face on policies that are really steered by large financial and corporate interests; i.e. it is not a matter of the government taking over and managing big business; it is big business increasingly steering and controlling the government (end result is the same; big business and government as a single entity).
vs.
Romney the Patrician: the first modern candidate with a strong Patrician persona. You will note that the Patrician persona is most common among the leaders of Latin American countries, where the people, most of whom are poor, have accepted that this is their lot, just the way of things in this world, part of God’s mysterious plan to which all must submit, and their older and wiser patrician leaders are also only following Gods plan in the way that they lead the country, like a stern but wise father.
Rest assured that big money will endorse both candidates, and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of the very wealthy will continue apace no matter which one of the candidates is elected.
Don, you should get out more and talk to more women before you make assumptions about what women think about the women’s movement. They may support Democrats, but my experience is that they don’t connect with the extremists driving the politics.
Jeff
[quote]women’s quality of life[/quote]
With all due respect, given my profession, I suspect that I have probably spoken ( often in intimate detail)
with more women than you and Don put together. As such, I suspect that I have gained a broader perspective than you have with regard to women’s needs as well as their rights. What I see is that the majority of women, at some time in their lives, have to have the ability to take care of themselves both financially and emotionally.
As much as you might like to think that women will be taken care of and protected by their men, this is simply not our reality. I am not saying that you personally have not achieved this. What I am saying is that this is far from the reality of many women.
So please explain to me how it is ok for the woman whose husband dies, or the one who has chosen not to marry, or the married woman whose husband leaves her and the children, or becomes disabled,or my daughter who is in a four year relationship which she considers an equal partnership to earn less than her male counterpart who is also trying to build a career. It sounds to me as though the women with whom you speak are either those who have enjoyed a 50’s lifestyle, or those who do not want to engage in an honest conversation with you for whatever reason.
So in effect, you are saying that you believe that half the population should be economically disadvantaged because you believe that men should enjoy the upper rung of the “success” ladder solely because of an outmoded paradigm that you personally happen to believe in. On this, we will have to agree to disagree.
I have a couple of comments:
For Robb Davis: I don’t think we need to have the “in what way” specified for us by a politician. Every person has an approach to this question, and if they feel the president (or any other elected person) has some influence on their answer, in my view, this is a valid question.
That said, most folks think in economic terms, and since unemployment and wages are not better than they were four years ago, for many folks, the answer is that they are worse off. That is why David is positing this article and headline — only a few months ago he argued that as long as the economy was doing well that Obama would win. Now, the economy is really struggling again, and he wants to change the discussion.
Another important factor is how folks feel about the direction of the country and whether or not we will be better off four years from now. For me, this is where Obama falls into very dangerous territory. Part of the reason the economy has gotten better is a lack of confidence by those who have capital. Until they decide that we are headed in the right direction, and begin investing in equipment, expanding staff and production, the economy probably is going to continue to suffer. Don is one of very few small business owners that would say they are better off than they were four years ago.
One other thought about this discussion – what we think in CA in meaningless to the election outcome. The outcome of our electoral votes is assured – what is important is what the folks in FL, OH, MI, CO, PA, VA, NC et al are seeing and feeling.
jimt wrote:
> Rest assured that big money will endorse both candidates,
> and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of the
> very wealthy will continue apace no matter which one of
> the candidates is elected.
Great comment, if we can only get more people to understand that the super-rich will keep on getting richer if we have four more years of Obama or four Romney (we didn’t get any real “change” with Obama and we won’t get any real “change” with Romney (I don’t consider having the word “god “in a party platform more than one time or allowing “gays in the military” 30 years after a friend came home from his first post ROTC cruise and said 1/3 of the guys on the ship were “openly gay” “real change”)…
While the rich and the media have people talking about job opportunities for young people big corporations are slowly working to make it harder and harder for independent business to stay open and while people are talking a about equal pay for women the media ignores that fact that women under 30 make more than men and that big pharma, insurance companies and big healthcare have been milking the system so young MDs make less (inflation adjusted) money than ever (despite having the highest amount of (inflation adjusted) debt ever…
[quote]Great comment, if we can only get more people to understand that the super-rich will keep on getting richer if we have four more years of Obama [/quote]
I agree that this is likely a true statement. However, it is not the fate of the very wealthy that concerns me.
What does concern me is the fate of the middle class and those that have not yet arrived there. I think that gutting the social safety net which is what is the predictable outcome of the Romney/Ryan platform regardless of whether or not they are willing to call it that, or whether they would actually do that or are just playing to the Tea Party is destruction pure and simple and short sighted in terms of building a strong economy to say nothing about the basic immorality of selling out our most vulnerable citizens.
Through the actions with which he has been successful as I previously listed, Obama has demonstrated that while the rich may get richer on his watch, he will not abandon the weakest in order to make that happen and will stand up for basic fairness and equality in our society. In the long run, I see this as more important than the short term economic well being over a four year period.
Rehashing partisan talking points and finger pointing completely misses the topic. The nation is definitively NOT better off than four years ago, and the suggestion that the nation would be in even worse condition under any alternative scenario is absurd. Obama considered and rejected plenty of policies (from Democrats & Republicans) that would have produced results that I would have found preferable: keeping people employed (with a jobs program) and families in their homes (qualified loan modifications with a public silent second for those manageably under water), reducing the national debt (eliminate unnecessary and duplicative government services, buy down the debt with a severance tax), strengthening the public safety net (universal insurance coverage), etc.
Obama’s choices reflect his values, not mine. He carried out the murder of Bin Laden and then pretends that justice was served. I would rather he created a justice system, to replace the dysfunctional legal system, and bring criminals to justice. He has bailed out countless undeserving corporations rather than deserving citizens. He should have let GM fail, and provided a program to facilitate the transition of displaced employees, rather than facilitate the transition of displaced shareholders.
He missed his chances, he is unlikely to get additional chances since Congress will likely remain Republican, and he is not advocating a different course anyway. He has lost my vote, and I’m not buying the old scare tactic that the world will end if a Republican is elected. At least the Republican will be accountable, and if he falls short, we’ll vote him out. That’s how democracy works, and I prefer it to the factionalism that many are advocating on these pages.
[i]So in effect, you are saying that you believe that half the population should be economically disadvantaged because you believe that men should enjoy the upper rung of the “success” ladder solely because of an outmoded paradigm that you personally happen to believe in.[/i]
Not at all.
In my professional life as a manager, I have more often had the pleasure of managing women employees. I have also worked for as many women as I have men. In the mid-1980s I was the first manager in the bank I worked for to push HR to allow one of my valued employees that had given birth to work part-time. This was not part of the women’s movement agenda. In fact, it was specifically the other women employees that made life miserable for this new mother. She was the constant target of their scorn. Any indication that she was getting more than half recognition commensurate with her part-time status was met with a type of passive-aggressive co-worker hostility that those experienced working in an female-dominated office environment will know well.
You see, the women’s movement is not about what is good for all women. It is not even really about equality. Equality was and is provided by our civil rights progress and a move to an information and technology-driven service economy. The real driving intent of the women’s movement is about power. Specifically, it is a march to have power over men. There are three problems with that march: one – it only appeals to a minority of women; two – it makes life much harder for women than it should otherwise be; three – it is screwing up the institution of marriage.
In 2010 young American women had a median income higher than their male counterparts in 1,997 out of 2,000 metropolitan regions. Women far exceed men attending college and earning degrees.
This is not just a US issue, it is a global issue. The average age of marriage is rising and divorce-rates are skyrocketing. Births are declining and out-of-wedlock births are increasing.
It is apparent that the women’s movement never really considered how men might respond if got what it wanted. One phenomenon in some countries is men actually importing women from other countries to marry. In others men are growing more indifferent to dating and marrying. When career-successful women do marry, they are quicker to lose respect for and discard their less ambitious mate. Conversely, men lacking equality in professional accomplishment feel diminished and grow disenchanted.
This equal pay bit by the Democrats and Obama is disingenuous and misses the mark. What we should be focused on is what women and men need to have a good American life, and to extract the most value and happiness from our economic and social design. As we continue to morph from a patriarchy to a matriarchy, we need to consider that many, if not most, men and women will continue to want a life similar to what their parents and grandparents had.
Women want it all. It appears that they are getting most of it… at the expense of the rest of it. Will men come around? Will career women, working moms and stay-at-home moms come together with mutual respect for each other? Maybe. However, it won’t happen soon if it does. And it won’t happen at all unless we acknowledge these growing gender-related gaps and problems and start working to fix them. The Democrat Party is doing the exact opposite… using gender issues as yet ANOTHER wedge issue to retain their power. Shame on them.
[quote]This equal pay bit by the Democrats and Obama is disingenuous and misses the mark[/quote]
[quote]using gender issues as yet ANOTHER wedge issue to retain their power. Shame on them.[/quote]
Where I think the shame should lie is on anyone willing to pretend that gender should, even in part, determine how much a person should make during the same amount of time for the same amount of work. Regardless of biology, choice of whether to bear or not bear children, who is making more in one’s household, whether more men or women are attending college, whether men’s egos are affected by the presence of women, the same amount of identical work, for the same number of hours, should be compensated identically. This is what equal pay for equal work means, and it is all that it means. To confound this with a barrage of distractions does not make fighting this very simple equity any more honorable. This is not a men’s or a women’s rights issue, it is simple justice and we should be all standing together on this one. Is the work of our daughters not equal to the work of our sons ? This question at least, really is that simple.
[quote]You see, the women’s movement is not about what is good for all women. It is not even really about equality. Equality was and is provided by our civil rights progress and a move to an information and technology-driven service economy. The real driving intent of the women’s movement is about power. Specifically, it is a march to have power over men. There are three problems with that march: one – it only appeals to a minority of women; two – it makes life much harder for women than it should otherwise be; three – it is screwing up the institution of marriage.
[/quote]
I do see this entirely differently from you. For me, the women’s movement is indeed about power. But not about establishing women as more powerful than men, but about allowing them to achieve as much power as men. It is about providing equal choice of how to structure their own lives as men have traditionally enjoyed. Having equal pay for equal work is indeed a necessary element of establishing equal ( not greater) power for the genders. If framed correctly as allowing women equal opportunity, as opposed to the scare tactic of pretending that women are trying to take away their husbands and sons jobs, then it would appeal to the majority, if not all women. It only makes life harder for women who are content to assume that a man will take care of them all their lives. This assumption completely fails to address what happens to that woman when her man either can’t or won’t take care of her any longer or the woman who does not have a man in her life whether by circumstance of choice.
As a woman who had to fight very hard for a position in a system strongly rigged toward male dominance at the time I entered the profession ( a surgical subspecialty) I can tell you that without the “woman’s movement” there would have been much less “civil rights progress”. This progress happened through the hard work and thoughtfulness of many women and their male supporters. It did not grow organically out of a magnanimous and inherently fair free market system as you would seem to imply. In order to succeed, we did not have to act like men, but we did frequently have to prove that we could do the job not as well as, but better than our male counterparts in order to move forward in our profession. I had not one, but many men tell me that as a woman,
I would not be considered for a position in Ob/Gyn, and a few equally incorrect women tell me the same thing.
As for the women’s movement screwing up the institution of marriage, my response is that it is only screwing up the completely unrealistic vision of marriage as an institution where the woman stays home, financially dependent on the male and whose job it is to take care of the kids and the household. This vision for better or worse does not serve all women well any more than the women’s movement has served all women well. What this illustrates to me is that no single paradigm serves all women, or all people well. This for me is the point of the women’s movement, or any movement that promotes choice and equality. Women should have exactly the same ability as men ( not more, not less) to choose their own path in life and should not be disadvantaged financially or in any other way because of their chromosomal make up.