Are we better off today than we were four years ago?

Gallup asked that old question in a survey a month or so ago.  56% of Americans said no.  Actually, given the influence of the media, that's a surprisingly low number. 

I remember four years ago -- September 2008. The recession had started in December '07.  In itself, the Bush-2 recession #2 was bad enough.   So here's what it looked like four years ago: bad, very bad.  We were experiencing the Bush financial crisis, Lehmann Bros. was down and other financial institutions going belly-up, banks with no money to lend, people spooked.  You could lose your job, then you did lose your job. Your medical bills, your mortgage payments, your credit card debt -- any one of these could put you out on the street. 

Whatever else was happening in the world in September and October 2008, many of us were pulling hard for an Obama win. 

Once he was in office how effective was Obama at making things better?  To what extent did Republicans in Congresss deliberately prevent recovery?  How much did the auto industry bailout help?  Did the stimulus work? 

Four years later, how should we answer the question: "Who's going to make things better?"   Gallup included that question in their recent survey.

The same Gallup poll asked voters if they would be doing better four years from now in an Obama or Romney presidency, they split evenly, 44% to 44%. No wonder, then, that the president said  that was the better way to frame the election when he kicked off his campaign in May.

(Gallup polled voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.) ...LATimes

I think what people understand is that a) gee, it would be nice if the recovery were faster, more dramatic, but b) that's not the way things are going to work for us until some changes are made in the system. 

Economists have been warning that unless we remove the hazards in the system, we're bound to stay in a boom-bust economy in an America that  has to compete with increasingly sophisticated, rich, and tough competitors overseas even as extreme free-enterprisers in this country refuse to battle greed and rule-breakers at home. This time, after all we have learned about ourselves, Americans voters may, enough of us, understand that Romney is not on our side.  Romney, in fact, personifies greed and rule-breaking and, above all, a "me-first" movement that has almost ruined us.

A Romney win would signify that we're acquiescing to those among us who have a troubling conviction that they are entitled.  A Romney win would signal that yes, we have forgotten where we were four years ago.                    

 ... Another top Obama campaign official, Stephanie Cutter, said the country “absolutely” was better off than four years ago. She ticked off reminders of what Obama inherited when he took office.

“Let me just walk you through what life was like four years ago right now," Cutter said on NBC's "Today" show. "In the six months before the president was elected, we lost 3.5 million jobs, wages had been going down for a decade, auto industry on the brink of failure. Our financial system, this is just about the time you're seeing banks go under. All over America middle class families were feeling it." ...LATimes

Oh, and one more thing I think is no less important than our economic situation: Do we have, in Obama, an honorable leader? In my book we do. For the first time since.... Oh, you probably weren't born then!

Comments

[John Sanchez]

obama media tries deperately to lie us into believing we are better off when we are way worse off. Higer unemployment, $16 trillion in debt while on the verge of bankaruptcy, higheat mortgage forclosures, No jobs!

[PW]

More jobs are being created than during the Bush administration. Our deficit grows in part thanks to having to service Bush's debt. You don't probably don't like going back to where the problem started, but there it is.

As for the mortgage problem, you have to admit, dates back to when we were in the habit of taking on more debt than we could afford. You could call it the "Bush bubble" or you could call it the people's bubble -- both were at fault for taking on debt neither they nor the country could afford. But those mortgages aren't Obama's fault any more than they're the fault of George Washington.

"24 million private-sector jobs were added during the 28 years that Republicans held the White House. But when Democrats were president, that figure almost doubled — 42 million private-sector jobs created over 24 years. That claim appears to be true; it is backed up by a recent Bloomberg News analysis and federal labor statistics."

And don't look to St. Ronnie for help here. Reagan almost tripled it during the time when he was in office.

I think you've been reading the wrong media. Forget the media. Go to the sources, like the Bureau of Labor Stats, etc.

Fact-check it. Don't just shout bull at me because someone has shouted a bunch of bull at you...!