This is such a weird statement. Everyone I know is better off now then they were four years ago. Much happier too.
unemployment is higher, gas prices are higher, home values are lower, wages are lower, food stamps are at record levels, the size of the work force is smaller
And the Republican policies of cutting spending, abandoning the lower class, prolonging Bush era tax cuts, and further stagnating the economy will be the solution right? How did that work during the great depression? "We know you're poor and all, but hey hang in there! Things will eventually get better. And if not, you'll die and it doesn't matter anymore!"
Companies are generally hiring instead of laying people off, so the 90% of the country that is employed isn't living in the same fear of losing their job. And, of course, the stock market is nearly double what it was, meaning the country as a whole is many trillions of dollars wealthier. And people aren't living in fear of the imminent collapse of the entire financial system.
We are most definitely better than we were 4 years ago. We are not in a recession anymore. It's that simple. Because of Republican blocking, Obama has not been able to impliment many of his policies. It's hard to stimulate an economic recovery when people from the other party are more concerned with bringing you down politically than doing things to help the country.
All recessions end. The problem is we haven't recovered from the last one. Good luck with that message in November. "We'd be doing much better if you had only let me borrow/spend/tax more. If I could pass this Buffet Rule in April 2012 we'd be doing gangbusters" Besides, it makes you look weak to admit you can't get things done. What wonderful piece of stimulating legislation was he not able to implement? He's been able to run $1 trillion+ deficits every year in office. His budgets get zero(!) votes from either party in either chamber.
Well, when you have the other side arguing that Dodd-Frank and Obamacare (???) of all things are killing the recovery... Anyways, in response to your second inquiry, a systematic approach to ALMP that implies more coordinated doses than were done (perhaps not as expansive as in Sweden, but somewhat more than is ever done in America) Active labour market policies (ALMPs) are government programmes that intervene in the labour market to help the unemployed find work. Many of these programmes grew out of earlier public works projects designed to combat widespread unemployment in the developed world during the interwar period. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=348621 -The infamous Kocherlakota speech (MIN. Fed president) however, he missed out the logical step---fiscal policy and training so that you can transform construction workers into manufacturing workers, or anywhere where they are skills mismatches. Structural mismatches count for about 1.5% of unemployment currently. http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2011/EFGf11/Sahin_Song_Topa_Violante.pdf Of course, the big argument here is structural vs cyclical (demand-driven, or rather no-demand driven) unemployment---real business cycle types vs Keynesians all over again. They're missing a bigger point. More action could have been driven to stem both types of unemployment.
Good luck with the message that because Obama wasn't quick enough in solving the problems caused by the destructive economic policies of GWB that we should just go ahead and elect someone that wants to return to the policies that caused the problems in the first place. The American people actually are dumb enough to do that; I don't deny that. We've seen it before. But for Mitt Romney? Oh hell no. Usually its the GOP that likes to destroy a decent man (Kerry, Gore) by making a joke out of him. This time it will be the GOP guy that's the joke. And we won't even have to do anything. All we have to do is sit back and let him talk and it's over for y'all. You're going to lose. And I'm going to love it.
If the question is simply whether people are better off now than when Obama took office, the people seem to answer "yes".
We are probably going to see a lot of these types of stories on Romney as the campaign rolls along. Which Mitt (the extreme conservative or the socially moderate) will emerge for the general election? via TPM -- The Inner Mitt Emerges I’ve always taken it as a given that the ‘real’ Mitt Romney isn’t so much a political moderate as not particularly engaged on issues besides management and right-leaning economics. In other words, he’s a center-right technocrat. So the moves to the center we’re about to see are comparatively easy for him since these just aren’t issues which are core to who he is one way or another. Still it will be fascinating to watch the repositioning. And E.J. Dionne has found a great example. Tell us more about Romney’s ‘private’ views Tucked away in a Fred Barnes piece in the Wall Street Journal, he finds this quotes: “According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.”
I haven't heard many Republicans argue that Obama hasn't done anything. I've heard them argue that he hasn't done anything positive. Saying he has no record to run on means that he hasn't accomplished much of anything that is actually popular and has helped people, not that he hasn't overseen the passage of plenty of new legislation and regulation.
"If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront."-N.Gregory Mankiw (Main economic adviser to Mitt Romney) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/economy/30view.html
Wasn't Mankiw the chairman of GW's economic advisors? And now he's advising Mitt? Same as it ever was....
A lot of people feel like that. I completed my 60th subdivision home visit this week. I never hand out posters or show my affiliation in any way when I greet neighbors. I always ask which presidential candidate they are supporting and why. Listening first and then asking questions is always an effective start. Obama is in trouble, at least in the microcosm of my Katy area subdivision. Even neighbors of African and Hispanic descent are backing away from supporting Obama primarily because of his double-speak and his economic policies. It's early, but I'm getting very optimistic about dropping Obama like a bad habit.
With you 100%. This is my 5 Presidental Election that I can vote in......and I just don't care. To me......Romney is going to push himself towards the center as the election nears and it is not going to make a difference who wins. I see a low voter turnout this November. This election IMO will be like nothing I have seen. Most of my co-workers are 'blah' on Obama and 'blah' on Romney. I feel the same way. @thumbs........you honestly think Obama getting defeated and Romney taking the reins will make that big of a difference?
