You failed to factor in everything I mentioned earlier. You may be making more money but the price of everything has gone through the roof. Your taxes may have gone up too.
The only things that affect me on your list are the price of food and gasoline, neither of which the President has very much sway over. Neither my healthcare costs nor my taxes have gone up.
Don't vote. Even in a swing state, you have a far greater chance of dying on the way to the voting booth than actually having an influence on the election. Are either of these tools worth your life?
It depends on what you consider to be most important. What are the most important issues facing our country right now in your own mind?
I've never seen a Presidential election decided by one vote. Everyone's vote is worthless individually. Why should democrats vote in a red state, and vice versa? It builds the tide that eventually shifts the state.
The first is just factually incorrect. The second is highly unlikely. When you're using things like "record number of foodstamp recipients", and ignoring the fact that EVERY President has had record numbers of foodstamp recipients, it's pretty clear you're just spinning things for the hell of it. This statement is pretty stunningly stupid: If there are less people employed (as a percentage) and the ones that are make less and everything costs more, then it stands to reason that 99% of Americans are worse off than they were 4 years ago. Even if everything you said is true and the country has completely gone to hell, it's highly likely that more than 1% of people's lives have improved over the last 4 years, either due to raises, or getting employment, or making a fortune in the stock market, or whatever else. You really should work on logic statements and what does or doesn't "stand to reason" from a premise. Even from 2004 to 2008, when the whole country was in turmoil, it was almost certain that more than 1% of people were better off. And at that point, there was no question the economy was in collapse and things as a whole were worse off.
Unemployment is not up. I don't know about the rest. But you are wrong on that. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR And actually, there is one thing wrong with their starting point. It should be February instead of January. Here's why. President is not officially sworn in until January 20, right? So, technically, they are not responsible for the first 20 days, only the last 11. What I learned in school was that you round down from 1 to 4 and round up from 5 to 9. Certainly, since the 20th is closer to February 1 than January 1, you would round up to February 1- in essence, anything to measure a President's performance should start on January 20- but if data is only provided on a monthly basis, then it should start in February- 1st full month of the Presidency. Apply that to all Presidents. Unemployment record over the past 40 years and 8 Presidential tenures: 1. Reagan 2 2. Clinton 2 3. Clinton 1 4. Obama 1 5. Reagan 1 (all above- unemployment declined) 6. W Bush 1 7. W Bush 2 8. HW Bush 1 (all from 6 to 8- unemployment increased
welfare has gone up 32% in cost in 4 years and the number of food stamp recipients has gone up by 70% since 2007...... and I never used the term 'record number of foodstamp recipients' you are being dishonest. Misery index is not a measure of unemployment. It measures unemployment and inflation combined. The unemployment in February of 2009 was 7.7% (revised in Jan 2010). Unemployment now is 7.8% (with one massive state missing data). That's up.
The link I provided you was solely the unemployment figure- which says 8.3% in February 2009- where exactly do you get 7.7% from?
And the federal government has grown at its slowest rate since Eisenhower was president (ref: Forbes magazine, that liberal rag.)
8.1%- February 2009 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.pdf 7.8%- September 2012 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10052012.pdf Down.
Curious...what led you to this opinion? His background obviously checks the box (two ivy league degrees, editor of the Harvard Law Review, etc...), he has shown that he is an incredibly skilled orator 99% of the time, and he has navigated the country through its most difficult economic time since the depression...Not seeing how Romney comes out as the bright one?
You're right...I'd feel like better about it if Texas hadn't overwhelmingly voted Republican for every election since I was about 6. It just feels like the voice and vote gets completely lost in such a homogenous political culture.
