No, America is not better off under Obama

[kadams767]

Sept 15, 2012 8:53:36 GMT -5 kitkat said:

Sept 15, 2012 8:45:06 GMT -5 tlkdhk said:

Yeah, but the stats that she brings up are rather depressing. You might not agree with the claim that "war on women" is a distraction but it doesn't change that household incomes have gone down, gas is up, the deficit is overwhelming, food prices are up.

While I understand the Democratic platform on women's reproductive issues, that's personally not what I am most concerned about in this election and I tune out when I hear about it. People need jobs. The economy needs to improve. I personally believe those are the most pressing issues.

+1

So what is Romney's big job growth plan? I mean this as a serious question. If its the most important issue, why haven't they been trotting out feasible, real plans for improvement? Sorry, but a generic "cut corporate taxes" isn't making me a believer.

[basilosaurus]

If the economy is so important to republicans, then why are they the ones trotting out the anti-choice legislation? It's not the Dems' position on women that is proactive in distracting us.

[teflep]

Sept 15, 2012 18:27:18 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

If the economy is so important to republicans, then why are they the ones trotting out the anti-choice legislation? It's not the Dems' position on women that is proactive in distracting us.

because fixing the economy is hard, involves hard decisions and, well, the Rs (and ds, to be fair) have neither the drive, guts or act like adults to do so without blaming someone or putting up the screen of being anti-family/women/rich/whatever.

[cookiemdough]

I wonder how the jobs numbers will look if R's shrink the government as planned

[teflep]

Sept 15, 2012 19:02:07 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I wonder how the jobs numbers will look if R's shrink the government as planned

They won't, so no worries there. Just like they wont be fiscally responsible. I'd like to know what Obama plans to do in the (likely) event he wins about jobs? Sequestration? Actually putting forth a budget for the first time in years that has a hope of passing. I know it is more fun to say "see, look at these stonewalls" but the dems are not idiots and if they were serious, or even adults, then they would work to do something that had a prayer. But, sigh, neither side is worth anything so,....

[cookiemdough]

Sept 15, 2012 19:08:21 GMT -5 teflep said:

Sept 15, 2012 19:02:07 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I wonder how the jobs numbers will look if R's shrink the government as planned

They won't, so no worries there. Just like they wont be fiscally responsible. I'd like to know what Obama plans to do in the (likely) event he wins about jobs? Sequestration? Actually putting forth a budget for the first time in years that has a hope of passing. I know it is more fun to say "see, look at these stonewalls" but the dems are not idiots and if they were serious, or even adults, then they would work to do something that had a prayer. But, sigh, neither side is worth anything so,....

I don't disagree with you. Depressing

[teflep]

Sept 15, 2012 19:13:15 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Sept 15, 2012 19:08:21 GMT -5 teflep said:

They won't, so no worries there. Just like they wont be fiscally responsible. I'd like to know what Obama plans to do in the (likely) event he wins about jobs? Sequestration? Actually putting forth a budget for the first time in years that has a hope of passing. I know it is more fun to say "see, look at these stonewalls" but the dems are not idiots and if they were serious, or even adults, then they would work to do something that had a prayer. But, sigh, neither side is worth anything so,....

I don't disagree with you. Depressing

Sorry, don't let my cynicism rub off on you!

[tlkdhk]

Sept 15, 2012 18:27:18 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

If the economy is so important to republicans, then why are they the ones trotting out the anti-choice legislation? It's not the Dems' position on women that is proactive in distracting us.

The Republicans have always support anti-abortion legislation. That's nothing new. The Dems keep talking about the War on Women which is certainly more dramatic than the Gore/Lieberman campaign of safe, legal and rare.

[basilosaurus]

Sept 16, 2012 8:03:22 GMT -5 tlkdhk said:

Sept 15, 2012 18:27:18 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

If the economy is so important to republicans, then why are they the ones trotting out the anti-choice legislation? It's not the Dems' position on women that is proactive in distracting us.

The Republicans have always support anti-abortion legislation. That's nothing new. The Dems keep talking about the War on Women which is certainly more dramatic than the Gore/Lieberman campaign of safe, legal and rare.

Or you could get your facts straight. Republicans have not always been anti-choice.

Also, it's the Republicans, not Democrats, who keep introducing anti-choice legislation, enacting more in 2011 than ever before. There would have to be any talk about the war on women if they weren't creating one. Actions speak louder. Here's a chart.

[shouldbworkin]

Sept 15, 2012 9:59:13 GMT -5 smock said:

Wages were stagnant before Obama came to office. Oil prices were rising before Obama came to office.

Yep, they don't call the first decade of 2000 the lost 10 years for nothing. I don't see how John McCain could have changed any of this.

[shouldbworkin]

Sept 15, 2012 15:13:47 GMT -5 lys said:

It is precisely Obama's policies and the lack of tax certainty that businesses do not spend their money, expand and hire more people. He has been not been friendy to business and most of his policies have helped Wall street - not main street.

I would say it's the Rs and their partisanship surrounding the budget that has really hampered growth at the corporate level.

[downtoearth]

I'd like to speak to the number of people "leaving the workforce" as increasing. Of course it's increasing, every economist you talk to will agree with that - it includes not only those who are discouraged or those that become SAHP, but also includes those who retire and right now baby boomers are retiring in staggering numbers, so it is inflated artificially and will be until the baby boomers generation passes. I read an article in an industry magazine about how in 2010 or 2011, the oldest of the baby boomers turned 65 and companies have been planning on lowering their workforce numbers for years based on this. So despite the economy, most companies were looking at downsizing starting in 2010-2011 by not hiring on new people to take over those baby boomer positions.

Here's a quote from here: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/boomers-are-retiring_n_1406987.html

"The study found that 59 percent of the first boomers to turn 65 are partially retired; 45 percent are completely retired; and 14 percent are retired, but working part-time jobs. Additionally, 63 percent of respondents said they collect Social Security -- countering expectations that individuals would wait to collect in order to get a higher pay out.

"Many of the Boomers weathered the recession well and have been able to stop working. Half of all Boomers feel confident that they are on track or have already hit their retirement goals," said Sandra Timmermann, Ed.D., director of the MetLife Mature Market Institute, in a statement. "

On top of that, those not working also include those who are 16-24, which many more people are choosing college over entering the workforce (and many of those are staying in college for masters degrees than before). From 2000 to 2010+ the rate of 18-24 yr olds in college by 10%+. That's 10% more of that population not even trying to enter the workforce until age 25.



or



This original article writer is skewing most of the facts - yes, gas was $2 in Jan 2009, but in Nov-Dec 2008 it was over $4 per gallon on average so she's just picking and choosing what to report. She's doing the same thing with the jobs numbers. This is more complex than 1 president or one clashing congress trying to get everyone out of an economic slump...it's a complex issue that can't be fixed with a new president or even in 4 years and can't be simplified into agenda points as easily as the original article tries.

It takes all of us to see and agree that industry is changing, big companies (esp oil companies) are still turning record profits in these crazy times and something should be done about that when half of Americans are worried and struggling comparatively. How is private industry ever going to regulate themselves? Nobody has a plan for that b/c a presidential candidate or government/congressperson can't tell private industry what to do or dictate that. IMO it takes government taxes, fees, and regulations to bring a little more balance to situations like this. Oh, and time.

[dochas]

Sept 15, 2012 14:54:49 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Sept 15, 2012 11:45:05 GMT -5 8675309 said:

"While Americans have less to live on, the costs of everyday goods are climbing. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline was less than two dollars. Today, it's $3.82."

Is this even true?? It's been 7-8 years since gas has been under $2. Just wanted to point that out. At least in my state.

I don't think that's true either. I remember very clearly in the fall of 2008 that gas went up to $4 for the first time. It started dropping from there, but I dont remember it being under $2 for a decade or so!

And I thought we all agreed that the price increase was mostly due to commodities speculation?

I remember at some point gas did almost go under $2 again - but I live in NJ "land of cheap gas". It was brief and rose back up again. I don't believe it is true at all to say it was under $2 when he took office. I thought it was ridiculous to blame Bush and it is equally ridiculous the blame Obama.

[smock]

And it would be equally ridiculous to claim that gas prices dropped in half between Nov 2008-Jan 2009 because people were super excited that Obama got elected.

Gas prices have very, very little to do with the president.