Better off today than 4 years ago

[Farang]

Can someone help me understand the avoidance of this question by Democrats on today's Sunday shows? Gov. O'Malley even answered "no."

This almost seems coordinated. Especially since the obvious talking point seems to be, 'Yes. Four years ago we were losing jobs at a clip of 800,000 per month, etc. etc and Obama took in and turned the economy around, even if recovery is slower than we would like.'

Given that Democrats and the Obama campaign are pretty sharp with their messaging, am I missing something here? Is there something advantageous in answering "No" to this question, or just rolling over and accepting defeat? My only explanation would be a setup for the debates, but that seems too complicated.

I'm pro-Obama but I'm looking for as objective as answer as you can come up with.. even a Republican might acknowledge the Obama campaign could better answer this question.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There's no good answer. The correct answer in most ways is yes, but saying that disconnects with how most people feel. Saying no obviously invites attacks, but at least that doesn't put the admin in a position of trying to convince people their feelings are wrong, which would be disastrous. Carville hit on this several months ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77376.html

 

[MrColin]

Yes, because I don't have war-profiteers in my government's top executive office.

 

[Bitek]

I think you'd have to go back ~14 years to positively answer you were better off. The whole last decade has been a let down.


Overall most are better off than 4yrs ago, but since that was a financial meltdown, its not much of a victory

 

[Tom]

Stock market's higher. I know lots of people who's 401ks are in much better shape.
More people are working.
kids don't lose family healthcare during college.
women are supposed to get equal pay for equal work.
fewer Americans die in Iraq.
We might get out of Afghanistan.
Stupid Bush tax cuts might finally go away.
Gays can marry in some states.
we might be moving to fewer numbers of people without health insurance, reversing a bad trend.
some children still learn about evolution.
banks are a lot healthier.
Osama is dead.

Considering where we were in the winter of 2008, we are a lot better off.

 

[IGBT]

obama smoke and mirrors on top of smoke and mirrors on top of QE-1,2 and 3 well on the way.

 

[Doppel]

It is a truly shallow question.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

We are absolutely better of now than we were 4 years ago. Obama has been able to stop the bleeding that was occurring, but not much else. The case he has to make is how he will begin to heal the wounds in his 2nd term

 

[1prophet]

Can someone help me understand the avoidance of this question by Democrats on today's Sunday shows? Gov. O'Malley even answered "no."

This almost seems coordinated. Especially since the obvious talking point seems to be, 'Yes. Four years ago we were losing jobs at a clip of 800,000 per month, etc. etc and Obama took in and turned the economy around, even if recovery is slower than we would like.'

Given that Democrats and the Obama campaign are pretty sharp with their messaging, am I missing something here? Is there something advantageous in answering "No" to this question, or just rolling over and accepting defeat? My only explanation would be a setup for the debates, but that seems too complicated.

I'm pro-Obama but I'm looking for as objective as answer as you can come up with.. even a Republican might acknowledge the Obama campaign could better answer this question.

You are not better off, just told you are for your vote, Obama may speak to you like he has your best interests in mind, but truth be told he is a corporatist surrounded by corporatists doing what is best for big business and wall street.

http://truth_addict.blogspot.com/2012/04/betrayal-of-labor-by-labor-on-cynicism.html

http://www.jillstein.org/obama_betrays_labor_again_signs_bill_that_guts_union_rights

 

[Kadarin]

I'm better off personally. I make about $20K more a year, and have over $250K in stock that I didn't have then.

 

[Zorkorist]

Pretty obvious, that we are worse off today.

-John

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'm personally better off. Finally retired. If only the government could do something about the heat. Even with the top down on my Vette, it's too hot to drive around the city most days. Premium gas could be a little cheaper too.

 

[sportage]

Most are about the same 4 years in as 4 years ago.
So the real question, "were" you better off 4 years ago compared to 8 years before that?
But ANyway... simple minded thinking is that with such a complicated US economy, then tie that in with the more complicated world economy, that with the push of a button can solve all our problems and do a 180 over night.
Does anyone really believe 4 years into an Romney economy that unemployment would be any better than it is today?
And is it worth the risk that it could, in all reality, get much worse?
Especially considering Romney's plan is nothing more than the Bush plan.
Romney's cabinet would be made up of many of the same winners that held positions in the Bush cabinet.
And people actually expect a different outcome after 4 years of Romney's reenacted Bush policies? Amazing....

 

[Double Trouble]

The democrats are aware that most people in the country feel that they are not better off today than they were 4 years ago. Answering "yes" to that question just makes them seem out of touch with reality.

We are trillions in debt and the number keeps growing quickly. My personal financial situation is better now than it was 4 years ago, but I don't think the future looks better for my kids now than it did 4 years ago -- it looks a hell of a lot bleaker for them IMO.

 

[boomerang]

Most are about the same 4 years in as 4 years ago.
So the real question, "were" you better off 4 years ago compared to 8 years before that?

The opening statement. The foundation is laid that 8 years of Bush was bad.

But ANyway... simple minded thinking is that with such a complicated US economy, then tie that in with the more complicated world economy, that with the push of a button can solve all our problems and do a 180 over night.

Now, an alibi for dear leader has been established.

Does anyone really believe 4 years into an Romney economy that unemployment would be any better than it is today?

Your honor, council is expressing his opinion. May we approach the bench?

And is it worth the risk that it could, in all reality, get much worse?

Your honor?

Especially considering Romney's plan is nothing more than the Bush plan.

Your honor, council has repeatedly told the court that Mr. Romney has no plan. Now, we hear that he in fact does, but no such details have been entered into evidence.

Romney's cabinet would be made up of many of the same winners that held positions in the Bush cabinet.

I object, assumes facts not in evidence!

And people actually expect a different outcome after 4 years of Romney's reenacted Bush policies? Amazing....

Your honor, I must ask for a mistrial. I question how the court could have allowed this to continue for this length of time. The council for the defense appears to have been making all this up as he went along. Is he even licensed to practice?

 

[boomerang]

The democrats are aware that most people in the country feel that they are not better off today than they were 4 years ago. Answering "yes" to that question just makes them seem out of touch with reality.

We are trillions in debt and the number keeps growing quickly. My personal financial situation is better now than it was 4 years ago, but I don't think the future looks better for my kids now than it did 4 years ago -- it looks a hell of a lot bleaker for them IMO.

This is the heart of the issue. Do we all take a haircut and get our fiscal house in order or do we declare it just too difficult and spend, spend, spend and let the next guy worry about it? It's a simple proposition. Do we act like adults or act like children?

Unfortunately, austerity suits neither party.

 

[TheAdvocate]

This is a farce of a question because Congress has stonewalled Obama on addressing the issues that plague us. Is Obama's plan the right one? We do not know, we haven't implemented it yet - the Republican Congress ensured that. My frustration is that the Republicans, including Romney are offering no real plan, and instead campaigning on the spin of how they stonewalled Obama and the Dems. It's so insipid that I find it insulting.

I like what Andrew Sullivan had to say on the issue - the Republicans are making no effort whatsoever to address the problems. They're merely trying to get and stay elected. If they had any desires to actually govern (i.e., solve problems), then they would reach across the aisle to discuss the surprisingly obvious requirements to solve our debt crisis and restore stability and faith in the economy. It involves each side giving up quite a bit on their pet issues, including reducing entitlements, raising taxes, cutting some defense spending, etc. But it isn't happening and accordingly, the U.S. political system is failing because the public is empowering these fuckwits by going to their rallies, and re-electing them.

When you extrapolate, the Republican Party is trading on the stupidity of the American public while pointing fingers at the Democrats for trading on their laziness. What if they're both right? It's exasperating.

 

[Darwin333]

You are not better off, just told you are for your vote, Obama may speak to you like he has your best interests in mind, but truth be told he is a corporatist surrounded by corporatists doing what is best for big business and wall street.

http://truth_addict.blogspot.com/2012/04/betrayal-of-labor-by-labor-on-cynicism.html

http://www.jillstein.org/obama_betrays_labor_again_signs_bill_that_guts_union_rights

That first link got me actually reading the JOBS act and I have a question that hopefully someone (I bet Fern can answer) could explain this to me better.

The jobs act includes the following legislation:

relieve certain kinds of companies, which the bill calls “emerging growth companies,” from certain regulatory and disclosure requirements in the registration statement they originally file when they go public, and for a period of five years after that. The most significant relief provided is from obligations imposed by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related rules and regulations. Currently, new public companies have a two year phase-in, so this bill would extend that by an additional three years. Also, smaller public companies are also already entitled to special relief from these requirements, and the bill does not change that.

And the summary of section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is:

This section is listed under Title IV of the act (Enhanced Financial Disclosures), and pertains to 'Management Assessment of Internal Controls'.
Summary of Section 404
Issuers are required to publish information in their annual reports concerning the scope and adequacy of the internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. This statement shall also assess the effectiveness of such internal controls and procedures.
The registered accounting firm shall, in the same report, attest to and report on the assessment on the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting.

My first question is, can you break this down into plain English for me so I can make sure that I properly understand this.


My second question is, if I do properly understand this why in the world would it be a good thing to remove regs on financial reporting from publicly traded companies? The JOBS act mentions that smaller companies are already exempt so it seems that this would be aimed at rather large companies that should be able to easily comply.


Is compliance with section 404 that difficult and/or expensive? What are the true ramifications of being exempted from section 404, do we have to take a companies word that there books are good with no actual "proof"?

 

[dmcowen674]

You are not better off, just told you are for your vote, Obama may speak to you like he has your best interests in mind, but truth be told he is a corporatist surrounded by corporatists doing what is best for big business and wall street.

and how would Romney be any different?

 

[Farang]

There's no good answer. The correct answer in most ways is yes, but saying that disconnects with how most people feel. Saying no obviously invites attacks, but at least that doesn't put the admin in a position of trying to convince people their feelings are wrong, which would be disastrous. Carville hit on this several months ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77376.html

I do remember this, thanks. It seemed off-message so the only explanation I came up with that it was orchestrated.

I think it makes sense, if you compare it to 2008 where you had the party in power trying to make everything look good and eventually come off as really out of touch and unable to recognize people's feelings.

This also explains why most tried to avoid answering the "yes" or "no"

 

[EagleKeeper]

and how would Romney be any different?

Obama had four years. Put us deeper in debt ( which does have to be paid ) kept public sectors jobs at additional expense that needed to be shed, rammed a massive tax increase to the middle class.

Did not listen to advisors or public when pushing out the HealthCare. Did not allow public feedback.

Growing the economy with substandard jobs.

Climbed into bed with Wall Street.

Let proxies piss of Republicans so when needed help, it was not there.

A few other leadership questions also float around.

And this deserved another round

He stated that he did not deserve another chance.

 

[Darwin333]

Most are about the same 4 years in as 4 years ago.

I disagree. Falling wages and even minimal (but compounding) inflation has had a significant effect on a lot of people.

But ANyway... simple minded thinking is that with such a complicated US economy, then tie that in with the more complicated world economy, that with the push of a button can solve all our problems and do a 180 over night.

Agreed. However there are some very simple things Obama could have done that might not have improved the economy perse but would have at least shown that he was serious about getting the financial sector into shape such as enforcing the rule of law on the banksters, the same rule of law that we must follow lest we be jailed.

Does anyone really believe 4 years into an Romney economy that unemployment would be any better than it is today?

Shrug, thats a very objective question that has a ton of variables.

And is it worth the risk that it could, in all reality, get much worse?

Objective again, since this is all completely hypothetical perhaps we would currently be doing much better had someone other than Obama been elected.

Romney's cabinet would be made up of many of the same winners that held positions in the Bush cabinet.

Lol, Obama has left a huge number of Bush's people or people exactly like them, especially on the financial side, in place. Obama's plan has basically been Bush's plan so far with very few and rather insignificant differences.

And people actually expect a different outcome after 4 years of Romney's reenacted Bush policies? Amazing....

So we should expect the same outcome from Obama as we have gotten the last 4 years? I hate to tell you but it has been very subpar economically speaking for the average person. The .01% is doing very well under Obama, everyone else not so much.

Frankly, I am not on anyones team here. I am hoping for split rule, if there is a R in the White House I hope we have a D controlled Congress and vice versa. The really batshit crazy stuff usually happens when a single party enjoys complete rule over both the executive and legislative.

 

[IronWing]

Obama had four years. Put us deeper in debt ( which does have to be paid ) kept public sectors jobs at additional expense that needed to be shed, rammed a massive tax increase to the middle class.

Do tell.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
and how would Romney be any different?

Obama had four years. Put us deeper in debt ( which does have to be paid ) kept public sectors jobs at additional expense that needed to be shed, rammed a massive tax increase to the middle class.

Did not listen to advisors or public when pushing out the HealthCare. Did not allow public feedback.

Growing the economy with substandard jobs.

Climbed into bed with Wall Street.

Let proxies piss of Republicans so when needed help, it was not there.

A few other leadership questions also float around.

And this deserved another round

He stated that he did not deserve another chance.

You are not known for a plethora of lies but this post changes that.

What massive tax increase on the middle class did Obama pass?

Links, Proof?

 

[mshan]

Hotel Occupancy Rates

"The 4-week average is above the pre-recession levels (the occupancy rate for the same week in 2007 was 64.2 percent)."


http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/09/hotel-occupancy-rate-above-pre.html

Tourism in the Outer Banks

"Manteo Town Manager Kermit Skinner described this summer as "an outstanding season so far," adding, "I've been with the town for 24 years, and the crowds are as strong as I can recall. To a person each merchant that I have spoken with says that their customer numbers are at record highs. It looks like this will be one for the record books."

Jennette's Pier Manager Mike Remige said that a traffic counter was installed at the entrance to the pier's parking lot in March, registering 55,000 visitors to the site that month. The number jumped to 163,000 in June. "We've had over half a million visitors in the past year," Remige added. "We're now in just our second summer, and so far the numbers are very similar to last year."

Sanderling Resort General Manager Dick McAuliffe reported that business in Duck has been "fabulous" this summer, adding, "This is my fifth season at the Sanderling, and so far this is the best year we've had since I've been here. We just had the best June we've ever had – and we're about to have our best July yet."

Hatteras Island was thought to be heading into a lackluster summer – due largely to continuing recovery problems and "fall-out" from last August's Hurricane Irene – but has been experiencing a surprisingly strong summer 2012. Island fishing tackle shops report that they have been negatively affected by the National Park Service's beach closures, but otherwise the island has nothing but positive news.

"Tourism is booming," said Steve Nelson, owner and general manager of the Inn on Pamlico Sound in Buxton. "Each year we've seen nice increases as word of mouth has spread about us, but so far this is a record-breaking season. More than 15 percent of our guests are from outside of the country – and 90 percent have never been to the Outer Banks before."

Scott Leggat, vice president for marketing and administration at Outer Beaches Realty, agreed: "Overall we're looking pretty solid." Noting that the approach of the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Irene may lead to a brief period of "softness," Leggat added, "We have been running at between 99 and 100 percent occupancy, and the picture for the peak of summer is excellent."

Jesse and Whitney Hines, owners of the brand-new Surfin' Spoon Frozen Yogurt Bar in Nags Head, are ecstatic over the success of their first season. "We opened Memorial Day weekend," said Whitney, "and it has been awesome. People come off the beach and we're slammed from late afternoon until we close at 11." With ideas in the works to start up game nights, movie nights, etc. for the students once school starts, the couple is hopeful that the busy pace will continue long after summer ends."


http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2012/08/29/top_stories/tops146.txt

Might be echoing what CEO of Toll Brothers said on conference call in last year or so.

People have been putting off buying a house for so many years, but are now ready to just get on with their lives (consciously or subconsciously, they probably realize their personal situation is much better than the gloom and doom they see on tv). Married couple with small baby and puppy years ago now have child and grown dog and want to move into house, or baby boomers finally want to buy their retirement home.

Really does seem like we're back to 2007 (at least for those who have a full time job and don't fear being let go right now), but without the froth of the easy money credit bubble years...