Are We Better Off Now Than We Were Four Years Ago?
By Trevor Hayes | 09/17/2012 | Economy, Elections 2012, Headline, Health Care, Issues, President, Taxes, War and Foreign Policy | 30 Comments
Credit: mittromney.com
“Are we better off now than we were four years ago?” This question has become somewhat of a negative mantra for Romney campaign strategists. They hope voters will agree that they are not better off.
The question is a reiteration of the 1980 election when Ronald Reagan posed the same question to voters disillusioned with Jimmy Carter. Reagan went on to win the election and become president. Mitt Romney’s campaign hopes asking the same question will help him win too.
It is an interesting question for a variety of reasons. It points out the importance of narrative in a political campaign. The question can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but within the framework of political success or failure, its relevance only lends itself to one interpretation. In this instance, context is important, and those who would pose the question in a negative way have chosen to ignore the original syntax of the question.
There is a startling difference between asking if Americans are collectively better off today as opposed to four years ago and asking people as individuals if they are better off now. Historically, the answer to the first question is usually “Yes.” Unfortunately, for Democrats, recent polling suggests that a portion of Americans do not currently share this sentiment. They believe that voters are worse off now than they were four years ago.
Far afield from Joe Biden’s mantra of, “Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” there is a wealth of information to suggest that as a country, America is in a better position than it was four years ago during the peak of the financial crisis.
What remains to be seen is whether President Obama is directly responsible for these economic woes as his opponents would have voters believe, or if he was inaugurated under one of the worst crises America has ever known and has been integral in facilitating its recovery, as Democrats would describe.
Here are some of the most important points in this debate:
- The economy is growing, and has, in fact, added jobs every month since March of 2010. Since the beginning of this year, the US has averaged 139,000 new jobs per month. Unemployment now sits at 8.1%
- Taxes are lower for 95% of Americans and remain near those historic lows, allowing the middle class to spend and grow.
- Healthcare reform has given more Americans access to affordable insurance, including 2.5 million students who now have access to insurance. The CBO also predicts the law will help provide insurance to 16 million more Americans.
- The unpopular move to bailout the auto industry secured over a million jobs, especially in manufacturing.
Perhaps the most important point to be made is that the economy is growing again, and is expected to continue to grow for the next four years. Independent firms have predicted that the economy will add close to 12 million private sector jobs in the next four years, which would put a large dent in the unemployment rate.
Compare these statistics to the other side of the argument, in which it is suggested that Americans are worse off than they were four years ago:
- Unemployment is still historically high and has been slow to decrease.
- Compared to recovery from other recessions, the economy is not bouncing back quickly.
- Median household income is down especially for lower and middle class families.
- Health insurance premiums are rising. While this is a legitimate criticism, it is difficult to blame on the current administration, given that health insurance premiums have risen every year since 2002.
- Gas prices are historically high. Again, while true, this is difficult to attribute to the president. Domestic crude oil production has actually increased under President Obama, and that is aside from the fact that the price of gasoline is determined by a complex oil futures market that is largely outside of his control. Explained simply, the United States produces incredibly little of the global crude oil supply, and consumes a vast amount of it. This makes it vulnerable to greater market trends that the president has no control over.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to bring against President Obama. Some voters do not like his choices regarding social policy, his lack of a meaningful response to illegal immigration, and his decisions to have the government intervene in the private sector. Criticisms aside, with respect to the economy, it is difficult to argue with the results.
The economy is undoubtedly better than it was four years ago. Instead of bleeding jobs, it is adding jobs, more Americans have access to health care, and taxes are as low as they have been in 50 years. Therefore, to the question: “Are we better off now than we were four years ago?” the answer appears to be “Yes.”





Leave Your Comment →
30 Comments
Matt Metzner
09.17.2012
@mmetzner
Seems like the facts have a liberal bias on this talking point. Romney would do well to argue a position supported by a number.
Ron Barney
09.17.2012
Constitutionally speaking we are not.
Honda Guy
09.17.2012
I’m not, 4 years ago I ws making $40,000 a year eith benefits, now
Honda Guy
09.17.2012
I’m on medicaid and foodstamps.
Chris Fornesa
09.17.2012
Exactly four years ago Bush was still president, so of course I am. But I was also just starting high school so definitely. Least now I can go to college with grants. Blame the private sector, not the president.
Christina Ravens Bridges
09.17.2012
The “other side” fails to mention that the real unemployment rate is 11.7% and the labor participation rate is at a 31 year low. The “other side” fails to mention that Obamacare pretty much wipes out new low-cost, high-deductible health insurance plans and forces everybody to pay, whether they want or need health insurance or not. This is not a balanced, independent article.
Trevor Hayes
09.17.2012
@thayes
I attempted to give the best form of the argument as delivered by republican figureheads. Just because their argument is incomplete does not mean I am guilty of bias. I readily admitted that there are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama, but you haven’t presented any here.
Lynn Baker
09.17.2012
4 years ago i had a better job, better pay, better home, better … now i have a temp job ( other one got rid of everyone not being paid minimum wage) , lower pay, smaller apartment can afford with smaller pay, not better .. and i am not alone , large percentages of US citizens had this forced into their lives during obama’s 4 years !!! VOTE OBAMA OUT !
Lynn Baker
09.17.2012
Average retail gasoline prices have more than doubled under President Obama, according to government statistics, rising from $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon. The average gasoline price is calculated by the Energy Information Agency, and shows that over the past 43 months of President Obama’s term retail gasoline prices have more than doubled, rising from an average of $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon. CNSNews.com
….Are you better off today than when Obama was elected?
Trevor Hayes
09.17.2012
@thayes
The president has no control over the domestic or global price of crude oil, I fail to see how that is his shortcoming.
Lonny Dunn
09.18.2012
President has NO CONTROL over his own party! His Budget was Rejected Unanimously 97 to 0 and 95 to 0 By Democrat Run Senate TWICE!!! This means the President is apparantly without Leadership skills of any kind, he cannot even drum up ONE SINGLE VOTE FROM HIS OWN PARTY, Not Harry Reid, nor Pelosi or anyone else wants this man’s budget.
If you stop being in love with the “Idea of a Black President Obama” and look honestly at his leadership skills, and not some fantasy you have painted, you’d see that he can’t lead, and lacks the skillsets to compromise.
Bryce Jones
09.17.2012
I’m far better off today then I was four years ago. I was doing great in 2000/2001, after bush took office student financial aid was cut and was forced to work harder and longer to get through college only to find the market went to hell under bush. Today I am able to find a good paying job and is true for most I know who are willing to get off the couch and look. I am much better today than I was at the end of the previous republican administration. Four more years!
Lonny Dunn
09.18.2012
Bryce, I bet you don’t even work. You are probably sitting at home in your underwear commenting from your mom’s basement.
Stormie Forte
09.17.2012
Ask Osama Bin Laden!! Obama 2012!
Shawn Boyette
09.17.2012
So people think Obama caused this…Smg. It was 8 years of this mess before he took office and you expect him president Obama to just magically make it all disappear. Some of you need a reality check. What are you doing for yourself? The president is not a miracle worker he is a man taking orders from a group of retards… Who reject anything good for us!
Lonny Dunn
09.18.2012
Shawn Boyette. Unemployment under Bush was 4.3 percent, and EVERYBODY participated in the uptick in real estate values. EVERYBODY .. Not just homeowners. The Largesse was spread around, and people spent money, had jobs and things moved along. Trying to blame Wall Street for the collective greed of mankind is akin to attacking cats for having fur. It’s easy to say now that is was all Wall Streets fault and try to Nationalise the message for the masses in some kind of socialist flip, but everyone benefitted from higher real estate, everyone was employed, and the nation did well Under Bush.
Lest we forget.
Shawn Boyette
09.17.2012
Don’t forget about Haliburton….
Lynn Baker
09.17.2012
WHEN LIBYA ATTACKED US CITIZENS IN 1986 President Reagan made a TV address to the American people two hours after the attack.
In it he said : “When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I’m in this office.”
He argued that America was exercising its right to self defence as defined by Article 51 of the UN charter. WHEN LIBYA ATTACKED US CITIZENS IN 2012 : OBAMA APOLOGIZES AND OFFERS THEM MONEY !!!!
Kevin Driscoll
09.17.2012
The 2 party single system of control is responsible for this mess, vote them out. And, it started a long long time ago. . .
Ruthie Gale-Paredez
09.17.2012
What money Linn….You are misinformed on foreign affairs.
Artist Jerry
09.18.2012
No, we are not better off, but the republicans are every bit as responsible as the democrats. The whole finger pointing idiocy is why a viable third party is necessary.
Justin
09.18.2012
Agreed, but the sheep have been divided and turned against each other. Ironically, theres a cliff ahead. This one is fiscal.
Lucretia Lulu Talley
09.18.2012
My family is better off… and I keep reading about Bush and his eight years… I’m still bitter that he sent my husband to Iraq knowing there were no weapons!!!! They were literally looking in tunnels and caves and being killed (RIP fellow Americans) for WMD that were never there!!
Lonny Dunn
09.18.2012
You Wrote:
“The economy is undoubtedly better than it was four years ago. Instead of bleeding jobs, it is adding jobs, more Americans have access to health care, and taxes are as low as they have been in 50 years.”
More People covered by health insurance is not a sign of economic recovery. I don’t want government insurance, I don’t want ANY Government handouts, so called “entitlements” of any kind.
Problem with entitlements is they always grow. Once ennacted, they turn out to cost 4 and 5 times what was originally projected. Given that measure, this so called “Health Care Measure” could add 4 to 5 TRILLION Dollars per year to the national debt, which means the economy would not grow.
Foreign Countries are not going to lend money indefinitely to the United States so we can pay doctor bills, and make surgeons and providers wealthy. That is not an economic model that makes much sense.
I think the Author is clearly NOT an independent at all, but using this platform to give his own opinion of whatever notions he values as a citizen.
This would be of more value to the reader if the Author took the time to invite some counter points, and guest writers in to show their opposing views. Not just views of commenters, but real specialists who research these topics who are not from think tanks.
I Tweet at @PronetworkBuild
bobj72
09.18.2012
“lynn baker”; YOUR partisanship is “Stale,” (‘talking points’) “Merit-Less,” (‘Presidents’ Gas Prices?’) and Inconsequential (‘a residual echo’ from 2000 – 2008′!)
Now I’ll allow YOU to use YOUR Basic Intellect to draw YOUR own conclusion. “Are we better off, today, than we were 4 Years ago?” Note:
• On SEPTEMBER 18th, 2008, the secretary of the Treasury, HENRY PAULSON, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, BEN BERNANKE, arrived for an EMERGENCY MEETING at the CAPITOL.
• ON THURSDAY, late afternoon, they go to Nancy Pelosi’s office and there’s a MEETING OF THE SENIOR LEGISLATORS from BOTH PARTIES in both HOUSE and SENATE.
• Sitting in that room with HANK PAULSON SAYING to us in very measured tones, no hyperbole, no excessive adjectives, that, “UNLESS YOU ACT, THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE WORLD WILL MELT DOWN IN A MATTER OF DAYS. ”
• And they said they NEEDED THE AUTHORITO TO USE $700 BILLION DOLLARS TO UNSTOP THE CREDIT MARKETS.
• BERNANKE said, “IF WE DON’T DO THIS TOMORROW, WE WON’T HAVE AN ECONOMY ON MONDAY.”
• THERE WAS LITERALLY A PAUSE IN THAT ROOM WHERE THE OXYGEN LEFT.
[www.pbs.org: Roots of the crisis]
Terri Harel
09.18.2012
@tlharel
I understand the question as a political tool, but I don’t understand how the question is even relevant to either candidates capability of governance or leadership. Inheriting an economy in Recession is not easily remedied, let alone in a time when our nation has one of the most polarized partisan Congress of our time. Regardless of whether you were better off 4 years ago or not, the candidates need to offer in depth analysis or gameplans on how they’ll make people better of in the next four years rather than woo voters on empty promises or retroactive finger-pointing. Without concrete plans we’ll find ourselves in the same situation in 4 years regardless of who gets elected.
Justin
09.19.2012
Ron Paul is the only person who has done this. Unfortunately, if we want him at this point, we must write him in.
Debi Brown
09.19.2012
The FAKE WAR and the BANKS and WALL ST
Daniel
11.02.2012
Yes . The wolrd is better off now. the Bush administration was horrible and crucial.
GWBUSH had trouble with Europe, Canada, Mexico, China etc and arabic and muslim countries.
You can’t fight everywhere but GWBUSH thought it is patrotic to be a hardliner (Mitt Romney also still thinks that patriotic politics helps) . Obama did alot , realtionships with cuba mexico , europe, australia and the whole world is much better than with GW BUSH . Te world is one planet and if you want to not depend on other people and the international community you need to make yourself stronger but not with patriotic politics. Mitt Romney does not even want to change anything against climate change , so how will the U.S. be strong against nature disasters? Strong military does not help against NATURE. , my answer vote obama for climate issues.
The U.S. can’t manufacture all alone cause it need materials., the U.S. does not own all materials that it needs. The U.S. has a major problem with infrastructure but republicans will only care about the military . Obama invested in better infrastructure. The U.S like every country needs tourists but when tourists do not like the politics of Republicans tourists will stay away, no money for the U.S. .The U.S. needs a good international image GW BUSH did not care about it , so foreigners do also not care about the U.S. economy and will hurt it more . People do not buy american products , invest in the U.S. etc.
KK
11.15.2012
The article has extreme bias and is lacking in substance. I love to debate, but this is so clearly protectionist cheerleading.