Or maybe the question should be – “Would you trade where we are now to go back to where we were 4 years ago?”



  1. 4 Years ago I was broke. Now I’m not. But then again, I also wasn’t living in New Jersey then. So I guess I have mixed feelings.

  2. deowll says:

    What would be the point in going back in time four years to repeat exactly the same experience? I thought McCain was marginally better than Obama but that wasn’t even the question.

    The sane question is do you want to stick with Obama, based on your evaluation of what he’s done during the last four years and can reasonably expect him to do in the next four years, or go with somebody that has balanced a state budget and has successfully operated a business and salvaged an Olympic that looked to be in the process of doing a total melt down and has pledged to devote his time and energy to balancing the budget and growing jobs.

    Obama doesn’t even talk to his jobs people. For all I know they may be incompetent but if he thanks that’s the problem why hasn’t he tried to fix it? It isn’t like somebody else can do that for him while he’s President.

    I’m also bothered by the simple observation that nobody has voted for an Obama budget in the last two years and Reid has blocked any sort of budget from being passed. This suggest to me that the people in charge are utterly clueless incompetents who are completely beyond their depth and don’t have even the remotest clue about how to set things right.

    If you can negate these points or have off setting points feel free to share.

    • Sam says:

      I would like you to consider the following facts. Based on the Constitution of the United States the only branch of the government that can levy taxes to create government income and then spend that money is the Congress of the United States. The Republican House of Representatives has systematically blocked any legislation that would have enhanced the economy and in their own words they will do nothing to help the American economy as long president Obama or any Democratic president is in that office. You can claim Pres. Obama has done nothing but in the end it is the Republicans that have trashed the economy, your economy.

      As for Mr. Romney’s credentials with respect to business and the Salt Lake City Olympics consider the following. Obama care or as we call it Romney care in Massachusetts has given every citizen in Massachusetts health care coverage with no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. The cost of healthcare in total has not gone up and the quality of care has been unchanged or better. As for the Salt Lake City Olympics Mr. Romney’s solution to the bankruptcy of the Olympics, a private endeavor, was to go to the Congress of the United States to extort money. He told Congress that there was no private money available and that if the Congress didn’t give money for the Olympics it would make the United States a laughingstock of the world. Congress then gave Romney $342 million in direct federal funding and an additional 1.1 billion in indirect financing from Washington. The only way, Mr. Romney salvaged the Olympics was by using your money.

      As for Obama if you’d like to look at the list of his successes since he entered office many of them financially based you can read them on this page

      http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

      • Derek says:

        You do realize that writing down your new years resolutions do not count as successes. Every budget balancing group he has thrown together, he has largely ignored.

  3. Tom says:

    Four years ago I was in a great Engineering Job in a Manufacturing Facility I had for 13 years. Since then I got “let-go” and now have a contract software engineering job with no benefits and make $30K less a year. So economically and career wise no I’m not better off.

    I don’t think it would have mattered much who was in office. But in my opinion Barry isn’t making things better.

  4. Pocono Charlie says:

    If we were to go back to 4 years ago, then Candidate Obama was calling the then $5T debt run up by Pres Bush as unpatriotic.

    And while I wouldn’t use that term, I agree the debt was heinously wrong. Bush never vetoed a spending bill, passed by the Congress (mostly GOP controlled, until Jan 2007). The economy was running hot, but the fundamental debt was simply wrong. To that extent, Obama was spot on.

    So now, 4 years later, and the debt is up around $16T. No tax increase in the world can stem that amount. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats from 2007-2010: the House is derided as ‘do-nothing’, but they’ve passed budget after budget with spending cuts that never see the light of the day in Senate.

    The GOP has learned. The Dems apparently have not.

    So again, would I go back to 4 years ago?

    In a heartbeat.

    • Sam says:

      The national debt stands at $15-plus trillion. When Bush left office it was said to be $10 trillion, but then George W. Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books. That cost is approaching $4 trillion and still growing after 10 years. Add to that the bank bailout ($800 billion), and Medicare Part D ($400 to $700 billion over 10 years) and you have close to $15 trillion.

      The difference is Obama put the cost of the wars on the books, where they should have been all along. Realistically, Obama has only added $1 trillion to the debt.

      And you want Bush again?

      • NewformatSux says:

        Obama’s proposed budget increases debt by even more than it is already scheduled to increase. Instead of 3 trillion more in ten years, it would be 6 trillion. And that’s after the assumptions of big economic improvement that pushes the numbers back down to Bush Era levels of debt.

  5. Rob Saunders says:

    Of course I would trade. Four years ago I had a job!

    • msbpodcast says:

      I’d already watched my entire client market implode and the banks we not hiring consultants so I’d already started the free fall into permanent unemployment.

  6. jollycynic says:

    Well, this is one of those funny questions that I’m not sure how to answer. If someone just randomly asked me if I was better off, the answer would be yes. I’m now a college graduate, and because I have a real degree of worth I am also actually making money.
    In the rather more obvious context of better off than 4 years ago as a result of government action and so forth, I’d say there is no causative link between my betterness and the actions of politicians.

  7. BlueDogInRedState says:

    Four years ago, our 401k accounts, held with a reputable (still) mutual fund, was in the process of loosing half their value. Both were supposed to be invested in high quality and conservative instruments. But Moody’s and Standard & Poor misled everybody. We all know how the series of catastrophes on Wall Street nearly collapsed the world-wide economy.

    Four years ago, President Bush did something unprecedented in US politics. He asked both major party candidates to suspend their campaigns to come to the White House to be briefed on the impending financial disaster.

    President Obama was elected in the midst of the unfolding series of crises two months later. The next day, every Republican that could get in front of a TV camera or radio microphone expressed nearly the same message, that they hoped our new president would fail, and every Republican in Congress was going to do everything they could to make sure the newly elected president would not serve more than one term.

    Never before in America has there been so much partisan posturing before a president was sworn in. America was facing a crisis, possibly of unprecedented proportions, and all Republicans did was offer the president a slap in the face.

    Our 401k accounts have recovered nicely. The fear of impending economic doom is nonexistent. Employment numbers could be better, but if Republican legislatures would stop shedding teachers, firefighters and police, we would be in a lot better shape.

    Obama should be re-elected for his second term. Romney has offered nothing in terms of any plan for anything, and still refuses to comply with the tradition of releasing tax information started by his own father almost almost 45 years ago. His nomination acceptance speech didn’t even acknowledge we are in wartime.

    If Republicans wanted to actually win this election, they should have provided a better candidate, somebody better than Mercurial Mitt.

    • Mextli: ABO says:

      Why do democrats only think of teachers, firefighters and police? Aren’t there any other jobs in the universe?

      It’s as bad a politicians moaning about “the children” whenever they want to squeeze more money out of you.

      • BlueDogInRedState says:

        References to lost jobs amongst teachers, firemen, etc are being made because those are jobs that affect the public the most that are getting cut at the state and local level. Stating what has been happening has nothing to do with whether or not I’m Democratic. It’s simply a matter fact.

        Why is concern for our children wrong? Children are our future. They need to be taken care of by adults, including getting a good education. Overcrowded classrooms means less attention for each student. Would you deny a hungry child a crust of bread? Then why deny a curious child the chance to ask a question that allows them to master a basic skill?

    • NewformatSux says:

      Re Romney has offered nothing, even doing nothing would save 3 trillion dollars in debt versus Obama’s budget. Just staying on the current unsustainable path would produce 3 trillion less in debt than Obama’s proposed budget.

    • bobbo, one true Liberal accusing Obama being too far Right says:

      Nice breath of fresh air. Good firm recounting that 48% of the good voters totally ignore.

      Are we “at war?” No congressional declaration. No tax to support it. No Draft. More people killed by private gun ownership or by cars. Not really a war. Just killing in uniform.