Letter: Arithmetic proves we’re better off

Mitt Romney asks, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

And the conservative choir, on cue, chants, “No.”

Are these high-information politicians and their followers, or are they merely Elmer Gantry and Jim Jones imitators with their latest victims?

On Jan. 2, 2008, the last year of the Bush era, the Dow-Jones Index opened at 13,261.82. One year later, on Jan. 20, as George W. Bush left for Crawford, Texas, the DJI opened at 8,279.63.

Dry numbers you say? Well, arithmetic shall set you free.

President Barack Obama watched the free fall continue down to close at 6,625.74 on March 2, 2009, before his policies and remedies could take effect.

Now, as of Oct. 12, 2012, the DJI closed at 13,328.85.

Do the arithmetic, so that the next time the man with the elixir and miracle medicine rolls into town and asks, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” you can proudly say, “Why, yes. Yes I am, thank you.”

Arithmetic isn’t just for liberals.

Joseph Piper

retired, communications

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by gvm - 23/10/2012

@ScotB: 'It does seem counter-intuitive that the first black president would be actively hurting the employment prospects of young black men when they are experiencing record levels of unemployment by enabling foreigners here illegally to compete with them for jobs." That comment, much like Mildred's, displays a stunning lack of comprehension on your part. In this country black unemployment is always higher than the national average. This is true even during reasonably good economic times. However you feeble attempt to try and tie black unemployment to illegal immigration is a desperate act - even for you. We both know that if the president were ever perceived to be taking action to address exclusively the high black unemployment rate that you and your cohorts would literally have a cow. I suspect you'd better start worrying about your own employment prospects. Especially if a certain faux businessman sneaks into the white house. On second thought, I guess you'll be fine - working at Staples would probably be a good fit for you.

2) Comment by ScotB - 22/10/2012

gvm, I was reading the posts and have a question. What did Mildred say that made her post the most ignorant? I checked out her statistics, and they are correct. It does seem counter-intuitive that the first black president would be actively hurting the employment prospects of young black men when they are experiencing record levels of unemployment by enabling foreigners here illegally to compete with them for jobs. Or was it her prediction based on the Gallup polling?

3) Comment by gvm - 20/10/2012

@InPVille: Was it something i said?

4) Comment by InPVille - 20/10/2012

@gvm: Apparently you can't tell when you are wasting your time. I can. . . and done.

5) Comment by gvm - 20/10/2012

@InPVille: forgive me for not being a chronicler of your past rants. The bottom line is this - you intimated, perhaps unintentionally, that because some people who can afford to be in the Stock Market are doing better than four years ago, that doesn't mean that the economy is recovering. This you say because the improvement isn't spread among every economic group. What I inferred from this is that you aren't in the group that's doing better, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a statement. I can see that your confusion over being a dyed-in-the-wool so-called conservative is at odds with what you know to be common sense. Conservatism, as espoused by today's standard bearers, and common sense could not be more divergent. Why not free yourself from the shackles of conservative delusion and come bask in the scintillating light of liberal thought? It's good for the soul. Lol...

6) Comment by InPVille - 19/10/2012

@gvm: " just pointing out an apparent misstep on your part." You are twisting yourself into a pretzel on this one. If the post was from someone such as Tea_Slayer or DMJ, you might have a point. If I was saying what you misinterpreted, it would contradict what I have said in every other post I've made on this subject as regular posters on both side of the aisle will be aware. Examples from the discussion on "Yes I Am Better Off With Obama: "16) Comment by InPVille - 10/13/2012 I am happy for Mr. Day that he believes he is better off then he was four years ago. I'll admit the possibility that for himself he may speak the truth. After all some people became millionaires during The Great Depression. He says he is better off with "Obamacare". I suppose then that the 50% to 65% increase in the number of people who are now receiving Food Stamps than were four years ago makes us better off too. Then there is the +10% of citizens now eligible for Medicaid Benefits whose former financial situation made them ineligible. The percentage of people currently receiving disability benefits has similarly increased. Are disability benefit amounts greater than earnings? The Median annual income of Americans is somewhere between $2500 and $5000 less(depending on your source) than it was four years ago. It could be argued this is good since we are told money is the root of all evil. The case cannot be made that economy has even returned to the level before "The Great Recession" began. Stopping a decline and tepid movement in the direction of recovery is not the same thing as having moved to recovery and beyond. 17) Comment by InPVille - 10/13/2012 @OldManKinsey: "Well, I disagree with that assessment. Obama's stimulus package stopped the spiraling downward." -[**]- Did it? Show me where some identical situation occurred without the same stimulus and there was a continuing downward spiral. Alternately, show me a tested and validated economic model that shows this. Even if you can, that isn't what it was it was claimed the stimulus would do. The stimulus package and the other actions taken were supposed to bring down the unemployment rate to at least 6%. This hasn't even come close to happening. The economic system that promotes stimulus theory posits that with this Trickle Down Government activity there is a multiplier effect. It was supposed to generate even more economic activity than the mere effect of the $$ of stimulus spending. Nothing of the sort occurred. The latest study by the OGB(the source everyone refers to on such matters) says any benefit ceased to be detectible in 2011. Every time government takes an action saying the it will accomplish something and something else happens, the claim is made that the situation would have been even worse if the action had not been taken. These action/result/redefinition scenario has happened so many times the argument no longer carries much cred. -[**]-"

7) Comment by gvm - 19/10/2012

@InPVille: Not too subtle, just pointing out an apparent misstep on your part. Your post seemed to imply the evidence, which clearly points to the fact that the country is better off than four years ago, is inaccurate - it isn't Does that mean that everyone is better off? Certainly not. The point is that there are always those who do better and those who do worse - no matter the state of economy. What distinguishes this period from others is the fact that many of the folks not doing so well aren't used to being in that position. What's funny (tragic?) about this is that many of the same folks who are currently hurting are going to shoot themselves in the foot on Nov. 6.

8) Comment by InPVille - 19/10/2012

@gvm: I suppose my comment was too subtle for some. You have to have somewhat of an excess of available cash in order to invest in the stock market. This would be constituted by people economically above the median. Hence the benefit of a rise in the stock market would largely pass the lower economic classes by in the present tense. To make my point even simpler, I believe Mr. Piper's example doesn't prove what he claims it does. -[**]- Wealth redistribution only leads to more wealth redistribution because unless the people to whom redistribution is being given change what ever caused them to be in the position where the might be said to need wealth redistribution, the redistribution could go on forever. Some might; but probably not enough. If carried on long enough it would tend to discourage working hard enough to have enough for the government to take away from you to redistribute leading to their being less wealth to redistribute. - - - Short answer: No to wealth redistribution.

9) Comment by gvm - 19/10/2012

@InPVille: if you aren't invested in the Stock Market, whose fault is that? You ask: "Is the improvement spread among every economic group?" Are you advocating wealth redistribution?

10) Comment by gvm - 19/10/2012

@Mildred Citizen: Congratulations! You get the prize for the most ignorant post of the week. Corvette Racer placed a close second.

11) Comment by InPVille - 19/10/2012

Apparently those who had their money invested in the stock market in 2009 and who left their money could be doing much better as of October, 12, 2012. This is incomplete arithmetic. What percentage of Americans does this represent? Is the improvement spread among every economic group?

12) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 18/10/2012

You left out another important statistic, ScotB. The unemployment rate for young black men aged 16-24 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 33%. That does not include the vast number of black men those ages that are incarcerated, who obviously are not working either. So what does the first black president of the United States do? He issues an executive order to enable young hispanics here in the USA illegally to allow them to compete with all of the unemployed black men. Gallup says 52% Romney, 45% Obama today. Soon we will be able to talk about Obama in the past tense.

13) Comment by Bwaites985 - 18/10/2012

Yes and you forgot to add unemployment is up, oil and gas production are down. I'm also tired of part of my paycheck every month going to free give away programs funded by Obama. That's not addition its subtraction and of course if you are on the receiving end you are better off. This country has its haves and have nots. People who have a job, Who have paid taxes, Who have been positive contributors to society and those who have not had a job, have not looked for a job, have not paid taxes, have not been a positive influence on society. But they are the first in line for free stuff that Obama provides with dollars taken from my paycheck. Obama has got to go.

14) Comment by Corvette Racer - 18/10/2012

Members of a certain class that will undoubtedly vote for Obama are most certainly better off. They have their Obamaphone and their Obamabux, both of which are paid for by me, so they can spend their real money on weaves, nails and rims. Is the working class better off? No way.

15) Comment by ScotB - 17/10/2012

$16 trillion in debt, no federal budget passed in 4 years, record consecutive months of high unemployment, lowest percent of Americans in the labor force ever, average American loses 40% of wealth, USA credit rating downgraded for the first time in history, gas prices doubled, half of Americans on some form of government aid, 47 million Americans on food stamps, percent of Americans living in poverty risen to a record almost 16%, average household income declined 7.2%,.....I could go on, but I think I'll just stop here.....it's depressing. Who thinks we're better off and what flavor of Koolaid do you drink?

16) Comment by The_Host - 17/10/2012

When said politicians are to blame they are because they are standing in the way. And said politicians say things like "you didn't build that" so that is why I say the only credit for your success is due to you no one else barring family perhaps. Lets face it between both parties we don't have much to hang hats on in the success column. Who considers $16 Trillion in debt with no end in sight a success? Lets hear from you and have you explain how that much debt equates to success please. Better yet how adding more debt will make us MORE successful. Considering that has never been true for any Country, State, Family or Individual since the invention of money why is it true now all of a sudden?

17) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

You lost me, Host. "Why would anyone give any politician credit for their own success?" They wouldn't, I suspect....yet they're more than willing to blame said politician for their failures. There's always a level of hypocris and self-contradiction when it comes to the blame vs. credit game. That was my original point- some people have done better over the past 4 years but will vote for Romney. Some have done worse and will vote for Obama. Both will have justifications (some more rational than others) for how they will cast their votes. Who occupies the White House is not the only variable, as we all well know. That's why I think the "are you better off" question is bull. Also, I don't like that question because of its self-centered nature. So what If I'm better off or not? What about everyone else? You know?

18) Comment by nimby? - 17/10/2012

a vast number of agencies have been created that are widely available , provide a duplication of services , and are easily taken advantage of , with the premise there will always be someone elses' money to take . wrong .

19) Comment by The_Host - 17/10/2012

Wow I agree with DMJ for the most part. Mark the calender! But DMJ if Obama wants Government to get credit for anyones personal success you have to give them the blame as well when things fail don't you? The other thing you say is giving Obama credit for their personal successes. Why would anyone give any politician credit for their own success? You make yourself a success not the government. Unless of course you are a big campaign bundler that happens to have a green energy company, then you are choosen for success even if you fail. Doesn't matter to you, wasn't your money and you had fun living it up while it lasted right?

20) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

Every once in a while, I get one right.

21) Comment by Chucky - 17/10/2012

Will do the math next time i fill up the car or pay my health ins. I do believe that DMJ is correct, it is a meaningless question and for the reasons he stated ( told ya he had good post)

22) Comment by agagent - 17/10/2012

If everyone loved the stimulus and Obamacare the Democrats would still control Congress.

23) Comment by agagent - 17/10/2012

Arithmetic to which points to Obama’s failed economic policies: Obama added more than $5 trillion to the national debt, millions have given up on finding a job, almost 47 million are on food stamps, and the average household income has decreased by more than $4,000. The BLS unemployment rate went down because for every job created about 10 people left the labor force. Many gave up looking for work because they felt no jobs were available.

24) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

If the Stimulus had just started, then how had it already failed? Didn't think that through, did you?

25) Comment by agagent - 17/10/2012

The recession ended in June, 2009 and Obama claims he saved us from a depression. That might have been plausible except his policies had taken effect and his failed stimulus had just started. In 2009 Obama was concentrating on increasing the cost of health insurance, thus increasing the cost of hiring, with Obamacare. Obama claimed increases in energy production even though his policies reduced energy production on federal lands. Obama’s policies closed coal mines and generating plants with no alternatives in sight. Instead of the promised 5 million new green jobs Obama picked green businesses, some run by his supporters, which went bankrupt and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. Even the new GM would have been more sustainable if Obama had let the bankruptcy courts reshape it without using billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up the unions.

26) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

The "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" is a bogus question anyway. People who might not be, personally, will still vote for Obama because they might not necessarily blame him for their situation. People who are better off, personally, will still vote for Romney because they don't credit Obama for their personal success. People will cherry pick statistics like the Dow Jones, or the price of gas, or health insurance premiums, or unemployment rates in order to justify how they already feel about either candidate. People who don't like President Obama will blame him for their failures but not credit him for their successes. The same will happen for Romney if he's elected. It's a meaningless question, really.

27) Comment by Being_Stupid - 17/10/2012

We are better off because we still have some remnants of Free Market Capitalism, not because of Obama or the Democrat Socialist Party.