Have you been hearing the new GOP mantra, “Are you better off now than four years ago?”
It’s a fair question, I think. But those Republicans who are asking the question are supremely hypocritical.
To be honest, they would have to say: “Are you better off now than four years ago? We certainly are.”
Yup. All those folks like Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan, and their Wall Street and corporate backers, are far better off than they were four years ago. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, one of those key measures of the stock market, was under 8,000 when President Obama took office. Today it is again over 13,000.
What does that mean? It means, in broad terms, that anyone with investments, whether held directly or through pension plans, 401(k) or IRA accounts, has seen their value rise over 60 percent in four years, restoring most of the wealth lost in the closing year of the George W. Bush presidency.
Here are a few financial headlines from last month:
Blue Chips Near a Five-Year High – WSJ.com
U.S. home builder confidence at five-year-high in August – USA Today
S&P 500 up for sixth week; fear index hits five-year low – Yahoo! News
Home Prices Are Stabilizing, Signifying A Housing Market Bottom — Forbes.com
You get the picture. Yes, it does appear the economy is better off than four years ago.
If Mitt Romney were not being the ultimate hypocrite, he would be thanking the president for restoring so much of his personal wealth and that of his traditional Republican base.
The problem which needs to be dealt with now is that those who benefited the most from the recovery to date have not shared those benefits with the rest of the country. Banks have recovered but aren’t making loans and haven’t made headway on clearing up the foreclosure mess. Many large companies are reporting soaring profits but haven’t followed through with new hiring or rising wages. This continues the long slide in the share of the nation’s wealth held by the middle and working classes, a decline that started back in 1950s and has resulted in the concentration of wealth in the top 1%.
To make matters worse, they now want to play on the emotions of those who haven’t enjoyed those same direct benefits of the recovery to promote policies, such as additional tax cuts for the rich, that will simply double-down on the increasing concentration of wealth and dangerous social inequality.
It’s really hard to watch without screaming.
Deep breath. It’s Friday.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This comment was received via email:
Yep, Obama is correct, they want to “double down on the trickle down”
Getting Obama re-elected in 2 months can take a lot of that frustration and eradicate it …. at least for a couple years. Get him elected!!! Vote!!! Donate!!! (if nothing else, it can give a lot of rich selfish hypocrites a brief rush of reality that they desperately need)
Mitt Romney follows in his father’s footsteps in aspiring to the American Presidency. When it comes to showing his hand on paying taxes, however, he plays his cards much closer to the vest than did his Dad == revealing only one and a partial year’s return instead of an even dozen. Why does this matter? Why the prurient interest? Well, in Mitt’s case there is some smoke so there may well be real fire.
Romney maintains that his income tax shelters abroad are all on the up-and-up legally — more to avoid overseas versus domestic taxation. This is debatable but hard to prove otherwise, given the secrecy veil surrouding Swiss and Cayman Island accounts. Did he take advantage of an “amnesty” provision to avoid embarrasing fines and penalties?
What is indisputable, however, is the illegality — and criminal nature — of the “Son of Boss” scandal of the 1990’s — the biggest tax avoidance scam in our nation’s history. It substantially undermined the U. S. corporate tax system until exposure came about and vigorous enforcement ensued. Romney was the “point man” among Marriott International’s board members — as Audit Committee chair at the time — in the global hotel chain’s “vanguard role” of employing the tactic.
Of course, avoiding taxes is as American as apple pie — and corporations are people too, my friends. But playing fair and square with Uncle should trump this proclivity for anyone wishing to become our Commander-in-Chief out to slash our national deficit.
“. . . anyone with investments, whether held directly or through pension plans, 401(k) or IRA accounts, has seen their value rise over 60 percent in four years . . .” I think it would be better to state, “may have seen” rather than the absolute “has seen.”
Excellent point!
“Deep breath. It’s Friday.”
And now for some cat pictures … isn’t it “Feline Friday”?
you know more about campaign finance than most people. Surely you know that Wall Street has been Obama’s garden the last 6 years. So isn’t it really Obama’s Wall St. backers? Or does that not fit the narrative?
That was true in 2008. That is not true this year, as I understand.
For example– http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/06/13/romney_crushing_obama_in_donations_from_wall_street.html
Not to mention that most of the problems with employment growth are due to the massive reductions in state, county, and municipal employments as local governments, heavily impacted by the collapse of property taxes, and other tax revenues, have been forced to drastic layoffs. Republicans in Congress blocked jobs bills that would have helped local governments retain more of their workers. It is all part of their union busting project.
One of Romney’s best attacks against Obama has been to ask the question “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?” I watched all the major speeches at the Democrat convention, and I heard many of those speakers defending by saying that yes, indeed, people ARE better off than they were 4 years ago, thanks to Obama. Well? You can’t have it both ways. I’ll bet the Linds are better off than 4 years ago. I’ll bet 90% of those who read this blog are better off than 4 years ago — the social class formerly derisively called “limousine liberals” — wealthy professors and government bureaucrats secure in their jobs and crying over the poor and downtrodden, sowing despair and grievance and class warfare even though they themselves are in the 1% (or at least the top 10%). Don’t get me wrong. I’m not at all resentful of people who are wealthy. But when you criticize Romney and the 1% for being better off than they were 4 years ago, look in the mirror and confess that you too are among those who are better off than 4 years ago. And be glad for it. If you’re uncomfortable having too much stashed away, you can always give some away to all those needy folks you like to talk about; or you could go to the IRS webpage and make a donation to the government.
Ken, if I look up the word “disingenuous” in the dictionary, will I see your picture?
“But when you criticize Romney and the 1% for being better off than they were 4 years ago…,” you say. I have read Ian’s piece more than once, but I can’t for the life of me find a single place where he criticizes Romney for being better off than he was four years ago. He does, however, criticize Romney, for his hypocrisy.
But you knew that, didn’t you? And responding to the charge of hypocrisy as stated wouldn’t have given you the invented opportunity to portray Ian as a limousine liberal who lives in a “glorious mansion” (a previous post of yours), would it have?
You know, Ken, I’m sure your Fox News ish might work some places on the Mainland, but someone should have told you at some point in your life that you live in Hawai‘i.
Hate to break the news to you partisans, but asset inflation (the stock market) has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats (who actually create sell-offs when they bicker). It has entirely everything to do with trillions of dollars of money printing (federal reserve action). Whether we are better off because of this is yet to be seen. Well, if you cash out today, you will have more dollars to pay for $4 gas.
If we boil your post down, Ian, aren’t you making the argument that 4 years of Obama presidency has helped the rich but not the middle class?
Whether you wanted to or not, that was the statement you made.
Like it or not, this was the statement that Ian made, and you just proved his point: “To make matters worse, they now want to play on the emotions of those who haven’t enjoyed those same direct benefits of the recovery to promote policies, such as additional tax cuts for the rich, that will simply double-down on the increasing concentration of wealth and dangerous social inequality.”
The thought experiment to engage in is what would the place look like under a “Crash” McCain presidency with Mitch O’Connell running the Senate and Boehner the House? Likely consequences: further financial disasters; increased demonization of Muslims [ask a Republican what Muslims have to do to become humans again]; wage slavery; debt slavery; a war on Iran; continuing losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; increased tensions with China; and Russia; and a whole host of neo-con invented international disasters; abortion criminalized; continued climate change denial [ever wonder why Republicans like the principles of science when it comes to their own personal medical care [or how to get out the vote] but deny the legitimacy of the same principles when applied to climate change? and on and on and on, asteroid hits earth and a zombie nation forming….
It makes no sense that the Dow is so high, and I don’t believe the President had anything to do with its most recent run. It is clear to me that the market is being manipulated by special interests, and if you’re a wise investor, you’d get out of the stock market. Just look at what happened to Face Book. If you bought into the IPO, you’d would have lost nearly half your money by now. Park your money in tangibles. When the SHTF, the stock market will violently correct and all these so-called gains will be lost. And to the point of the article, if Obama is responsible for the rise in the Dow, then he must be responsible for its impending crash too. Can’t have it both ways. The stock market is legalized gambling—the President does not control it.
Constantly waiting for the US stock market to crash is the same as waiting in the basement for an asteroid to wipe out North America. Hiding in a cave solely because of fear that is hammered into the brain beyond the point of rational discussion is sleeping with all the lights on. It’s a Cold War “here come the bombs” mentality in the year 2012. After stock market rallies come small corrections. On a larger plane, the stock market has bull times and bear times. Those who can handle it deal with it. Yes, Facebook lost half its value in the last 4 months. At the same time, Fidelity Bancorp and Kimball International doubled.
Would ten years of returns tell us whether Mr. Romney is better off? Why did he require that number of returns revealed for those who were being vetted to the Veep slot?