If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Mitt Romney is asking Americans if they were better off four years ago as he stumps around the country. Guess he should have done a poll or something first   (bloomberg.com) divider line 254
    More: Interesting, obama, Americans, Standard and Poor, Traverse City, tree stumps, berg National Poll, defamation  
•       •       •

3874 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 10:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



254 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-20 02:29:57 PM

MisterRonbo: Because fark what I think is best for the nation, I'm voting based solely on how well I did, personally.


There are only two basic historical messages in American Presidential campaigns:

1) You haven't had it this good

2) Time for a change.

Seriously. That's pretty much it.
 
2012-06-20 02:30:09 PM

Endrick: Under Bush:
Lost 5 different jobs to downsizing, closures, or moving overseas to businesses that no longer exist
Went on food stamps for a while
Spent 2 years on unemployment
Got paid EIC 6 of those years
Moved me, my kid, and my wife back in with my parents because I couldn't find any jobs where I was living and we needed a roof

Since Obama took office -
6 raises and 3 promotions since my company is doing well enough to move me up
Wife found a job that actually uses her degree, making 2x what she was making previously as a clerk
Bought my first house with the low interest rates
Bought my first real newish car with the $8000 tax refund on the house
Had a second kid (DAMN YOU OBAMA FOR MAKING MY WIFE FERTILE!!!1)
Health care is a luxury item we can afford these days, so I've got medicine for my asthma

No, I'm not doing better at all.


blendedunity.com
Don't blame me, this is Fark after all
/posted entirely for LULzy reasons
//ignore the words "interracial adoption" in the URL
 
2012-06-20 02:30:19 PM
I am definitely better off than I was four years ago.

During the dark days of the credit market the group I was working in at my company (consulting firm) saw all our work dry up. There was literally no new work coming thorugh the door because none of our existing or past clients could get access to credit for their projects. that group ended up imploding, dropping from 11 or so to one. I was able to transfer to a new group and business has greatly picked up over the past few years with some nice compensation boosts as well.

Also, I never understood why I should care if I am better off now than I am four years ago? If I am not better off than I was four years ago but the person asking that would institute policies that wouldn't help me at all (might even harm me in some way), why the heck should I care that the current person isn't doing a perfect job? Elections should be about the future and how they can make tomorrow better.
 
2012-06-20 02:35:30 PM
Wow. Based on these heartwarming stories of success it appears the Bush recovery is running full steam ahead.
 
2012-06-20 02:40:09 PM

Lando Lincoln: WombatControl: Here's a list of over 200 of them, compiled by the House Oversight Commitee. There's even been plenty of books devoted to the subject, including this one.

Here's an excerpt from your link:

Greenhouse Gas Regulation:
EPA's greenhouse gas "endangerment finding" has triggered the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Since greenhouse gasses occur naturally and are necessary for life, it is clear that the Clean Air Act is an inappropriate vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emission.

Well, obviously the Clean Air Act should not be detailing what goes into the air. I mean...greenhouse gases are as natural as fiery explosions or ammonia. How can you regulate things that are natural? You can't.


Thanks for your little strawman version of the argument, but it's much more complicated than that.

By the EPA's own estimates, the cost of "regulating" CO2 as a pollutant will be $21 billion per year. That's not including the cost to private businesses in complying with those regulations. (One of which would be to prevent the construction of new coal-fueled power plants. Hope you enjoy rolling blackouts...)

Hell, if CO2 is a pollutant, your mere act of breathing is "pollution." Please stop immediately and wait for your friendly local EPA regulator to authorize your emission of dangerous pollutants. It should only take 18 months or so for the permits to go through, assuming the environmental impact study isn't delayed.
 
2012-06-20 02:40:56 PM

Cletus C.: Wow. Based on these heartwarming stories of success it appears the Bush recovery is running full steam ahead.


lol THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

/Deep Thoughts With Cletus
 
2012-06-20 02:46:41 PM

Cletus C.: Wow. Based on these heartwarming stories of success it appears the Bush recovery is running full steam ahead.


Would that be the Bush recovery that followed the Obama recession?

/rolls eyes
 
2012-06-20 02:49:13 PM

WombatControl: By the EPA's own estimates, the cost of "regulating" CO2 as a pollutant will be $21 billion per year. That's not including the cost to private businesses in complying with those regulations. (One of which would be to prevent the construction of new coal-fueled power plants. Hope you enjoy rolling blackouts...)

Hell, if CO2 is a pollutant, your mere act of breathing is "pollution." Please stop immediately and wait for your friendly local EPA regulator to authorize your emission of dangerous pollutants. It should only take 18 months or so for the permits to go through, assuming the environmental impact study isn't delayed.


By this logic, all hog and pig farms should be free to deposit their waste wherever they please, since, why, HUMANS don't have to get permits to crap in the toilet!
 
2012-06-20 02:51:43 PM

Cletus C.: Wow. Based on these heartwarming stories of success it appears the Bush recovery is running full steam ahead.


Are you not better off today than you were 4 years ago? If you say 'no', can you explain why?

I think most people here would be OK if you admitted that you are better off today than you were 4 years ago, even if you say "I'm better off today in spite of Obama". At least you would be admitting that Obama did not make things worse for you, which would also discredit Romney's "You are worse off today than you were 4 years ago" talking point.
 
2012-06-20 02:54:13 PM

Party Boy: Robert Kagan is advising Mitt Romney on foreign affairs. The Zakheim(s), Eric Edelman and Eliot Cohen among others for the more well read.

This should be bigger news. Though, the TV news has always been terrible about explaining the neoconservative movement in any actual detail.

Terrible, and the US public, collectively, loathes the movement.

TV media people, what the fark is wrong with you. Cover this.


THIS. SO MUCH F*CKING THIS.

The media is completely ignoring the fact that Romney would mark the return of neoconservatism to the White House...which was an unmitigated disaster for our country.

Good luck with the economy when we're spending billions a day on a land war in Syria and/or Iran...
 
2012-06-20 03:10:00 PM

redqueenmeg: AirForceVet: FlashHarry: i'm certainly better off than i was 4 years ago.

listen, folks, the world lost nearly half its wealth in the economic cataclysm that happened at the end of bush's second term. it was the single worst economic event since the crash of 1929. in the four years since obama took over, the stock market has doubled, the recession has ended, unemployment has gone down (not by as much as we'd like, obviously), and GDP has increased. all of this while republicans were fighting him at every single turn.

this is a big deal. and it's going to take more than 4 years to fix - especially when you're facing the worst enemy this nation's economy has ever met: the modern republican party.

so, yeah, though far from perfect, obama has my vote. and if you think that romney and his team of bush economists can do better, you're fooling yourself. or you're a retired billionaire hedge fund manager.

^THIS^

/I'm better off financially than four years ago myself as well.

THIS and YOURS as well! And me too! And I'll be even better off once my divorce is finalized.


I bet Obama is forcing you to get a divorce so you can get gay married.
 
2012-06-20 03:18:30 PM
Much better off than four years ago. Our house is worth 50% more than we paid for it in 2010. Our income is up and this summer we are taking the first vacation my wife has had in seven years. It would be nice if my business would pick up, but new products from a new company are a tough sell.

We both voted for Obama in 2008 and will again.
 
2012-06-20 03:19:45 PM

Cletus C.: propasaurus: So your argument seriously is that Obama is an empty suit do-nothing and that proves that trickle-down really does work. Genius.

Nah. I'm just enjoying the liberal circle jerk going on here where everyone's life is so much better.

Under Obama's dreaded Wealth Gap.


Ya, because a regular guy with average pay is doing 25% better than he was 4 years ago means that the weath gap is bogus.

See that jump from 50k to 60k a year made up all the difference between him and the top 1% earners.

ZeeeeeroBama, was wrong, you're doing better so whar weath gap, whar?!!

That's a lovely way to spin the good news. Obama said there was a weath gap - you're doing marginally better, so that means no weath gap........AND VOTE REPUBLICAN.
 
2012-06-20 03:20:27 PM

jst3p: Dog Welder: Yes, after the Bush Admin. crashed and burned the economy, I can safely say that I am better off than I was when Bush left office in 2009.

I am also smart enough to realize that 90% of the problems our economy was facing (and continue to face) have fault that lie directly at the feet of the Republican party, for being complicit in the deregulation that got us to this point, and for doing fark all in Congress these last four years to try and help fix the shiat they helped cause.

And if you think RMoney is going to pull us out of this mess with the Tea Party at his back, you are farking delusional.

(Yes, I'm a Republican...so vote Gary Johnson.)


Serious question, why?


I've been a Republican since I was old enough to register to vote. If you listen to what core traditional Republican beliefs are:

--Fiscal responsibility
--Small government
--Strong national defense
--Pro-business
--etc.

These are actually good beliefs, and they are ideals I still uphold.

The current Republican party SAYS they believe in these things, but the whole fiscal responsibility and small government points went out the window around 2001.

Now...if you look at the shiatbags the Republicans have been electing over the past 12 years, you see:

--Fanatic religious zealotry
--Lower taxes on the rich to the point of unsustainable government
--Fark anyone that doesn't have money
--Spend tax money like drunken sailors
--War on Women
--Obama BAD!

THIS is the Republican party that I'm actively against.

To be honest, I've been asking the question of "why" for awhile now. I was hoping someone like Gary Johnson would have done well in the primaries to maybe start to rein in the fanatics, but it didn't happen. The days of Goldwater and Reagan are dead.
 
2012-06-20 03:26:41 PM
4 years ago I was unemployed due to a) the company I was working for going under due to the recession, and b) no one hiring due to the recession. Today, I'm working again with a pretty good salary.
 
2012-06-20 03:29:12 PM
Let's see under Bush was under employed and went on unemployment twice. First lay off company was bought out job sourced out to red state for lower pay, second company bought out and job sent over seas.

Been employed steadily since late 2008. Making more money now then the two previous jobs combined, with fantastic health and other work life balance options. In addition this is the first company in my life I enjoy working for and can see myself retiring from. Bought my first house recently and finally have the finances and schedule to go back to school.

This is no thanks to Mittens considering the carp he pulled when he was Governor of MA. Frankly, I am surprised Romney bothered to ask that type of question, it's not like he cares about this country, all he cares about is one upping daddy dearest by becoming president.
 
2012-06-20 03:29:21 PM

Party Boy: qorkfiend: Covering the neoconservatives is bad for business.

I don't think this explanation works at all.


Enlighten us, then, O wise one. Why doesn't the media cover the neoconservatives?
 
2012-06-20 03:32:24 PM

Sgt Otter: Four years ago I was in Iraq. Thanks for asking, Mittens.


We ribbon car decal and flag pin displaying patriotic Americans, busy serving our country by tearing up during pre-film Kid Rock Army commercials while sucking down 44 ounce mountain dews and double fisting milk duds and blogging very hard, feel your pain. Don't worry. Mitt knows you miss it, that you're angry with Obama for drawing that war down and will be happy to send you back to the region.
 
2012-06-20 03:32:48 PM

James F. Campbell: Party Boy: qorkfiend: Covering the neoconservatives is bad for business.

I don't think this explanation works at all.

Enlighten us, then, O wise one. Why doesn't the media cover the neoconservatives?


I've been pondering this, and I can't come up with a reason beyond "people don't want to hear about it", or maybe "people want to hear about other stuff more".
 
2012-06-20 03:33:07 PM

WombatControl: Thanks for your little strawman version of the argument, but it's much more complicated than that.


Not much.

Sure, people emit CO2. And the government isn't asking anybody to regulate how much CO2 people generate.

Coal plants generate CO2. You can definitely monitor and regulate how much those plants generate.
 
2012-06-20 03:37:13 PM

qorkfiend: I've been pondering this, and I can't come up with a reason beyond "people don't want to hear about it", or maybe "people want to hear about other stuff more".


Neoconservatives are masters at framing the debate (or chucking the debate out the window entirely and focusing on some irrelevant issue) and at using language as a weapon. They're good at labels, at naming and renaming things, and shifting public perception through that power. Look at how "liberal" became the dirty word it is.

Perhaps major media outlets are afraid of being shut out, of being denied access, if they start telling the truth about things.
 
2012-06-20 03:44:04 PM

James!: Which of Obama's regulations are stifling the box making industry? I'm genuinely curious.


This is a good question, my guess is Fox "news" gave him the talking point answer before asking the question.
 
2012-06-20 03:47:20 PM

James F. Campbell: Party Boy: qorkfiend: Covering the neoconservatives is bad for business.

I don't think this explanation works at all.

Enlighten us, then, O wise one. Why doesn't the media cover the neoconservatives?


Foreign policy outside of CNN footage of tank maneuvers and jets taking off is boring to the general public, and they don't understand it.
 
2012-06-20 04:03:57 PM
I am doing much better than I was 4 years ago.
 
2012-06-20 04:05:12 PM

Lando Lincoln: WombatControl: Thanks for your little strawman version of the argument, but it's much more complicated than that.

Not much.

Sure, people emit CO2. And the government isn't asking anybody to regulate how much CO2 people generate.

Coal plants generate CO2. You can definitely monitor and regulate how much those plants generate.


And how do you draw a principled difference between the two? If CO2 is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has a right to regulate it, regardless of the source.

But that's the hypothetical concern: the real-world concern is that by regulating CO2, the EPA has effectively banned the development of any new coal-fired plants in this country. And while they've backed off from applying the same standards to existing plants, they've given plenty of indications that's only temporary. Meanwhile, our electrical infrastructure is barely holding together to meet current needs, no less future ones.

And yes, that costs jobs. That costs money for both implementation ($21 billion/year by the EPAs own estimates) and compliance (probably trillions over a 20-year timeframe) - the result of which are fewer jobs not only due to direct job losses from all the new power plants not being built but also due to the fact that energy is more expensive and there is less of it to use for productive activities.

So yes, regulating CO2 has economic implications that mean fewer jobs.
 
2012-06-20 04:13:43 PM

Party Boy: Robert Kagan is advising Mitt Romney on foreign affairs. The Zakheim(s), Eric Edelman and Eliot Cohen among others for the more well read.

This should be bigger news. Though, the TV news has always been terrible about explaining the neoconservative movement in any actual detail.

Terrible, and the US public, collectively, loathes the movement.

TV media people, what the fark is wrong with you. Cover this.


You do realize that the so-called "liberal media" are owned by conservatives, don't you?
 
2012-06-20 04:18:50 PM

Toxic Park: Cletus C.: propasaurus: So your argument seriously is that Obama is an empty suit do-nothing and that proves that trickle-down really does work. Genius.

Nah. I'm just enjoying the liberal circle jerk going on here where everyone's life is so much better.

Under Obama's dreaded Wealth Gap.

Ya, because a regular guy with average pay is doing 25% better than he was 4 years ago means that the weath gap is bogus.

See that jump from 50k to 60k a year made up all the difference between him and the top 1% earners.

ZeeeeeroBama, was wrong, you're doing better so whar weath gap, whar?!!

That's a lovely way to spin the good news. Obama said there was a weath gap - you're doing marginally better, so that means no weath gap........AND VOTE REPUBLICAN.


I tried to make sense of that. I really did. Are you saying all will not be right with the world until everyone has the same amount of wealth?

Personal success is meaningless until you have the same wealth as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, so stop pretending you're happy and VOTE DEMOCRAT.
 
2012-06-20 04:31:07 PM

sweetmelissa31: "He's done a hatchet job on the economy," says Larry Wilson, 49, a production supervisor at a corrugated box maker in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Wilson complains that prices are outstripping his salary and that the president is stifling business with excessive regulation.

Damn you Fartboxregulator


and that's why he's a production supervisor at a cardboard Box maker at age 49. Because he geniunely believes that it's the GOVERNMENT's fault that his wages aren't even keeping pace with inflation. and not maybe because he works for a company that thinks Comics-sans and a crying eagle in front of a flag graphic is appropriate for the front page of their Corporate website
 
2012-06-20 04:32:20 PM

Cletus C.: Toxic Park: Cletus C.: propasaurus: So your argument seriously is that Obama is an empty suit do-nothing and that proves that trickle-down really does work. Genius.

Nah. I'm just enjoying the liberal circle jerk going on here where everyone's life is so much better.

Under Obama's dreaded Wealth Gap.

Ya, because a regular guy with average pay is doing 25% better than he was 4 years ago means that the weath gap is bogus.

See that jump from 50k to 60k a year made up all the difference between him and the top 1% earners.

ZeeeeeroBama, was wrong, you're doing better so whar weath gap, whar?!!

That's a lovely way to spin the good news. Obama said there was a weath gap - you're doing marginally better, so that means no weath gap........AND VOTE REPUBLICAN.

I tried to make sense of that. I really did. Are you saying all will not be right with the world until everyone has the same amount of wealth?

Personal success is meaningless until you have the same wealth as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, so stop pretending you're happy and VOTE DEMOCRAT.


You don't understand what the wealth gap actually is.
 
2012-06-20 04:36:27 PM

DamnYankees: I dont think people remember the economy 4 years ago. It was terrifying.


a little refresher:-
The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."

It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Mr. Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

Then his Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.

Mr. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"
 
2012-06-20 04:42:24 PM

WombatControl: And how do you draw a principled difference between the two? If CO2 is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has a right to regulate it, regardless of the source.


It's pretty easy, actually. You regulate the CO2 coming out of smokestacks. You do not regulate the CO2 coming out of people's mouths.
 
2012-06-20 04:49:02 PM

Cletus C.: Toxic Park: Cletus C.: propasaurus: So your argument seriously is that Obama is an empty suit do-nothing and that proves that trickle-down really does work. Genius.

Nah. I'm just enjoying the liberal circle jerk going on here where everyone's life is so much better.

Under Obama's dreaded Wealth Gap.

Ya, because a regular guy with average pay is doing 25% better than he was 4 years ago means that the weath gap is bogus.

See that jump from 50k to 60k a year made up all the difference between him and the top 1% earners.

ZeeeeeroBama, was wrong, you're doing better so whar weath gap, whar?!!

That's a lovely way to spin the good news. Obama said there was a weath gap - you're doing marginally better, so that means no weath gap........AND VOTE REPUBLICAN.

I tried to make sense of that. I really did. Are you saying all will not be right with the world until everyone has the same amount of wealth?

Personal success is meaningless until you have the same wealth as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, so stop pretending you're happy and VOTE DEMOCRAT.


Hey If you couldn't understand the simple concept i described, that's on you buddy.
 
2012-06-20 05:06:08 PM

WombatControl:
And how do you draw a principled difference between the two? If CO2 is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has a right to regulate it, regardless of the source.


CO2 released into the atmosphere by the shiatload after having been naturally sequestered in fossil material for millions of years add significantly to the carbon cycle and increases the percentage of atmospheric CO2 adding to the greenhouse effect.

CO2 expelled from animal lungs after breathing in atmospheric air does not add anything to the carbon cycle.

So unless you're breathing oil and coal, it's easy to distinguish on scientific principle.
 
2012-06-20 05:20:59 PM

WombatControl: Lando Lincoln: WombatControl: Thanks for your little strawman version of the argument, but it's much more complicated than that.

Not much.

Sure, people emit CO2. And the government isn't asking anybody to regulate how much CO2 people generate.

Coal plants generate CO2. You can definitely monitor and regulate how much those plants generate.

And how do you draw a principled difference between the two? If CO2 is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has a right to regulate it, regardless of the source.

But that's the hypothetical concern: the real-world concern is that by regulating CO2, the EPA has effectively banned the development of any new coal-fired plants in this country. And while they've backed off from applying the same standards to existing plants, they've given plenty of indications that's only temporary. Meanwhile, our electrical infrastructure is barely holding together to meet current needs, no less future ones.

And yes, that costs jobs. That costs money for both implementation ($21 billion/year by the EPAs own estimates) and compliance (probably trillions over a 20-year timeframe) - the result of which are fewer jobs not only due to direct job losses from all the new power plants not being built but also due to the fact that energy is more expensive and there is less of it to use for productive activities.

So yes, regulating CO2 has economic implications that mean fewer jobs.


Sorry, it's hard to listen to a guy talk about regulations from the same guy who said someone had to pay $10,000 for a permit to put in a shower.
 
2012-06-20 05:37:59 PM
Wombat control? That sounds like a job killing regulation to me.
 
2012-06-20 05:39:24 PM
ah man....just in case that doesn't read right...I mean controlling wombats. not whatever nonsense the farker by the same name is spewing.

/explaining jokes is lame.
 
2012-06-20 05:43:43 PM

James F. Campbell: qorkfiend: I've been pondering this, and I can't come up with a reason beyond "people don't want to hear about it", or maybe "people want to hear about other stuff more".

Neoconservatives are masters at framing the debate (or chucking the debate out the window entirely and focusing on some irrelevant issue) and at using language as a weapon. They're good at labels, at naming and renaming things, and shifting public perception through that power. Look at how "liberal" became the dirty word it is.

Perhaps major media outlets are afraid of being shut out, of being denied access, if they start telling the truth about things.


Pretty much the only outlet I can think of that would even try to get away with it would be NPR. The only reason for that is, if you start denying access to NPR, you get a LOT of questions raised.
 
2012-06-20 05:46:41 PM

Magorn: "How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"


There was this giant douche who stole the 2000 election on the sly and then took advantage of his own failure to knowingly institute horrible policy over corporations to all time lows while expanding executive power over citizens to all time highs.

...Yes. Yes, I think that's the shortest, yet still educated sounding sentence I can use to describe it while still using the term "giant douche".
 
2012-06-20 05:46:58 PM

Dog Welder: I've been a Republican since I was old enough to register to vote. If you listen to what core traditional Republican beliefs are:

--Fiscal responsibility
--Small government
--Strong national defense
--Pro-business
--etc.

These are actually good beliefs, and they are ideals I still uphold.

The current Republican party SAYS they believe in these things, but the whole fiscal responsibility and small government points went out the window around 2001.

Now...if you look at the shiatbags the Republicans have been electing over the past 12 years, you see:

--Fanatic religious zealotry
--Lower taxes on the rich to the point of unsustainable government
--Fark anyone that doesn't have money
--Spend tax money like drunken sailors
--War on Women
--Obama BAD!

THIS is the Republican party that I'm actively against.

To be honest, I've been asking the question of "why" for awhile now. I was hoping someone like Gary Johnson would have done well in the primaries to maybe start to rein in the fanatics, but it didn't happen. The days of Goldwater and Reagan are dead.


I believe in many of the "core republican beliefs". I gave up on the Republicans reflecting any of that a long time ago.
 
2012-06-20 05:55:14 PM

propasaurus: redqueenmeg: AirForceVet: FlashHarry: i'm certainly better off than i was 4 years ago.

listen, folks, the world lost nearly half its wealth in the economic cataclysm that happened at the end of bush's second term. it was the single worst economic event since the crash of 1929. in the four years since obama took over, the stock market has doubled, the recession has ended, unemployment has gone down (not by as much as we'd like, obviously), and GDP has increased. all of this while republicans were fighting him at every single turn.

this is a big deal. and it's going to take more than 4 years to fix - especially when you're facing the worst enemy this nation's economy has ever met: the modern republican party.

so, yeah, though far from perfect, obama has my vote. and if you think that romney and his team of bush economists can do better, you're fooling yourself. or you're a retired billionaire hedge fund manager.

^THIS^

/I'm better off financially than four years ago myself as well.

THIS and YOURS as well! And me too! And I'll be even better off once my divorce is finalized.

I bet Obama is forcing you to get a divorce so you can get gay married.


Well, he said I could have Rachel Maddow, so I was all, cool.
 
2012-06-20 06:44:41 PM
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-06-20 07:40:13 PM
Lessee here... boyfriend has been working full-time at a great job for 6 months or so now, after nearly 2 years of un- or under-employment. I've earned two promotions at the company I've been with for seven years now and am now making more than ever. He lost his ass on a condo purchased at the peak of the housing bubble, but I bought our current house at the bottom, so I consider that situation a net win for us. We both have 401k's that are doing well, real savings and enough left over to buy a few toys; nothing fancy, but we have a boat and a Jeep for tooling around in the desert. Next on the list is a pop-up trailer.

It seems like everyone we know is doing better now than four years ago when it seemed like every time I talked to someone, they or another friend had lost their job, house, etc. We still have a long way to go here (yay highest unemployment in the nation! We're no. 1! USA!) but things are so much better and the light at the end of the tunnel is visible. A ways off, but visible.
 
2012-06-20 09:33:59 PM

Somacandra: MisterRonbo: Because fark what I think is best for the nation, I'm voting based solely on how well I did, personally.

There are only two basic historical messages in American Presidential campaigns:

1) You haven't had it this good

2) Time for a change.

Seriously. That's pretty much it.


3. I have a secret plan to end the war.

But yeah, good point.
 
2012-06-20 09:34:29 PM
I'm definitely better off than I was 4 years ago...no question about it. I'm going to vote for Obama again.
 
2012-06-20 09:49:44 PM
Yeah, more people are worse off than they were 4 years ago than are better off, all anecdotal nonsense in this this thread notwithstanding. Unemployment is higher and house prices are lower.

Of course, it can't be blamed on Obama so it's a stupid question for Romney to ask in the first place.
 
2012-06-20 09:52:45 PM
Yup, definitely better off. I reached a major career goal in 2009, and things have been easier ever since. The money I made from that has allowed me to pay off a chunk of my debt (not all, but I'm chipping away), take a few nice vacations, and my wife and I are expecting our first child in August.

Full disclosure...I was doing pretty decent four years ago as well. I'm just doing a lot better now. I don't attribute my successes (or failures) to politicians. I realized a while ago that I usually do fine no matter who is in office.
 
2012-06-20 11:05:21 PM
Yep. I'm better off and no thanks to Romney. This guy is the fraud who wants to double the pointless US military spending, deport American kids to Mexico and give assholes Republicans donors political appointments and no bid contracts if he wins.

Go to Hell Romney.
 
2012-06-20 11:15:22 PM
As Bush was leaving office and during the early days of Obama's term I was fearful every day that I would lose my job.

Since then I've been promoted twice and I'm about to purchase my first home at a sub 4% interest rate and at a price of less than 2/3 what it was going for before the houseing bubble popped.

Needless to say I get a real kick out of the "four years ago" cliche.

It's one of the dumber angles Rmoney can take this election as all it does is give Obama the opportunity to remind everyone of what an unmitigated disaster he took over and that all things consindered shiat isn't all that bad compared to then.
 
2012-06-20 11:47:36 PM
In the summer of 2008, a group of us were laid off from a job I'd had for over six years.

This summer, watch the single manned canoe slalom at the Olympics. And if you see a man wearing a USA, established 1776 t-shirt waving Old Glory... say hello to your tv. It's me.

fark you and your revisionist history, GOP.
 
2012-06-20 11:54:16 PM
January of 2009: My boss said, "Well, we're lucky to have our jobs. So even though we received no raise whatsoever, we should consider ourselves lucky."

January of 2012: My boss said: "This 3% raise is bullshiat. If they keep this shiat up, they're going to lose a lot of good employees."

So yeah, I guess I'm better off. Not much, but some.
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report