Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421
I'm failing to understand your logic for several reasons:
A) You're sticking to this 8 years thing, as if everything bad only happened the moment Bush was inaugurated.
B) Even if you do recover that doesn't mean you're better off than you were 8 years ago, especially if you had to take money from your savings to get by, lost your health benefits and had to have surgery, etc.
C) It's all about matter of perceptions. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country and only 18% are satisfied. The same poll at this point in Clinton's 2nd term 63% were satisfied to 33% unsatisfied. Furthermore, ABC News has a consumer confidence index, which ranges on a scale from +100 to -100. The all-time high was in January 2000 when it was +38. Currently it stands at -47.
D) We can argue about how good the economy actually was or who was actually responsible for it, but the perception is that Clinton did a great job and Bush did a terrible job. It would be stupid for Obama to not try and take advantage of this.
|
Obama's smart to hit the economy hard, no question. I just thought the comment was a little silly. I wasn't making a broader point about the economy, and I'm just focussing on the 8 years Obama did in the comment.
Anyone here want to admit they're worse off than they were 8 years ago? I don't see how that's possible without something terrible happening.