Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 12:11:00 PM (view original):
But, hell, I'll play along. Tell those 50m how much better off we are. Better?
It's ridiculous to think the golden roads of Obama's America is lines with candy cane and chocolate chip cookies. The US economy is a mess. Who you want to blame is arguable. However, the man in charge now isn't getting the job done. If you want to keep slurping his balls, go ahead. Time for Change and Hope.
Once again, numbers without context. In August 2012, 35% of the population was on means tested government assistance (the 49 you keep referring to is probably the 49% Santorum quoted, but that includes Social Security). That's roughly 115 million people.
None of this is as black and white as you'd like it to be.
Before the recession, when the economy was booming, about 25% of households were on means tested government assistance, roughly 80 million people. So, since the start of a the recession, roughly 35 million more people are on means tested government assistance. That number correlates pretty well with the unemployment numbers (the unemployed and their dependents).
Is that Obama's fault? Well, the recession wasn't his fault, the economy had already fallen apart before he took office. Should we have recovered faster? Yes (or at least Obama shouldn't have over promised on the recovery, knowing it would be a slow one). So that is at least partially his fault. But Republicans share some of that blame, Obama can't act unilaterally.
And then the big question, would we be better off had a Republican been in office? In my opinion, based on the policies advocated by Republican leadership, no, we wouldn't. I'd guess we'd be worse off. In a demand driven recession, cutting spending is one of the worst things the government can do. In other words, what were the actual policy failures? I think we weren't liberal/stimulative/Keynesian enough. It's unlikely that a Republican president would have done what was necessary to end the recession and recover faster.