Skip to main content

Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? Objectively speaking - yes

It's truly cracking me up (not literally) how Mitt Romney and Republicans all over this country are asking voters, "Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?" Why? Because the answer is yes.

While it's true that not everyone is doing better than they were at this time four years ago, generally speaking - we as a country are much better off now than at this point in 2008.

Let's look at the numbers. Since the most recent jobs report was from the month of August, I'll compare that to the month of August in 2008 (I know - crazy, right?).

In February of 2008 is when we started to notice a downward trend in the monthly jobs report. In August of 2008, we lost approximately 250,000 jobs. The August report for this year? We gained close to 100,000 jobs - a difference of 350,000. The differences will likely be even more pronounced in the months ahead. In September, October and November of 2008, we lost approximately 400,000; 500,000 and 800,000 jobs in those three months. Considering we've seen job-growth in each of the past 23 months, chances are that will extend to 26 months by the time the November jobs report comes through and at that point, we will be able to say with even more confidence - yes, we are definitely better off than we were four years ago.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3252
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html
Post a Comment
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more