Romney with Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax

There was a time in which Mitt Romney ran for the Republican party nominee for President of the United States of America. During some of this time during the campaign there was one narrative taken against Mitt Romney about him showing his tax returns. In showing these tax returns they would see where he got his money, since Romney is said to be a wealthy person, and also to see how much of his money was taken by the federal government or state governments and at what rate he was taxed by these agencies.

It was found that Mitt Romney had no income for an income tax to apply to, but he did have a capital gains for a capital gains tax to apply. These are both taxes, but they are not one and the same type of taxes. Like Baltimore and Annapolis are in the state of Maryland & Baltimore and Annapolis are different from one another, so too are Income and Capital Gains both Taxes, Income and Capital Gains are different from one another. Income Taxes and Capital Gains Taxes are categorically different from one another. They specifically apply to things that meet certain criterion, and these criterion differentiate on where they apply and where they do not apply. It would be similar to how you have a fork and a spoon, and they come in a set of silverware. They are both equal in being silverware, but the fork is not the spoon and the spoon is not the fork, but silverware fork and silverware spoon are silverware.

So what is the problem? Here is one article talking about the difference from an economist. Here is a reply, in some sense, to the first article.

The first point, and most important point, which the Supreme Court has said itself, which is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The first article points out the difference between an income tax and a capital gains tax. So these are different powers of destruction being applied to two different sub groups.

“What is a capital gain, and how can we distinguish it from ordinary income? The answer seems simple. If you have a job, the money you are paid for your work is ordinary income. If you buy an asset at one time and sell it later for a higher price, the profit you made from holding it is a capital gain.”

These are two different types of actions that individuals have with one another. One person works for another and gets paid for this work and gets taxed for their work. Another person sells a property for more than it was previously worth and makes a profit that is taxed. So we notice two different types of activity and how the government is taxing these activities. What is noticed is that those people who partake in the activity of capital gains get taxed at a percentage of 15%, and those who partake in the activity of income activity are getting taxed at a percentage of 35%.

Now some of the issues that people had were that Mitt Romney did not pay the income tax rate, but he payed the capital gains tax rate. One of these rates was lower than the other. This does not exactly appear to be what people were upset itself, since it appeared that people were upset about the first but that Mitt Romney is also a wealthy person who is considered to be part of the 1%. It was both of these conditions that made it so that people looked down upon Romney for not being forced to give up 35% of his property by being forced to give up 15% of his property, based on his activities with other people. Mitt Romney followed the law by paying the taxes his taxes based on his activities, which were not in the category of income but in the category of capital gains, even though either which way he would have been taxed. He just didn’t have to be taxed in one way over another, in which one happened to be less than another.

Now let me ask you, does it appear to be wrong that certain activities should be taxed less than other activities? For example, say that we have someone who partakes in activities which harm 49 people out of 50 people, and we have someone who partakes in activities which harm 1 person out of 50 people. Which activity, if both of these activities are legal, would you think one should be taxed more than another? Remember, the ability to tax some activity is the ability to destroy that activity.

The question becomes which activity do we want to be taxed, and how much do we want to tax that activity? Either income has a higher tax rate than capital gains, or income has a lower tax rate than capital gains, or income tax rate is equal to capital gains. If income has higher rate than capital gains, then government is giving less incentive for income activities. If income has a lower tax rate than capital rates, then government is giving more incentive for income activities. If income tax rate is equal to capital gains, then government is giving equal incentive for both activities Thus, either government is giving less incentive for income activities, or government is given more incentive for income activities, or government is giving equal incentive for both activities.

The question becomes, which tax bracket do you want to destroy? Do you want to destroy the activity of capital gains or income? When people ask for a tax increase, they want to destroy people or prevent the activities of people. So those people who are considered to be wealthy are people we want to destroy by making them give up more of their property. But this also holds with those people who are not wealthy.

Now if we want to treat people equally, give them all the same shot, have the same rules apply, then make them equal in their activities. A person gets a shot at either income activity or capital gains activity. Not everyone is built for income activity or capital gains activity. You might not be good at a 9-5 job for 5 days a week in a year. You might not like that job, and not just good at that type of activity. Maybe you are better at having some property and being able to sell it for more than you obtained it for. People have different talents, and so some people are more aligned with either one or the other, and some people are of both sides. We would be telling those who are better at capital gains activity that we don’t like that and we think they should be punished for their ability (if not outright luck). Same would hold with those who do income activities.

Advertisements

The 47% and 2012 Election

Well, the 2012 Presidential Election is “done”. We have some results in. Here is something that I found funny. Mitt Romney made some comments about the 47% of American citizens that do not pay income tax and receive benefits from the federal government. Here is something interesting from the election results for President in 2012.

51% of the popular vote went to Barack Obama, which is about 62,262,675 votes. 48% of the popular vote went to Mitt Romney, which is about  58,894,887 votes. Now here is what is funny, Mitt Romney made some comments about 47% of Americans, and Romney happen to get 48% of the popular vote. So 121,157,562 cast a vote for either Obama or Romney, and of those, 48% went to Romney. So did the 47% vote for Romeny and Romney received 1% of the vote from the 53% of Americans that do pay an income tax? Maybe some of Romney’s friends who only have a capital gains tax instead of having to pay the income tax, all voted for him and some of the 53% voted for him as well, at least 1% of the 53% who pay income tax.
Funny how Romney got the 47% he talked about and got 1% more. Looks like that video did nothing wrong and spoke the truth, and the people voted for him for it. Too bad he did not say what was needed to get the majority of Americans, those 53% that pay income tax. So out of 100 American citizens, 53 of them pay income tax and 47 don’t pay income tax. Romney received 48 of the votes and Obama received 51 of the votes, and other people received 2 of the votes, out of an assumed 100 votes total.
Here are the simple ideas in basic logical form of a syllogism: All those who do not pay income tax (i.e. 47%) are voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote. All those who voted for Barack Obama in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%). Some of those who voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%) and Some of those who did not vote for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%).

2012 Presidential Election Results

Here is some information on the Presidential Election results of the 2012 election.

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Here are some numbers that they give:

Popular Vote- 120,887,981

Obama- 50.5%/ 61,128,734
Romney-  48.0%/ 58,138,521
Johnson- 0.9%/ 1,139,562
Stein- 0.3%/396,684
Barr- <0.1%/ 49,959
Anderson- <0.1%/ 34,521

Electoral Vote- 509*

Obama 303
Romeny 206

(* The Electoral vote is 538, but the result of Florida has not been added in, so the 29 votes missing belong to Florida.)

Obama received 50% of the popular vote and Romney obtained 48% of the popular vote. That is a 2% difference in popular vote between Obama and Romney. Obama received around 59% of the Electoral vote and Romney received 41%. There is a 18% difference in the electoral vote between Obama and Romney.  Obama did 9% better with the electoral vote than the popular vote, and Romney did 7% worse with the electoral vote than the popular vote. IOW, Obama did better with the electoral college than he did with the popular vote; Romney did better with the popular vote than he did with the electoral vote.

Think about this the next time you hear someone saying that there was a mandate for the Obama Administration and the Democratic Parties plans or ideas. The American public is split on this issue. It is not a nation united, like promised and hoped for and tried to change to back in 2008, but it is a divided country from what it especially once was. If you have someone tell you that there was an American mandate that supports Democratic policy, point out that the popular vote was only 2% difference between “American mandate” for Obama and “No American mandate” for Obama. Obama won handedly in the electoral college, but he definitely did not in the popular vote.

Where Half of Obama’s National Debt Came From

There was a  Presidential debate between Mitt Romeny and Barack Obama on October 3rd, 2012. This was the first Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Now what is interesting about this was not so much the debate itself, but some commentary on the debate. For example, PBS discussed and commented on some of the statements that the candidates made, and did some “fact checking”. Mark Shields happened to bring up one of the most interesting points of them all. The point they made was that half of the national debt incurred under Obama’s 1st term was based on pulling out of Iraq.

Now I want you to realize this, around 3 trillion dollars of around 6 trillions of national debt incurred under Obama’s first term. Under 2 terms of George W. Bush, around 4 trillion dollars were incurred on to the national debt. Now Bush lead the US into an undeclared war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Congress approved to continue to fund this undeclared war. And when this undeclared war was said to be officially over, US troops occupied those nations. These nations continued to be occupied up to the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama said that he would bring the occupation troops in Iraq back home within 16 months of his election as President. By 2011 the last troops were pulled out, but don’t mind the huge embassy. But he did flip-flop on promises of when pull out would be done of occupation troops in Iraq. (They are literally military troops occupying land in a foreign nation.)

One of the big points made against Bush was that he used the national “credit card” to pay for the “Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He used the credit cards to get us into these occupations of foreign nations, and the debt rose by 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush doing this, or 7 years at least. But Obama would use the national credit cards to pull out of Iraq alone, which costs nearly half of the debt incurred by using the credit card under Obama’s watch. Just think about that when you realize that the troops are back from occupying foreign lands, instead of being stationed at home with their families and community and defending the continental boarders and US owned land.

Point blank: Promised to get out by a certain date and does not pull out by that certain date, but also being ambiguous on when it will happen until it happens after it contradicts some earlier states. Raised the national debt more than his predecessor, while at the same time obtaining half of it pulling out of Iraq.

But let us be fare to Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama. They can only order where the troops go and when they come back. But Congress controls the revenue and distribution of the revenue. So the people using the national credit card where Congress. Just ignore that last important part and enjoy the hypocrisy of 21st politics.

47% of Americans are the 99%

Since the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement has started, the old term of 99% and 1% have shown back up. Similar lines of thinking where used by Karl Marx when he mentioned the 9 out of 10. This would turn out to be the 90%, and the 90% would be the 99% that OWS talks about all the time. The 10% would be the 1% that OWS talks about a lot.

Now Mitt Romney brought up some point about the 47% and the 53%. The 47% pay no federal income tax, the 53% pay federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47%, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But Mitt Romney is also accused of being part of the 1%, as well. Assuming that all of the 1% are the 53%, but not all of the 53% are the 1%, then some of the 99% make up the 53% as well. All of the 53% are the 1% and some of the 99%. So it follows that all of the 47% are the 99%, though.

So this means that a some of the 99% pay no federal income tax while all of the 1% by the federal income tax. This means that the 1% pay for most of the benefits that the 99% obtain. This means that the 1% have their money taken from them and redistributed to people that do not pay into the system, and those people that do not pay into the system complain about the 1% not paying more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. It is like a starving person complaining that a certain individual did not give them more food than they did were given.

But, of course, the 47% and the 53% both pay other taxes than the federal income tax. They both either pay for the gas tax, the cigarette tax, the sales tax, toll tax, or etc. But yet the 53% have to pay more in taxes than the 47%, and the 47% complain that the 53% do not pay more in income taxes. The 53% have more of a burden to bear in losing personal income than the 47%. This means that the 53% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 47%. This would mean that the 1% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 99%.

Think of it this way. There are 100 people, and 53 of these people unwillingly supplement the income of 47 people. The 47 people pay no federal income tax, and 53 people pay federal income tax. But both the 47 people and the 53 people pay other taxes besides the federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47 people, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But remember that all of the 1% are part of the 53 people, or 53%. This means the one individual has a lot more money, and because federal income tax makes the 1% pay more than the the rest of the 99%, this means that the 1 person is going to pay more to keep the system running than the other 53% or the 99%. One individual will pay more for the entitlements that the other 99 enjoy and want.

Meet the Press: 47% of Americans & Mitt Romney

The Meet the Press episode on 9/23/2012 had some “Surrogates”, and not the type from the Bruce Willis movie, come on to the show. Some interesting points where brought up, and most of the discussion revolved around the idea of the 47% of Americans that do not pay income tax.

Now what is really strange about the 47% of Americans that do not pay federal income tax is that Harry Reid implied that Mitt Romney was part of that 47% of Americans. Of the class of 47% Americans that do not pay federal income tax, it was said that it contains Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney’s tax returns show that he has paid federal income tax. So Mitt Romney is part of the 53% of Americans that pay federal income tax.

In the line of Mitt Romney and his federal income tax returns, Governor Deal Patrick has some talking points.

Gov. Deval Patrick: I understand people’s interest and curiosity about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I think it was his dad that said that tax returns for presidential candidates should be produced way back many years. And I think he produced 20 year’s worth of tax returns and more when he was being considered for vice president. But the more I think important issue is what is it he plans to do with my taxes and yours and everybody else’s. He has a tax plan out there where he’s talking about $5 trillion in tax cuts, adding to the deficit. No way to pay for that and no idea about how — what the impact is on the middle class.

Now, I have already talked about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. So I will not deal too much with what Patrick says on the issue of tax returns. What I will bring up is how people consistently go back to Mitt Romney’s father releasing his tax returns. Mitt Romney is his father’s son, and yet somehow people think that what Mitt Romney’s father did means that Romney must do it as well. If Mitt Romney’s father killed a kitten does that mean that Mitt Romney must kill a kitten as well? Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent of releasing more than 2 years worth of federal income tax returns, likewise Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent in killing a kitten. So Mitt Romney ought to kill a kitten like he ought to release more than two years of tax returns, all because his father set the precedent by doing these things. Ridiculous type of argument by using precedent, especially when these precedents are not necessary tests to hold the office of Executive of the United States of America. This even holds in cases where people who were not Mitt Romney’s father releasing more than 2 years of federal income tax returns or releasing federal income tax returns at all. Precedent of no gay black woman being President, or candidate for President, means that a gay black woman should not be elected because they do not meet precedent set by previous candidates.

Deval Patrick does make a good point about what does the Candidate for Executive of the United States of America plan to do with your tax dollars, or all American’s tax dollars. But Deval Patrick is wrong that taking in less taxes, i.e. taking less money from individual Americans, does not mean that they you will have a deficit. There will only be a deficit if the government spends more than it takes in. Having 5 trillion less in revenue from income tax does not mean you will have 5 trillion in deficit. You will only have 5 trillion in deficit if you spend that money when you do not have it. You will only have 5 trillion in debt if you spend the money when you do not have it. So Romney would have to spend more money than is obtained by income tax.

Now one obvious impact on all Americans in 5 trillion less revenue taking in federal income tax is that Americans will keep more of their money to use as they desire, especially middle class Americans. They will be able to keep more of their money instead of having the federal government taking more of their money. But it would, supposedly, mean that there is less money for the federal government to use to run federal programs. This means that some federal programs would have to be scaled back in order for Americans to keep more of their money, unless one wants to increase the national debt. So Romney would have to cut back on some federal programs in proportion to the loss of federal revenue.

Now what would Romney use the federal income tax money on? He would have to use it on what the Constitution says that the President must do. If the Constitution said that there must be 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, then Romney would have to use that income tax money to make sure that there are 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, and have to make sure that those 25 aircraft carries can necessarily do what they are suppose to do.

But let us go to this 47% of Americans are “dependent on the federal government”. This main point is based on something. It is based on that 47% of Americans do not give up money in income tax, which means the tax person (or IRS person) is not coming to get your money from you by April 15th. Instead, 53% of Americans will have to give up money to the tax man while 47% do not have to give up the money. But the money that the 53% gave up to the tax man is given to the 47% Americans, while the tax man takes a cut in making that transaction of money from one party to another party. What needs to be realized 47% of Americans make money at the end of the year while 53% of Americans lose money at the end of the year.  What makes this interesting is that a large number of people are not paying into the system while another group is paying into the system, and those that are not paying into the system receive money from those who are paying into the system. You do all the work, if you are part of the 53%, while another person, if part of the 47%, gets all the reward of your work. This is equality, this is redistribution. Giving from the haves to the have nots.

How about, like Gregory David brought up in the debate between George Allen and Tim Kain in the Virgina Senatorial debate, everyone pays federal income tax? This means that the 47% who do not pay federal income tax be forced to pay federal income tax, like those 53% of American’s who payed federal income tax. This way those 47% of Americans are paying into the system like 53% of Americans, and this will make all Americans equal in how the law is executed. One group of people do not have pay federal income tax while another group of people have to pay federal income tax, and now all groups of people will have to pay federal income tax. That way if you receive some of these governments entitlements, which are usually funded by federal income tax revenue, then you are getting what you payed for.

Take this example from Ezra Kelin, the hack “journalist”.

Compare Romney to a single mother of two who works fulltime at Wal-mart who takes the earned income tax credit and whose children get health insurance through medicaid. Romney says she’s not taking personality responsibility. He says he couldn’t get her to take personal responsibility if he tried, yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore. He’s beyond all of that, and he’s carried that belief into his policy proposals, his policy platform matches his comments. He won’t raise taxes on the rich but wants to cut medicaid by over $1 trillion in the next decade.

Working at Wal-mart meets you will have a personal income that is below the taxable amount. Say that the taxable income level is 25 dollars. If you make 24 dollars then you do not have to pay the income tax, but receive money from the federal government. If you make 25 dollars or over, you have to pay the income tax. Medicade is a program that is funded for by personal income tax, so this person at Wal-mart is not paying into Medicade like the person who pays the income tax does. This person would not be taking personal responsibility if that means paying for the program that you are taking advantage for. In other words, this person would be obtaining something that they did not pay for. But we all know that nothing is free, so who payed for it? The 53% payed for that program.

I really have no clue what the line about “yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore”. But what should be noticed is that the 53% will have to pay less of their money taken by the personal income tax, and so medicaid will have 1 trillion dollars less than it had a decade ago. This means that 53% of Americans will keep more of their money, and those 47% of Americans would receive less money, within the next decade if Romney were elected.

Mitt Romney’s “Tax Returns” and “Tricky Mitt”

It appears that the Obama campaign for re-election has brought up some interesting talking points, which appear to have garnered wide attention. One of them involves Mitt Romney’s “tax returns” to be released, and for how there might be a felony or criminal action being hidden in his tax returns that have not been released. Now, unless you have been living under the sea with Ariel, there has been this narrative of “class warfare”, which has been brought up of rich American citizens v. non-rich American citizens.

Mitt Romney is placed within the category of rich American citizen, because you have to be an American citizen to run for President of the United States of America. There is even a check done to make sure that you meet the necessary requirements to run for President of the United States of America, and being a US Citizen is one of them. Anyone that tries to run for the office and does not meet these necessary requirements, well be denied that office. Romney  is considered to be a rich, which came about from his work as a private citizen and using his property that where within legal requirements.

Here is an example of an add bringing up Mitt Romney’s tax returns and linking it to be criminal and Mitt Romney is a felon.

Mitt Romney’s individual income tax returns are private information and protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. The IRS is the branch of the federal government that receives your individual income tax returns, and they can only give out your income tax returns to authorized federal branches or authorized individuals. So, for the most part, Mitt Romney’s information is private, unless Romney wants to make it public. You could own this a really great couch in your private home, and keep it private. You could also take your couch out of your private home and put it on public display or you could invite people into your private property and take a look at your really great couch. Not even the federal government is authorized to release that private information. Scary when the IRS even has boundaries that it will not transgress.

The main point would be that it is private information and one may use that private information as they want. Romney does not fell like releasing his tax returns, and Obama has not felt like releasing his college transcripts. Romney has also not released what his first memory was, or Obama has not released what his first memory was. Are both Romney an Obama holding back these things back because they broke some law? Are they criminals that are trying to run for office and be President? Are some criminals in public office now? Maybe federally elected officials are criminals. Could even be like prison in so far as you come out changed from when you went in. You go in as a law abiding person and come out a criminal, just maybe not a convicted criminal.

I really need to know this private information, I love to be all in people’s personal information and living their life for them. I really need to know what was Mitt Romney’s first job after graduate school an what was Barack Obama’s first job after graduate school, it allows me to know their unexplicated  step by step plan to reach their explicated objectives. “I’m going to fly you to the moon, but never mind how I am going to get you there.”

Does anyone know of the IRS having a good reputation of obtaining what is federally allowable by law? Assuming that they are good at obtaining what is legally attainable for them, it would mean that someone who holds back what is legally obtainable would be sought after by the IRS to obtain what is legally theirs. Has there been any information on Mitt Romney actually having been prosecuted by the IRS or Department of Justice for withholding the legally attainable private income of Mitt Romney? All signs point no. But we the public should think that he is hiding that really great couch from us; he is not sharing that really great couch, that is his private property, with us. He chooses not share his private stuff with us, so he must be choosing to do illegal things with his private property.

Romney did, on the other hand, at least release some of his private information. It is strange that he would release some of his private information since it is not necessary in order to hold the office that Romney seeks. He, or any Presidential candidate, must be natural born Citizen,  35 years of age or older, been fourteen year resident within the United States, and receive the majority of electoral votes. So the private information does not affect being a natural born citizen, over 35 years of age, and been a 14 year resident of the United States. He passed those three tests to hold federal office. The only one he is missing is the majority of votes from the electoral college voters. All the electoral college voters have to do is look at a ballot and pick which of the people listed is who they will vote for.

Is it expected that releasing this private information to obtains votes like buying a vote? Is it expected that releasing this private property to obtain votes be similar to buying votes? Without this private property being giving to the electoral college voters, Romney will fail the necessary test of being President. He can only obtain the office if he passes the necessary requirements, and failing one, like getting the majority of electoral college votes, means he is prevented from being Executive of the United States of America. Does Romney have to meet with a majority of the individual electoral college voters, and show them his private information or give up his private property, in order for them to vote for him?

But he did give up this private property to the electoral college voters. Of that, it was found that he placed some of his private property in banks. We also like to place some of our private property into banks. Nothing really strange about this. What is different is that Romney is able to put some of his private property into banks that do not have their headquarters in the United States of America. But there is nothing illegal of where you choose to place it. If this were the case, then that would mean it would even be illegal for you to choose to place it in banks that are headquartered in the United States. Instead, we are free to choose where put our private property. And those banks that Romney chose to put his private property were within federal law of where you can place your private property. This is like other people who place their banks that are headquartered in the United States and also allowable under federal law. The difference is that only those people who can afford to put their private property in this banks are allowed to do so. Romney is one of them, but some other people cannot afford to put their private property where they choose and allowable by federal law. Has anyone heard from the IRS on this issue?

What is the real problem, since he is not breaking any federal law and there is no requirement in holding office of Executive of the United States? It is that he is a rich American trying to become Executive of the United States. He is being discriminated against because of his economic class, or being given a reason to not vote for him. His economic class is trying to be used to get people to not vote for Romney, to not hire Romney. Economic class, in this situation, would be the strict factor in not hiring someone. They are in the class of rich instead of the class of not rich. They are being discriminated against based on class, like some in previous American history were discriminated from being hired in jobs because of their race, or because of their sex, or sexual orientation, or because of physical/mental deficiencies. If those groups of people, who were not hired for the job, could have changed what they were discriminated against for, then they would have been hired.

This is part of the subtle narrative of “Class Warfare”. Trying to turn one class against another, have non-rich American citizens to discriminate against rich American citizens like male American citizens discriminated against female American citizens. One class against another, division instead of equality and unity. Moving back instead of moving forward. Moving back to inequality amongst different classes instead of moving forward to equal treatment of different classes. Precedent has been set with previous elections had majority of electoral college voters not voting another candidate because of the class they belonged to, like being black or a woman. Just continuing it with another class of people after those other groups were eliminated form discrimination for holding a federal job. Precedent had been set by previous generations allowing for the discrimination and so others still follow it with another new class.

Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?

In the 2012 Presidential election, there are certain narratives been set up, and certain stories trying to be told. Discussions are being framed in a certain way and responded to in a certain way. For example, the Republican party, and especially Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign is trying to frame the narrative a certain way with the voters. He asks them a simple question, “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago.” Around 4 years ago, President Obama took office. Mitt Romney is basically asking, since President Obama assumed office, has your life been better.

There is a response presented by the Democratic party, and especially Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, to this question. This usually goes along the lines that when President Obama took office that 800,000 jobs were being lost a month, the automobile industry was the brink of market failure, thousands of people were losing their homes, and there were two wars going on. And than they state that after a few months, there have been consistent months of job growth, the auto industry was saved from market failure, and some of the wars have ended. This is basically trying to link that the conditions from which President Obama took on have gotten better since he was elected.

The basic point of the question is this, “Are you better off than you were x years ago”. There might be a better way to frame the question by asking, “Are you better off than you were 6 years ago.” I think most of us would agree that we are not better off than we were 6 years ago. 6 years ago we were gaining jobs each month, the automobile industry was fine, many people were not losing their homes, the banking industry was fine, but we still had two wars going on. The point becomes, the Obama administration has not gotten us back to the conditions before the Housing market collapse. The economy is not better off than it was in those times, and we are not even close to getting the economy or employment back to the same level. In fact, the median wage of the middle class is less than it was 6 years ago.

The whole point of electing President Obama was based on getting back to previous economic conditions, and in that time we have not come close to getting back to the pre-recession times. So when it comes to the question of “Are you better off than you were 6 years ago?”, the obvious answer is “not even close”.