Is "are YOU better off" missing the point?

United States
September 17, 2012 3:54pm CST
The campaign for President is said to hinge on the personal question to each voter "are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?" But is that a near-sghted, selfish question that misses dozens of other main points? Like: Who is best to deal with a crisis? Who's budget proorities are closest to yours? What social issues are important to you? So what do you think - - isn't the better off question just plain wrong?
1 person likes this
7 responses
@lelin1123 (15644)
• Puerto Rico
17 Sep 12
No not at all but there should be more questions to it beside that one. Like you asked who is better to deal with in a Crisis? That would be President Obama. Who's budget are closest to yours? President Obama's budget is. Social issues such as women rights and gay rights. If you are a women and you don't want your rights to go back 50's years you will vote for President Obama. If you are gay and want to have the same rights as everyone else does you will vote for President Obama. As for are you better off now, yes I'm better off or I should say the country is better off on a whole then it was four years ago. Every person voting needs to ask themselves the questions that we stated and add their own. If you have common sense you will choose President Obama. If you don't have common sense then I guess we know who you are voting for.
2 people like this
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
18 Sep 12
In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. It depends. If the government really had not done anything at all, then I would say the question is irrelevant. For example, 1999, 2000, were horrible years for me. However, Bill Clinton didn't have anything. Clinton really didn't pass any economic policies at all, for good or bad. I realized that the primary reason I had horrible years, was because of choices that I had made. So the question 'are you better off', was irrelevant to me for that voting year. Alternatively, last year was a horrible year for me as well, and this year isn't going to be all that great. But there's a difference between Clinton and Obama. Obama has spent $6 Trillion dollars, passed sweeping reforms in the economy, and the claimed reason for this was to improve the economy.... well? Where's the improvement? See intelligent logical people can figure out that WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REPAY THAT MONEY!!! Taxes are going to have to double! So with all that suffering we are going to have to do, I would want to see that this huge debt we created, had some benefit. Did it have a benefit? The answer is "NO!". Am I better off after Obama spent $6 Trillion I will have to repay in taxes? No I am not. We need this guy kicked out of office as quick as possible.
@blue65packer (11835)
• United States
18 Sep 12
To me it is President Obama. He is trying to make things work but some of his problems deal with fighting with congress and the senate. An issue that plaques most presidents! Taxes are a big issue to me.The possibility we will have to go to Iran and try to fix things there! Social security is another issue! The way that looks that will not be taken care of by any president in office until it runs out! Same are gas prices. I think with gas prices I don't think he can realy do anything about it. He has tried and I think we will always have high gasoline prices from now on. Am I better off then in the last 4 years? I would say the same. With the US,yes. we are somewhat better off then 4 years ago and will be even more in four more years of Obama!
@Rollo1 (16685)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Sep 12
The correct question: "Is the country better off?" and the answer is a resounding "No". No, the country is in deep trouble. Who is best to deal with a crisis? Like when there's a threat of an attack on our diplomats in another country and they warn us about it, is the best guy for the job the one who goes off to party with Beyonce? That kind of crisis? The kind where the best guy for the job pretends he didn't know anything about it but apologizes to the people who murdered our ambassador? Budget priorities? First there has to be a budget. A budget is supposed to show you how much money you have to spend and how to manage to pay all the bills with that amount of money. A budget is not an unlimited credit line that you keep running up as you find new priorities and new programs and new entitlements to give out like candy to buy votes from the truly selfish. Ask yourself this question - If you vote for the guy who promises to take more of someone else's money and funnel it to you instead, isn't that selfish?
@stealthy (8188)
• United States
17 Sep 12
Even if you think that is the correct question to ask, there is no way to tell if you really are because the massive spending and increase in the national debt haven't had full effect yet. Four more years of Obama will make both of these much worse. But probably a much more important question is "are you as free as you were four years ago" and the answer to that is definitely not. Of course this could fall under "are YOU better off" but most people tend to think in terms of economically when asked that rather than about freedoms or the future of the country and the people.
@crossbones27 (21215)
• Redlands, California
17 Sep 12
I think you have a good pint. Lets face it we are a selfish society. Then again people have to be able to help themselves before they can help anyone else. I think as far as the "better off question," its a bit loaded. Many people may not personally be better off than they were 4 years ago but I think the country as a whole is better off because it is way more stable. So what people really need to be asking is not if you are better off now, but who do you think will give you the most options to be better off 4 years from now? The candidate that's not going to get us in unnecessary wars. Which candidate can add, subtract, multiply, and divide the best. The candidate that is not going to create more problems by trying to fix things that do not need to be fixed. "If it is not broken, why fix it?" Right now we have more than enough problems that need to be addressed than made up issues. That's not to say we can't use preventive maintenance if it looks like it could be a problem down the road. You are right to ask "who is best to deal with a crisis." People need to look at which candidate is just pounding their chest and which candidate is just trying to get a solution to the problem or problems. I am so tired of all these politicians who try to make everything a p!issing contest with our enemies. If they have not learned by now, that does not work to well. Its a lot better for our troops and us financially if we use logic in these situations than Brut force. Its 2012 going on 2013, shouldn't we be farther a long than this caveman mentality that we always seem to end up using. In the end its all how you look at things. If you just look at the negatives then you are probably going to be miserable. If you just look at the positive then you are probably going to be unrealistic about what we really face. If you look at the positives and try to understand and attempt to fix the negatives, then you will probably be content with the direction your life is going.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
17 Sep 12
I think it's funny how one thing that is not that important to people, including you from your post, is "Who will follow the constitution?" On topic though, it is valid to look at as ONE element of whether the president is someone you want to reelect. I don't think it's the most important element though as far too many people keep blaming the president, and Bush, for their own crappy lives. Bush didn't fire anyone, neither did Obama. Okay, he fired the CEO of GM, so I'll give him a pass, but that's about it. People really need to start taking responsibility for their own lives. The president's job is to deal with the country, not each individual. A far more valid question would be "Is THE COUNTRY better off than it was 4 years ago?"