Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

This morning during the radio show, Glenn played this new at from the GOP:

Like the ad shows, President Obama is touting the same promises as he runs for a second term that he did in 2008. If he had kept the promises he made in 2008 and things in America are improving after four years of an Obama presidency, shouldn't Americans be hearing a different message from the president?

The raises the question that has been making the rounds since Mitt Romney's speech at the RNC last week where he raised the question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Maybe you are - but probably not - and America as a whole certainly isn't.

It's not hard to figure out the answer to that question - as Paul Ryan would say, "it's math."

Math, not shockingly, is apparently not be one of our Vice President's strong points as you'll find out in the clip below where Joe Biden tell's a crowd that America is better off today than it was four years ago - but fails to explain why.

Here's Joe Biden:

"You, organized labor, are one of the reasons why this country is coming back.  Folks, let me make something clear and say to the press:  America is better off today than they left us when they left."

Now you're probably thinking, 'why?' or 'How does he know that?'

Don't worry, like Biden said, he wants to make it very clear. After all, the press is there to tell the entire country and spread the word.

"And if it weren't so hot, if it weren't so hot, I'd go into detail why I say that…"


"You can't get into details like that when you're hot," Pat joked.

Joe Biden's not alone his is "opinion" about the country. The talking points must have made the rounds, because David Axelrod was saying the same thing …well, sort of.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked David Axelrod this question: "David, can you honestly say that the average American is better off today than they were four years ago?"

His response? Well, Axelrod didn't try to lie. Then again, he didn't answer the question either.

"Here's what I can say, Chris. I can say that we're in a better position than we were four years ago…"



A better position?

"So it's about to…we're getting ready to pounce!?" Glenn joked.

Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter for Obama's re-election campaign who charged right through the very same question by pointing her finger at the Democrat's favorite target, President George W. Bush, on CBS over the weekend.

"Are we better off today than we were four years ago when President Obama was elected?" Today show host Natalie Morales asked Cutter.

“Absolutely,” she answered. “Just let me walk you through what life was like four years ago.”


Pat couldn't take it though, "I can't be walked through," he said before moving on to Debbie Wasserman Shultz's response when she was asked the question by Megyn Kelly.

"Well, when President Obama took office, the economy was about to go over a cliff.  We were hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month.  We had lost in the last six months of the Bush presidency 3 1/2 million jobs and now we created 4 1/2 million jobs, since Barack Obama took office, in the private sector, had 29 straight months of job growth in the private sector, a resurgence in manufacturing, and companies bringing jobs back to America thanks to President Obama's tax policies.  So yes, we are better off.  We have a ways to go."


Yes, Debbie Wasserman Shultz did cite the president's tax policies as a reason Americans are better off now than they were four years ago. Tax policies like the highest corporate tax rate IN THE WORLD, Glenn pointed out.

"That doesn't make any sense at all," Glenn said.

Of course, none of these Democrats would have been so abruptly confronted with this question if Governor O'Malley had remembered it is not okay to stray from the approved talking points on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday morning, where he answered the question, "No, but that's not the question of this election."

Of course, he wouldn't be a proud supporter of the president if he didn't completely contradict himself by walking back the statement the very next day on CNN, where he said the country as a whole was "clearly better off as a country because we're now creating jobs rather than losing them."

"Wow," Pat responded.

"So he's now clearer that we are much better off," Glenn said, "and that is the question of our day.  The only problem is if you listen to Wasserman Schultz, if you listen to Stephanie Cutter, if you listen to David Axelrod or Governor O'Malley and they are all saying that we're absolutely better - the one that hasn't had the little stop by visit…is the president," Glenn said.

And this is what the president has been saying out on the campaign trail:

"Well, I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago."

"He's actually insulted by the question.  "I don't think we're better off than we were four years ago, obviously, you moron.  I'm just saying it's not that bad."  He actually seems insulted by the question," Stu said.

Well, the DNC starts tonight, so the Democrats better get on the same page shortly. Whatever page it is, it's not likely that it will be one chalked full of Obama's economic victories from the last four years.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:

Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.