Question for Paul Krugman: Are Things Better Today Than In January 2007?

A recurring theme from liberal media members as we approach the midterm elections is that Americans have to vote for Democrats in November so the nation doesn't go back to the way things were when Republicans ran everything.

A perfect example is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who on Friday penned a piece called "Downhill With the G.O.P.":

Never mind the war on terror, the party's main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.

Banana republic, here we come.

In the midst of all this "Do you really want to go back to those days" talk is a staggering ignorance concerning how "those days" compare to now:

• In January 2007 before the Democrats took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6 percent; now it's 9.6 percent.
• In January 2007 there were 7.1 million unemployed people in America; now there are 14.9 million.
• In January 2007 the median home price was $210,600; today it's $179,300.
• In January 2007 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 12,500; today it's at 10,840.
• In January 2007 the gross federal debt was $9 trillion; today it's $13.5 trillion.
• The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent; now it's 14.3 percent
• In the final budget created by a GOP-controlled Congress, the deficit was $160 billion; now it's $1.6 trillion.

Add it all up and: there were half as many people out of work then; houses were worth 17 percent more; stocks were 16 percent higher; the federal debt was 33 percent lower; poverty was 14 percent lower, and; the deficit was 90 percent lower! 

As such, I ask Mr. Krugman and all liberal media members stumping for Democrats: is America really better off today than it was in January 2007?

If so, how?