Tag Archive: jobs

President Obama needs to stop making excuses and shifting blame for this anemic, if at all present, “recovery.”

The July jobs report was grim on almost all fronts. Although more jobs were added this month, Americans are entering the workforce and are unable to find jobs. As a result of this continued anemia on the part of the US economy, the unemployment rate increased from 8.2% to 8.3%. Or, as President Obama’s campaign was quick to clarify, the jobless rate is now 8.254%.

This was just one example of the kind of petty games to which the president and his staff had to resort to in order to explain away this latest indicator of the president’s complete failure on the economy. In his speech, the president ignored the increase in the unemployment rate and simply said that we have “more work to do” before the economy recovers.

Quite frankly, I was insulted. Referring to the Obama campaign clarifying that unemployment was now at 8.254% instead of 8.3%, a Republican spokesman voiced my complaints quite well: “23 million people struggling for work isn’t a rounding error. And the White House’s attempts to argue [this] show just how out of touch they are.” There are Americans suffering out there day in and day out because of the job-killing policies of our president, yet Mr. Obama cannot spare more than ten seconds out of his speech to address the grim reality of the American job market. Instead, he attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of heedless American voters and paint a completely different vision of America, a nation not in recession and not suffering economically under the brunt of overregulation and poor policy. Rather than trivializing the rounding of an already generous unemployment number (which only counts unemployment among those actually in the job market, not overall unemployment), President Obama should be honest with the American people about the dire situation that we are in and take his share of responsibility for it. He promised to own the economy not so long ago, and I would admire the president far more if he would act like an adult and take responsibility for his failed policy.

Speaking of failed policy, the president also reiterated his push for higher taxes on Americans making $250,000 or more per year. I can distinctly recall the president saying that it was not a good idea to raise taxes during an economic downturn…hmm… Anyway, I was very disappointed to see him continuing this unholy buffeting of the issue of tax rates. I was also not happy to hear him telling a crowd during a campaign speech that Romney’s tax cuts would mean that middle-class families would have to pay more in taxes, which – if you didn’t know – is an outright lie, if not an outrageous and uneducated assumption. But since when have I been happy with this president? *sigh* I guess we’ll have to wait until November…

Are you better off?

Romney will need to remind Americans of the problems that President Obama has created and/or has failed to solve. Pictured: Romney speaking to a crowd.

In recent weeks, Mitt Romney has emerged as the Republican candidate to take on President Obama in November. Tonight, Romney will be giving a speech to debut his official general election message, and based on some early excerpts of the speech released by the Romney campaign, it seems that Romney is framing the next election perfectly.

Mitt Romney has been running with several general themes throughout the primary season. He has talked about the need to roll back regulation, simplify the American tax code, and to grow the American economy. However, Romney spent little time on semantics and delivery of his message during the primary season, and thus, the kind of striking slogans and mottoes that characterized Barack Obama’s successful run back in 2008 have largely eluded Mr. Romney…until now. Romney plans to focus voters’ attention upon one crucial question: are you better off than you were four years ago?

The wave of enthusiasm that propelled President Obama into the White House has since vanished, and Obama is floundering in his attempts to convince voters that he has bettered their lives. Unemployment has refused to duck below pre-recession levels, even with massive numbers of Americans leaving the labor force and artificially lowering the unemployment rate. Companies are moving jobs overseas as fast as they can, domestic energy costs have skyrocketed, and the national debt has ballooned to near-catastrophic levels. Amid all these problems, Obama is still claiming success with every piece of good economic news, and of course, taking no credit for economic failures.

Romney posing this profound question to voters is an extremely intelligent move on his part. When voters go to the polls this coming November, they will not listen to either Mitt Romney or his opponent to determine whether or not President Obama deserves another four years in office. Instead, a voter will look back and think about how the incumbent has improved or decreased his quality of life. And based on our current economic situation, with new doomsday news emerging everyday, it seems fairly obvious to me that the vast majority of voters will find President Obama’s work over the past few years to be utterly unsatisfactory.

To get an idea of how damaging Mr. Romney’s speech tonight will be for the Obama campaign, only take a look at the media coverage it is (or rather, isn’t) receiving. NBC News and CBS are refusing to interrupt their normal broadcasting to cover Mr. Romney’s speech, and according to BuzzFeed, ABC News has not yet commented but – in my view – is unlikely to cover Mr. Romney either. Try to catch Romney’s speech on Fox News or CNN tonight, and comment on this article or on our Facebook page to tell me what you think about it! Is it effective?

President Obama says that without his leadership, the economy and the state of our country could be worse. However, it is an argument that won't fly.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was more of a preview of his new campaign strategy than an actual review of our current situation as a nation. Our growing deficit and our debt crisis, the two elephants in the room, were barely mentioned by President Obama, who preferred to spend his time bemoaning the success of wealthy Americans and pitting rich against poor. Fortunately, if these items are any indication of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Republicans should defeat him easily.

President Obama’s new strategy seems to depend on two central tactics: the first being to wage war against the rich in America and the second being to marginalize the problems that his administration has perpetrated. Pitting the rich against the poor and demonizing the successful in America will allow President Obama to essentially shift the blame for our current economic crisis onto the wealthiest Americans, who represent a minority in the United States. Castigating the rich can indeed win some voters, as some Americans are jealous of the wealth and prosperity of others. Fortunately, however, scapegoating the successful is not an effective strategy in the long term because it invites criticism from those on the right. Republican leaders have already decried President Obama numerous times for his divisiveness and for his pursuit of class warfare.

The more dangerous campaign strategy of the president is one that diminishes the real magnitude of the problems to which he has greatly contributed. Our national debt has increased by several trillion dollars since President Obama’s election back in 2009, and things are getting worse by the day. The United States debt currently sits at an alarmingly high $15.2 trillion, and Obama’s attempts to control spending have been quite literally non-existent. In fact, Mr. Obama has been more dedicated to increasing spending over his first term than he has been dedicated to decreasing it, as evidenced by Obamacare and the infamously wasteful stimulus programs that he championed. The economy continues to be driven into a ditch as disappointed, dispirited Americans continue to leave the workforce in droves and artificially suppress the unemployment rate, and the wanton waste of taxpayer dollars on government-funded messes like Solyndra shows an utter lack of stewardship of the hard-earned money of Americans by the Obama administration. All of these issues present major shortfalls for Obama’s reelection campaign, so the president’s new strategy is to simply minimize these topics. For example, the president has been attempting to diminish his failure at managing the American economy by saying that things could have been worse. However, be assured that whomever the Republican Party nominates to face the president this year will definitely focus on these topics and will make the president account for his failures. It is up to voters to listen to the truth and to realize that President Obama’s shortcomings far outweigh any of his supposed virtues.

Obama and the fairness doctrine

President Obama believes in an economy of equal results. I believe in an economy of equal opportunity. Pictured: President Obama's January 2011 State of the Union address.

“We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.” -President Obama in a video to supporters

As the election nears, President Obama has been greatly increasing the volume of his populist appeals. His calls for tax hikes on the top 1% of Americans and for economic “fairness” have become commonplace in his public appearances. However, while President Obama believes that his policies are the solution to income inequality and our current economic crisis, I believe that these same policies will cripple the foundations of our country’s values and principles and will only perpetuate the very problems that these policies attempt to solve.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the United States of America declared that every person shall be entitled to the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote this line, they did so to emphasize that the members of a free society do not by any means achieve outright happiness from their government. It is the personal pursuit of that happiness that is most important in a free society, and this is where President Obama and I differ. President Obama wishes to extend the size of government to provide for the happiness and security of American citizens. Obamacare, the stimulus programs, and the takeover of General Motors all are clear examples of President Obama’s government-cures-all philosophy. Meanwhile, contrary to the president, I believe that market-based reforms are needed to truly conform with the basic values of our country’s founding. The utilization of private health insurance programs in Chile has led to the commercialization of hospitals and health care, which has in turn lowered costs and raised care quality for consumers. Contrary to the government handouts that have characterized President Obama’s presidency (read Solyndra), across-the-board tax cuts offer significant financial relief to all businesses and job-creating innovators, not just big businesses with billion-dollar lobbying forces or political campaign donors.

The past few years have shown that Barack Obama’s economic philosophy has failed miserably. Under President Obama’s policies, record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps and other forms of government welfare, and more Americans are unemployed than under the Bush administration. Still more Americans have given up looking for work all together and have resigned themselves to a life of dependence on government. Obviously and unfortunately, the equal result promised by President Obama’s philosophy has worked, but it has made life worse for Americans across the board. This November, Americans will decide between this failed policy and the tried and tested solutions offered by the philosophy of equal opportunity. Let’s hope that we make the right decision.

Ronald Reagan put it nicely.

<object width=”420″ height=”315″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixNPplo-SU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

If unemployment begins to rise again, President Obama's already lacking economic platform will disappear completely. Pictured: An unemployment line.

President Obama has long held that the gradual decrease in unemployment is the direct result of his stimulus spending programs and other big government economic policies. However, in a speech two days ago in Indiana, Charles Evans – the president of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank – expressed his concern that this decrease in unemployment is only “transitory.” Moreover, Evans warned of the possibility of an increase in unemployment by the end of the year. If Mr. Evans is correct, could President Obama’s reelection bid this year be doomed?

Firstly, President Obama’s reelection chances depend heavily upon the economy. In a CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 4-8, 55% of respondents said that the biggest problem facing the United States today is the economy and job creation. Discounting those who answered “other” (22%), the nearest runner-up answer of any remote specificity was “politicians and government,” polling at a minuscule 5%. Economic concerns have also been reflected in President Obama’s approval rating. According to Gallup polling data, President Obama’s approval numbers have improved by six percentage points from September 2011 to January 2012. Interestingly, this improvement corresponds with a .6% decrease in measured unemployment. Thus, if unemployment continues to trend downward, President Obama will be viewed more favorably by voters this November.

On the other hand, however, an increase in unemployment would severely cripple President Obama’s reelection bid. His economic argument centers on two main points: the first being that his policies have reduced the duration of the recession, and the second being that increased regulation protects consumers and encourages job growth. An increase in unemployment would greatly reduce the effectiveness of these arguments because such an increase would indicate both the continuation of the recession and the negative impact of Obama’s regulations on the economy. Thus, President Obama would have an abysmal record of job creation in an election season where the economy is the most important issue. Doomed? I’d certainly say so.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 111 other followers