6 Signs that Obama Doesn't Understand Economy.

[packerconvert]

On Tuesday night’s broadcast of the CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley opened with sobering words:


“This is the worst economic recovery America has ever had. We’ve been looking for hopeful signs, but today the chairman of the Federal Reserve threw a cold splash of reality on those hopes.”


Now someone needs to give President Obama “a cold splash of reality.” With each passing day, he and his team further reveal their fundamental misunderstanding of the economy.

Obama sees everything backward. Where Americans see individual achievement, he sees government’s work. Where we see failing companies, he sees innovation worth subsidizing. Where we see the need for economic growth, he sees a need for higher taxes. No wonder 64 percent of Americans say we’re headed in the wrong direction.

Here are just six examples of President Obama and his campaign exposing their distorted view on economics and job creation.


1. “You didn’t build that!”

Speaking at a recent fundraiser, President Obama declared, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” By “somebody else,” of course, he meant government. For the president, government is the source of all good. Entrepreneurship is apparently some old economic fiction.

This comment is more than just appalling. It’s insulting to every American small business owner and every entrepreneur who took a risk, started an enterprise, and put people to work.

How can we expect President Obama to encourage much-need entrepreneurship if he doesn’t even respect entrepreneurs? How do you promote individual achievement with a president who doesn’t believe in individualism?

2. 6 months. 106 fundraisers. 10 golf trips. 0 jobs council meetings.

As of Wednesday, six months have passed since the last public meeting of President Obama’s jobs council. When asked about this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney replied, “The president has obviously got a lot on his plate.”

So, President Obama has time for 106 campaign fundraisers in six months, but he does not have time for a single jobs council meeting. He says jobs are his “number one” priority, but he really means Number One’s job is his priority.

3. Calling bankruptcy “successful and innovative”

Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith told the Detroit News this week that Solyndra was a “successful and innovative” company. Yes, Team Obama says the company that went bankrupt and laid off 1,800 workers was “successful.” The company that received over half a billion dollars from taxpayers and will likely never pay us back was “innovative.”

Since taking office, President Obama has delivered neither success nor innovation. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t even know what those words mean.

4. Creating jobs in Finland

Like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive received $500 million in stimulus-backed loans from the Obama administration, promising to create jobs for American workers. Its Delaware plant now sits shuttered. Unlike Solyndra, however, Fisker did not go bankrupt. It’s still making cars—in Finland.

We need jobs in America. Obama’s supporting jobs overseas.

5. Pushing job-killing tax increases

After the latest dismal jobs report, President Obama’s first policy proposal was…higher taxes.

A just-released study from the accounting firm Ernst and Young reports that these tax increases could cost us over 700,000 jobs.

In other words, the monthly jobs report said we desperately need jobs, and Obama decided to destroy 700,000 jobs.

6. “The private sector is doing fine.”

Before “you didn’t build that” came “the private sector is doing fine.” President Obama’s denigration of the private sector and free enterprise is now a chronic condition. Which helps to explain why unemployment has been chronically high—over 8 percent for 41 straight months


townhall.com/columnists/reincepriebus/2012/07/19/six_signs_obama_doesnt_understand_the_economy/page/2

[happypacker]

but is good to drop the tax breaks for 110 million middle class(make them pay 2,200 on ave more next year.) and the only way we can keep them is to give ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN TAX BREAKS TO THE 2% RICHEST? I see where the republicans

[TW]

Since I haven't seen any "new jobs" from the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, over all these years, I'm dumbfounded how the average person - leaning right - can actually believe that ending their tax break will cost us jobs.

They used those tax breaks to build up their overseas holdings in the first place, and it's time for them to pay the piper.

But.... the average American who votes Republican thinks they're one of the "elite" who would be hurt. Rest assured, they don't understand, that they aren't even going to be allowed to polish the shoes of the wealthy at the country club.

[packerconvert]

Again, liberals being unfair.

I agree taxes need to go up, across the board.

But no one wnats to agree that government needs to shrink.

Bush increased spending, increased the operating cost of the governemtn thorught the expansion of "Homeland Security" and cut revenues. Duh!

But Obama and his buddies haven't learned from that; they keep perpetuating bloated government and expect only the rich to pay for it.

If were going to have such a large government, everyone needs to pay their fair share; even the 51 percent of Americans who do not pay income taxes.

[TW]

Shrink government.

Good idea.

Point? Saves money.

Yet, year after year, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle readily admit that the growing population, and growing low income due to fewer jobs, is putting us in a hole.

So, how do you cut government? Let's face it. Right-wingers don't want to "cut government." George Bush proved that. He increased the number of federal employees more, and at a higher rate of speed, than his predecessors.

Some stats you might want to consider. We'll go back as far as Jimmy Carter. The figures are plus and minus numbers in federal employees.

Carter - The number of Federal employees shrunk by 8,000

He wasn't re-elected. A one term President.

Reagan - The number increased by 238,000

Reagan was lauded by the right as a genius, who knew how to use the federal budget to get things done, by creating jobs in government. I'd consider the right wing comments today, "two-faced," don'tcha think? He also served two terms in office, not one, like Carter, who cut federal employment.

George Bush #1 - Shrunk employee rolls by 30,000.
The man promised he'd cut government employment, and did. He was only in for one term if you recall correctly. A victim of federal cuts? Well... let's go on from here.

Bill Clinton cut federal employment by 380,000 during his two terms.

Why did he get away with it? Clinton used attrition rates in most areas. As people retired, they weren't replaced. The slack was picked up by present employees. Between the quits, and retirements, it pretty well covered his plan. He did not put workers on the unemployment lines by his actions. Remember that figure. 380,000. Pretty good if you ask me.

Bush II - Added 53,000 new jobs to the federal government.

Not a figure to be bent out of shape over in my book. That does happen.

So, if you're going to judge Obama, you have to wait until his term is over. At this point, he hasn't shown signs of increasing the number of federal employees.

Cut government? Think about this. We have 35,000 fewer federal employees now than we did back in 1980. During that period of time, the population of the US has increased from 227 million to 330 million in 2010. Yet, we're running the federal government with less people than we did, that long ago.

Cut government? Let's cut to the chase. What you really want is for government services to those less fortunate to be eliminated.

Of course, if you end up as one of those who need the help, you'd be right there, asking for it.

Cut government? Explain please! It's a wide brush, and not a clue of common sense going with it.

[packerconvert]

With welfare participation going from 6 percent to 52 percent, America needs to tax commensurately or cut respectively.

Most serious minded folks would not agree that Reagan wasn't, by any means, a Conservative. There also hasn't been any conservatives in the WH going forward. Clinton, out of them all, may have been the most conservative.

Compare 35 years ago to now, seriously, havn'et you heard we are in the technological age and we can do more with less? File keeping can be done by one little computer than a whole room of file keepers etc. ; Talk about a red herring.

With that said, in the same 35 year time span, you cannot disagree that Americas output has declined and more people are on the public dole.

When I say cut government, I am saying, "REVERSE THE TREND THAT SAW 6% WELFARE PARTICIPATION SHOOT UP TO 52 PERCENT PARTICIPATION."

Which means what? Increase income taxes to the Clinton era, increase capital gain from the meager 15% (truly unfair) and rebuild our manufacturing base.

At the same time, get rid of Homeland Security and streamline the processes; intelligence is duplicative and taxpayers are paying for that while enjoying having their civil libertites eroded via wire taps and flying drones.

Bring back the work houses; You need public assistance, you don't sit on your ass and collect it, you go work for it. Mow the park, paint the curbs, pick up trash, refurbish public play grounds etc.

[Deleted]

I was in a store yesterday and two families in front if me had carts heaping with food. Steaks, chix, pork chops and I could go on and on. It had to be a fortune. Of course to pay for it all, out came the food stamps. Afterwards, the one lady paid cash for a carton of cigarettes. I'm tired of paying for people like that to play the system. I agree with PC on this one. We need to get things under control in this country and it just keeps getting worse.

[TW]

I can't disagree. I think the welfare rolls are bloated with people that just plain don't want to work, and won't work. They rely on "the dole," as they say in the UK, to live, and some do that very well, because they know how to play the system.

But, to get rid of the people who are abusing the system, you need government employees working in areas that can detect, and correct, the problems associated with the programs.

Well, that's difficult, because when we keep "cutting" in these programs, we are cutting jobs, not people out of the system, who don't belong.

In the process, we create another family in need of welfare assistance. That's right, the family of the person who worked for welfare, and no longer has a job.

I agree that it could be over half of the population who gets help. But why? Is it because that percentage don't want to work? I don't think so. I think it's because we've seen our government allow this country to be turned into a low income nation, where two people in the family working, still needs help. I think that, plus unemployment that's horrible for those who want to work, and you have a pretty good answer to what's happened.

Just recently, there was a facility opened in our area that needed roughly 50 people to fill jobs that paid $10 an hour, and would give minimal benefits. They had over 25,000 applicants. That tells me there's not enough jobs, not enough people willing to work.

Then there's a fact that they've seen four vets from the Iraqi war who have returned to civilian life, and have been actively seeking employment for over three years, and nobody has hired them.

We could go on and on about this, and voice our individual opinions about specific incidents we see that bothers us - rest assured there are many that bother my wife and I - but they aren't the rule, they're the exception to the rule.

I go back to setting the record straight. We're not talking about cutting government. We're talking about cutting programs that help people. To do that we need a better system that ferrets out those who abuse it, not get rid of the people running the system. Of course, if the people running the system aren't capable of doing the job, they need to be replaced.

But let's quit beating around the bush. We're talking about cutting off programs for kids, and in all honesty, maybe we should talk about cutting out federal aid to schools, where they don't teach a nationally recognized curriculum, like the state of Texas.

[TW]

PC -

Yes, technology has reduced job levels. Strangely enough, many of the biggest techno advances replacing people came during the Reagan era, yet your statement of that reducing jobs doesn't wash, does it?

I'd concede they could cut up to 20% of the jobs over a given period due to technology, but that doesn't mean you can cut them across the board, just on the basis of automated jobs in relation to the actual jobs. The population went up a larger percentage. Sorry!

[packerconvert]

I was thinking 35,000 less jobs from 1980 to 2012 was a very small number given hardware and software advances.

[TW]

Over the same period of time as there were these reductions, we've seen the flow of work increase within the government, nearly double. This includes the added burden of Homeland Security, and airport security.

In all honesty, I don't see a problem with the number of employees at all.

Let's put it this way. If you install washing machines that wash sheets 20% faster in your location, do you figure you can cut the number of people in housekeeping by 20%?

Hardly. The reason is simple. What you see as something faster, more streamlined, is only a small part of the equation of the total job.

[packerconvert]

How do you streamline the jobs of women who all they did was encode punch cards all day for Uncle Sam?

Given the way Government does things, I would disagree with your assessment.

They have people who only run the washers and dryers and to fold them.

Then the Mexican and Phillipino gals come in and load their carts with clean linens and off they go to clean government offices etc.

If washer machines with that much improvement in capacity and quantify, then yes, you would cut the crew by 20 percent. Unfortuanately, the government woudl not fire them because of Union rules and they would be assigned to hold the floors down with their body weight.

They don't mult-task in the Government. One person, one job.

Attachments:

[TW]

You would only be able to cut the size of the crews washing the linens, not the size of the entire staff. That's what you're missing.

If I have 5 people washing and drying, and 20 people who are handling the linen changes at given locations, that doesn't mean you can cut 5 total jobs from the 25 person crew, because the washers are faster.

Of course, you still failed to recognize the scope of the job. Your assumption is still saying that the biggest job is loading and unloading the washing machines.

You've failed to identify the time element involved in the operation. They still need to dry the linen, and fold it properly, so housekeeping can take it away for use.

The washing machine loading and unloading, and speed of the washers hasn't reduced the work load one iota. It just made the job go quicker, and may have done nothing more than eliminate overtime.

But, you "assume" you've found the golden ring of cost reduction.

You haven't come close to determining if you can reduce staff. You've just decided that's where you're going, and obviously don't understand what was actually gained.

[happypacker]

when the P.C entered the work force, 90% of those who lost there job because of the Computor got rehired at fixing the machines, and in sales.or maintaining them.

[packerconvert]

Jul 29, 2012 9:34:21 GMT -5 happypacker said:

when the P.C entered the work force, 90% of those who lost there job because of the Computor got rehired at fixing the machines, and in sales.or maintaining them.

So you are saying that America has one IT Tech per everyone computer in America?