Obama Offers More Government Spending As Jobs Solution

Yesterday, Jay Carney, the White House’s press secretary irritatedly proclaimed that the President was digging in his heels on his decision not to extend Bush tax cuts for those he considers to be rich. When reporters pressed further, Carney got huffy to say the least, as though he was tired of answering that line of questioning. This was Obama’s response to a continually fledgling economy, but there is more.

Incredibly, today the White House announced that it will be seeking to hire half a million federal government jobs back in order to make a dent in the failing unemployment figures. In what is assuredly a political move, the President, against all rational thinking, would rather hire on 500,000 employees that will be paid for by taxes at a time when the government has already strapped on 5 trillion in deficit spending in little more than 3 years with no relief in sight. Why, to temporarily make the unemployment statistics improve in time for the presidential election. At what cost to American society? I ask.

Chris Matthews blames American employers for withholding trillions of dollars to reinvest into the American economy so that they can make President Obama look bad. Consider the logic of such rationale by Matthews, as leftist as any reporter can get. With the current corporate tax level at 35% the highest in the world, why would American companies want to bring their capital into the United States just to get taxed more severely than in any other jurisdiction on earth? Their stockholders would be outraged! That American corporations don’t want to subject their assets to higher taxes is one thing, but the fact that Obama’s lack of economic expertise and unwillingness to compromise, indicates the lack of faith American companies have in the future of the US economy under Obama’s flawed stewardship. That absence of confidence speaks volumes for how our current economic recession can be attributed to the failure of federal government policies.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama...-jobs-solution

Anyone now doubt Obama is a statist? More government jobs.................. Unbelievable...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1584628.html


Scott Walker Disagrees With Mitt Romney On First Responders As 'Big Government'
Posted: 06/10/2012 12:24 pm Updated: 06/10/2012 2:33 pm


WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said on Sunday that he disagreed with Mitt Romney's recent statement that the governor's win in last week's recall election showed that voters oppose hiring more teachers, firefighters and police officers.

"I think, in the end, the big issue is that the private sector still needs more help," he told Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation." "The answer's not more big government. I know in my state, our reforms allowed us to protect firefighters, police officers and teachers. That's not what I think of when I think of big government."

Romney said on Friday that President Barack Obama missed the message from Wisconsin's recall election, which was held after outrage from some voters over Walker's law limiting collective bargaining rights of public sector workers.

"He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers," Romney said. "Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

A typically statist reply LOL.

First things first. A strong private sector creates the revenue for ALL government jobs. For example, the oil and gas industry is hiring and paying very well. And do you see how much tax revenue Exxon Mobil generates? Just take a look at their income statement.

It's not hard to understand. Really.

MON JUN 11, 2012 AT 05:00 PM PDT
Trivia question: Which 21st century U.S. president nearly choked the life out of the private sector?
byJed Lewison
Fun fact: On average, more private sector jobs have been created each month under Obama than in eight full years of Bush.
— @jedlewison via Twitter for Mac
You probably already know that George W. Bush had a net negative private sector jobs creation record, losing 646,000 jobs.
And you also probably know President Obama has a net positive private sector jobs creation record, with private sector payrolls up by 55,000.

And you might even know that because of a quirk on the way jobs are reported, roughly a quarter-million jobs that were lost between Jan. 12 and Jan. 21 are generally said to have occurred during the Obama administration, not the Bush one—even though they didn't. Because of that, the real numbers are probably more like 900,000 private sector jobs lost during the Bush presidency and 300,000 jobs created so far under Obama.

But even those numbers don't tell the whole story because when President Obama took office, the economy was in collapse—and over the past 27 months, the private sector has gained 4.3 million jobs. That's not perfect, but it's a lot better than things were under Bush, and it's a lot better than things are now in the public sector—and that's the point President Obama was making on Friday.

No matter how you slice it, however, Obama's private sector jobs record is much better than Bush's. There's simply no question about it—and it really shouldn't be a tough trivia question.

But here's a question that is hard to answer: Given Bush's abysmal economic record, why is Mitt Romney proposing to double down on Bush's economic policies?

(Note: The data source for the numbers cited in this post is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Raw data here.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

MON JUN 11, 2012 AT 05:00 PM PDT
Trivia question: Which 21st century U.S. president nearly choked the life out of the private sector?
byJed Lewison
Fun fact: On average, more private sector jobs have been created each month under Obama than in eight full years of Bush.
— @jedlewison via Twitter for Mac
You probably already know that George W. Bush had a net negative private sector jobs creation record, losing 646,000 jobs.
And you also probably know President Obama has a net positive private sector jobs creation record, with private sector payrolls up by 55,000.

And you might even know that because of a quirk on the way jobs are reported, roughly a quarter-million jobs that were lost between Jan. 12 and Jan. 21 are generally said to have occurred during the Obama administration, not the Bush one—even though they didn't. Because of that, the real numbers are probably more like 900,000 private sector jobs lost during the Bush presidency and 300,000 jobs created so far under Obama.

But even those numbers don't tell the whole story because when President Obama took office, the economy was in collapse—and over the past 27 months, the private sector has gained 4.3 million jobs. That's not perfect, but it's a lot better than things were under Bush, and it's a lot better than things are now in the public sector—and that's the point President Obama was making on Friday.

No matter how you slice it, however, Obama's private sector jobs record is much better than Bush's. There's simply no question about it—and it really shouldn't be a tough trivia question.

But here's a question that is hard to answer: Given Bush's abysmal economic record, why is Mitt Romney proposing to double down on Bush's economic policies?

(Note: The data source for the numbers cited in this post is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Raw data here.)

---

I guess that's one benefit of inheriting a bad economy as you have cited so many times. LMAO.

And what does it have to do with the here and now? NOTHING. It's a diversion.

Stick to the democratic talking points - society needs more teachers, fire fighters, police.......

The democrats plan...

Pay a public sector worker $1.00, and have him return $0.15 in taxes to fund his job. Yes people, this is the case.

Now some will argue that the other $0.85 would be spent to stimulate the economy, but one also could argue that it would go to 1.) paying the damn bills, and 2.) deleveraging and savings (which is what millions of Americans are currently doing).

A recession is a correction.