Does President Obama Care About High Unemployment?

[furrell]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

You're still playing the black card argument?

 

[lazyj10]

How can a nation that doesn't produce tangible goods and has steadily become a "service provider" nation have low unemployment when there's over a decade (in terms of working age) who aren't qualified to work that class of jobs?

How can you have low unemployment when people give up searching to jobs after 5-months?

How can you have low unemployment when the gap between survival wages and minimum wages are growing further apart?

Obviously I'm speaking in generalities, but the point I'm making is maybe it's not an issue of "caring" about level of unemployment but maybe more so being realistic and knowing with what our country does (service) it's not realistic.

This knowledge will not prevent one from campaigning on "the need to bring jobs back to America!!" though.

 

[lazyj10]

How can a nation that doesn't produce tangible goods and has steadily become a "service provider" nation have low unemployment when there's over a decade (in terms of working age) who aren't qualified to work that class of jobs?

How can you have low unemployment when people give up searching to jobs after 5-months?

How can you have low unemployment when the gap between survival wages and minimum wages are growing further apart?

Obviously I'm speaking in generalities, but the point I'm making is maybe it's not an issue of "caring" about level of unemployment but maybe more so being realistic and knowing with what our country does (service) it's not realistic.

This knowledge will not prevent one from campaigning on "the need to bring jobs back to America!!" though.

 

[rashi]

Why does he have to care? Why does any politician have to care about unemployment? These politicians are oblivious of business cycles, never had a real job, and never had to make payroll.

 

[rashi]

Why does he have to care? Why does any politician have to care about unemployment? These politicians are oblivious of business cycles, never had a real job, and never had to make payroll.

 

[proper english]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

um, ok. 

 

[proper english]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

um, ok. 

 

[rexanglorum]

moneymike88 wrote:

---

I'm gonna read that whole thing and edit this with a response

edit - my take partial take on that is that Obama loves trust fund babies and hates entrepreneurs...can you back that up with some sourced quotes or vids?




I am sorry for not having links or videos. I am going to defer mostly to history and how it is very relavent to our present day political economy.

I believe that Baracak Obama has a pre Modern, pre Capitalist mentality toward who should make money and who should be taxed heavily because they have made "too much money."

While he (and other Democrats) demonizes the "rich" as a monolithic, Bentley driving cohort of trust fund babie and billionaires, he is overlooking the vast gulf that exists betwee those really have hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to themselves or to their family's name. In his speeches he has mentioned he, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckermen do not "need" a tax cut. It should be noted that retaining current rates for taxes is not the same as giving a tax cuts and it should also be noted that reduce in tax rates does not amount to the anyone being given anyone, it simply means that you can keep more of what you earm, government's share of your income is smaller. If President Obama confined his diffinition of "rich" to some like Zuckerburg or Bugget or Bill Gates or the hundreds of trust fund babies with whoeme he attended Harvard law or the sons of the Capitains of Industry whom he taught law to at the University of Chicago, there would be a much better case ofr tax cuts on the Rich. With a country deeply in debt, you tax the vast amount of wealth held by those with net worths of nine or ten figures.

Unfortunately, most people with on hundred million to a billion or more wealth do not usually have to pay 35% or 38% of their earning on taxes every year. The truly rich (henceforth defined as having one hundred million or more in net worth) have thre options. Sit on the money and spend what they need and pay the local sales taxes. They can hide their money in State and Local bonds, Municiple Bonds, whose income is exempt from taxation. That or they do recieve an income fro mworking on Wall Street or as the senior management of certain very large (and often times subsidized and politicall yconnected firms, such as GE or Goldman Sachs) recieve most of their compensation in the form of stockoptions and with those stock options they pay the capital gains rate of 15%, In short, the very rich, do not pay high taxes and in this time of debt, actualy taxing the very wealth could help to balance the budget and do so on the back of those who would miss the money the least and in economics jargon, would be the most inelastic to the high rates, they would not curtail their spending habits or their hiring or investing habits in a manner that would ihibit job creation.

For a variety of reasons, Barack Obama does not seek to impose a huge tax burden on those super rich people, he wants to attacks the job creating, thrifty, industrious and dynamic American Bourgeiose (henceforth defined as those makin ga gros income of 250k to three million dollars per year and abbreviated as being the AB). Those people tend to not have Ivy League Education crednetials, they do not have advnaced degrees and they do not usually have rich parents nor do they come from a long line of Noethrn Eastern Old money and they are not well connected politically to the Fderal Government.

The AB are the people who, usually due to extreme hard work, thrift, diligence, sobriety, relaiability and willingness to take caculated risks, create productive, jo band wealth reating entreprises out of nothing. They can take a million dollars of input, turn into two million dollars of things that people want and after paying their workers, the rent on the building, paying the other expenses and dutifully paying their taxes, they may be left with 100, maybe 200, it is not bad money, it more than the median but the median worre does have to be as committed and as calculating as these small businessmen.

these types of people create jobs; they create goods for low prices, that improve our quality of life; they grow in the medium and large companies, that provide lots of good jobs and create lots of actual, private wealth; they drive the economy and current attitudes and policies are suffoctaing them.


My theory is that president Obama has medivela view about money and about who should have money. He wants a modest but dependable living for blue collar workers and trades men, wantsa comfortable living for college educated civil servants and he wants very comfortable lives for Ivy League educated technocrats and he is willing tolerant the odd billionaire who made money in manner that he approved, such as through some high tech soft ware development or through investing money in a top ten, Federal reserve money provided bank. However, the yeoman businessman who owns a few resturants or a fleet or gardening trucks or the small scale, boutique financier or venture capitalist, the people who make the economy grow and those who get things done and pay most of the Federal taxes ( taxes that allow for the teachers and his various White house czars, Cabinet members and Congressmen to have their comfortable and nice lives).

Unlike the old Marxists that wanted government to own the means of production and everyone would be paid more or less the same amount of money because workers are all equally value.

President Obama is not Marxist, he is pre Marxist and has an old Medieval World view that believes that society needs it great lords, it elites, to run the society, it needs it clergy (in today's world the clergy are public employees) and there has to be masses of simple, sons of toil and in this world there is o room or no use for those people who would disturb the serene economic order, the capitalist, the entrepreneur is at best redundant and more often is damaging and parasitic and deserves to be bleed white with taxation in order to keep the spigot of money to flow towards those aforementioned and approved economic actors.

Again, I cannot read minds, but being involved in small business, the hostility that I feel from government officials is palatable. We are out to make profit, we are claiming to be morally superior. However, our activities allows us to have an economy. Workers would have no jobs if not for us, public servants would not be able to retire at full pay in their 50's without our willingness to pay high taxes and the top political and business and financial elites would have no money in their coffers, were it not for us keeping out payroll and business accounts in their vaults and the Federal government would have no money to either bomb brown people on the other side of the World or to earmark projects for their home districts, temples to their own, unearned significance. 

 

[rexanglorum]

moneymike88 wrote:

---

I'm gonna read that whole thing and edit this with a response

edit - my take partial take on that is that Obama loves trust fund babies and hates entrepreneurs...can you back that up with some sourced quotes or vids?




I am sorry for not having links or videos. I am going to defer mostly to history and how it is very relavent to our present day political economy.

I believe that Baracak Obama has a pre Modern, pre Capitalist mentality toward who should make money and who should be taxed heavily because they have made "too much money."

While he (and other Democrats) demonizes the "rich" as a monolithic, Bentley driving cohort of trust fund babie and billionaires, he is overlooking the vast gulf that exists betwee those really have hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to themselves or to their family's name. In his speeches he has mentioned he, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckermen do not "need" a tax cut. It should be noted that retaining current rates for taxes is not the same as giving a tax cuts and it should also be noted that reduce in tax rates does not amount to the anyone being given anyone, it simply means that you can keep more of what you earm, government's share of your income is smaller. If President Obama confined his diffinition of "rich" to some like Zuckerburg or Bugget or Bill Gates or the hundreds of trust fund babies with whoeme he attended Harvard law or the sons of the Capitains of Industry whom he taught law to at the University of Chicago, there would be a much better case ofr tax cuts on the Rich. With a country deeply in debt, you tax the vast amount of wealth held by those with net worths of nine or ten figures.

Unfortunately, most people with on hundred million to a billion or more wealth do not usually have to pay 35% or 38% of their earning on taxes every year. The truly rich (henceforth defined as having one hundred million or more in net worth) have thre options. Sit on the money and spend what they need and pay the local sales taxes. They can hide their money in State and Local bonds, Municiple Bonds, whose income is exempt from taxation. That or they do recieve an income fro mworking on Wall Street or as the senior management of certain very large (and often times subsidized and politicall yconnected firms, such as GE or Goldman Sachs) recieve most of their compensation in the form of stockoptions and with those stock options they pay the capital gains rate of 15%, In short, the very rich, do not pay high taxes and in this time of debt, actualy taxing the very wealth could help to balance the budget and do so on the back of those who would miss the money the least and in economics jargon, would be the most inelastic to the high rates, they would not curtail their spending habits or their hiring or investing habits in a manner that would ihibit job creation.

For a variety of reasons, Barack Obama does not seek to impose a huge tax burden on those super rich people, he wants to attacks the job creating, thrifty, industrious and dynamic American Bourgeiose (henceforth defined as those makin ga gros income of 250k to three million dollars per year and abbreviated as being the AB). Those people tend to not have Ivy League Education crednetials, they do not have advnaced degrees and they do not usually have rich parents nor do they come from a long line of Noethrn Eastern Old money and they are not well connected politically to the Fderal Government.

The AB are the people who, usually due to extreme hard work, thrift, diligence, sobriety, relaiability and willingness to take caculated risks, create productive, jo band wealth reating entreprises out of nothing. They can take a million dollars of input, turn into two million dollars of things that people want and after paying their workers, the rent on the building, paying the other expenses and dutifully paying their taxes, they may be left with 100, maybe 200, it is not bad money, it more than the median but the median worre does have to be as committed and as calculating as these small businessmen.

these types of people create jobs; they create goods for low prices, that improve our quality of life; they grow in the medium and large companies, that provide lots of good jobs and create lots of actual, private wealth; they drive the economy and current attitudes and policies are suffoctaing them.


My theory is that president Obama has medivela view about money and about who should have money. He wants a modest but dependable living for blue collar workers and trades men, wantsa comfortable living for college educated civil servants and he wants very comfortable lives for Ivy League educated technocrats and he is willing tolerant the odd billionaire who made money in manner that he approved, such as through some high tech soft ware development or through investing money in a top ten, Federal reserve money provided bank. However, the yeoman businessman who owns a few resturants or a fleet or gardening trucks or the small scale, boutique financier or venture capitalist, the people who make the economy grow and those who get things done and pay most of the Federal taxes ( taxes that allow for the teachers and his various White house czars, Cabinet members and Congressmen to have their comfortable and nice lives).

Unlike the old Marxists that wanted government to own the means of production and everyone would be paid more or less the same amount of money because workers are all equally value.

President Obama is not Marxist, he is pre Marxist and has an old Medieval World view that believes that society needs it great lords, it elites, to run the society, it needs it clergy (in today's world the clergy are public employees) and there has to be masses of simple, sons of toil and in this world there is o room or no use for those people who would disturb the serene economic order, the capitalist, the entrepreneur is at best redundant and more often is damaging and parasitic and deserves to be bleed white with taxation in order to keep the spigot of money to flow towards those aforementioned and approved economic actors.

Again, I cannot read minds, but being involved in small business, the hostility that I feel from government officials is palatable. We are out to make profit, we are claiming to be morally superior. However, our activities allows us to have an economy. Workers would have no jobs if not for us, public servants would not be able to retire at full pay in their 50's without our willingness to pay high taxes and the top political and business and financial elites would have no money in their coffers, were it not for us keeping out payroll and business accounts in their vaults and the Federal government would have no money to either bomb brown people on the other side of the World or to earmark projects for their home districts, temples to their own, unearned significance. 

 

[Nike Jordan]

Why WOULDN'T he care about high unemployment?

 

[Nike Jordan]

Why WOULDN'T he care about high unemployment?

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by Furrell

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

You're still playing the black card argument?

Where do you see me playing the black card argument in my statement, nice try champ.  Bottomline, people kept quiet because the same person that they voted for not just once but probably even twice ran this country into the ground in more ways than one, but people didn't voice their opinion then because they voted him into office.  Meaning they themselves are tied into this crisis as well, cause they help cause it.  The same people that are complaining now should have been complaining then and voiced their displeasure with the course America was on then.  Instead they did nothing and just went along with the program.  They gave some clown that struggles to read a Dr. Seuss book the keys to the White House and keys to deregulation which helped get us into a recession, that and starting a war based on shaky intelligence at best.

OP posed the question if Obama cares about high unemployment, when the question of caring about high unemployment should be asked of Rex and the rest of his brethren that think like him here on the boards.  He and others were the same individuals that were AGAINST the bailout of American car companies that President Obama was for.  Rex and others wanted General Motors and Chrysler to go under because the bailout in itself didn't fall in line with their principles of free market and government intervention.  Rex wanted people out of work in the American car industry, countless of Americans from Michigan to this side of the Mississippi.  Now that those same people who would have been out of work still have a job and car companies have paid back their loans and they are seeing record profits in comparison to recent years prior Rex and others of his kind have nothing to say.  All due to President Obama wanting to rescue/help/save the American car industrty and keep people from being unemployed.  Yet instill Rex has the audacity to ask if President Obama cares about high unemployment.  You dudes are something else.   

  

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by Furrell

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

You're still playing the black card argument?

Where do you see me playing the black card argument in my statement, nice try champ.  Bottomline, people kept quiet because the same person that they voted for not just once but probably even twice ran this country into the ground in more ways than one, but people didn't voice their opinion then because they voted him into office.  Meaning they themselves are tied into this crisis as well, cause they help cause it.  The same people that are complaining now should have been complaining then and voiced their displeasure with the course America was on then.  Instead they did nothing and just went along with the program.  They gave some clown that struggles to read a Dr. Seuss book the keys to the White House and keys to deregulation which helped get us into a recession, that and starting a war based on shaky intelligence at best.

OP posed the question if Obama cares about high unemployment, when the question of caring about high unemployment should be asked of Rex and the rest of his brethren that think like him here on the boards.  He and others were the same individuals that were AGAINST the bailout of American car companies that President Obama was for.  Rex and others wanted General Motors and Chrysler to go under because the bailout in itself didn't fall in line with their principles of free market and government intervention.  Rex wanted people out of work in the American car industry, countless of Americans from Michigan to this side of the Mississippi.  Now that those same people who would have been out of work still have a job and car companies have paid back their loans and they are seeing record profits in comparison to recent years prior Rex and others of his kind have nothing to say.  All due to President Obama wanting to rescue/help/save the American car industrty and keep people from being unemployed.  Yet instill Rex has the audacity to ask if President Obama cares about high unemployment.  You dudes are something else.   

  

 

[destination kicks]

Couldn't agree with you more in regards to Obama's skewed ideas on the constraints of the different "classes". What his supporters fail to realize is that he has deemed people who make $100K+ a year "rich" and thus villainized them, when in fact many of these exact supporters are in these "rich" income ranges and fail to realize it. Today's "rich" is our grandparent's "middle-class". My grandparent's (both of whom are deceased now) old house in Long Island was bought by them probably in the mid-60's for I wanna say around $40K or something like that, and they had incomes of the "working middle-class". Now that house would run you probably $500K and to afford that house would require an income level deemed "rich".

Oh and just for future reference I had to reread alot of the sentences a handful of times before I comprehended it due to punctuation and spelling. Just a heads up.

 

[destination kicks]

Couldn't agree with you more in regards to Obama's skewed ideas on the constraints of the different "classes". What his supporters fail to realize is that he has deemed people who make $100K+ a year "rich" and thus villainized them, when in fact many of these exact supporters are in these "rich" income ranges and fail to realize it. Today's "rich" is our grandparent's "middle-class". My grandparent's (both of whom are deceased now) old house in Long Island was bought by them probably in the mid-60's for I wanna say around $40K or something like that, and they had incomes of the "working middle-class". Now that house would run you probably $500K and to afford that house would require an income level deemed "rich".

Oh and just for future reference I had to reread alot of the sentences a handful of times before I comprehended it due to punctuation and spelling. Just a heads up.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

i might have to double quote this....the fact of the matter is people are too late, yall should've done something 6 years ago.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Most of the anti-Obama people on here kept quiet and followed orders when Bush was in office, but now all of a sudden they have something to say.  I wonder why.............

i might have to double quote this....the fact of the matter is people are too late, yall should've done something 6 years ago.

 

[rexanglorum]

I opposed the auto bailouts not because I thought that the two firms would be unable to get back on their feet financially. I opposed them because of the impact that it would have on corporate culture. It sent a signal that as long as your firm was large, you could mismanage it and when you were insolvent, Uncle Sam would rescue you. 

If you subsidize something you will get more of it. We subsidized, in both banking and in car making, the notion that corporate security comes in sheer size, if that size means that your firm become unmanageable and unprofitable, so be it, it is better to be inefficient and part of the "too big to fail" club than efficient and small enough to fail. The bailouts in 2008 also subsidized mediocrity, there was no need to change to fit consumer taste, just keep churning out gas guzzlers that cost more, had less longevity and had less reliability than their Asian counter parts, customers be damned, there was Uncle Sam.

It should also be noted that change and adjustment are not just present in but are crucial for the growth of an economy. If the Horse and Buggy trade guild had been as politically powerful in 1898, as the American car industry was in 2008, there would have been no Detroit in the first place and no American car industry.

As the bailout was refined in early 2009, President Obama, unwavering in his commitment to a small sector of US workers, workers who beloeng to his politically favored unions, were able to shred up all corporate bankrupcy law and they wiped out the secured bond holders. When you take out a secured bond fro ma company, you are legally first in line and you get the money that is raised when company goes out of business and the secured bond holders get the girst of prceeds that comes from the sale of the firms remaiing goods. Because of the high likely of partial or full repayment, secured bonds recieve a very low interest rate. Issuing secured bonds is way for firms to get financing on very good terms. Barack Obama tore up those contracts and gave almost everything to the Unions and told the secured bond holders to take virtually nothing.

The ramifications go well beyond just Chrysler, they now make all secured bonds less secure and as result the option available to many firms, to use their tangible assets as collateral, in order to secure low interest loans, has been weakened.


I suggest to my friends who support the Auto Bailout to read some of Bastiat, the French Economic Journalist, who talks about the "seen and the unseen." What is seen are the plants that are open and running, what is not seen is the government subsidizing of mediocrity, its encouragement of firms to get large and unmanageable and the precedent that no longer allows all firms, in any industry, to obtain very low interest loans (and since many firms run on very slim margins, the difference between getting a two percent rate a five percent rate) is the difference between making a major, job creating expansion and not doing so.


The president can smile, act smug and prance around in Toledo (while jobless numbers, a mere "headwide" in the eyes of his Economic Advisor, sruged back to 9.1%) and tout the inmitigated success of his plan but what is more geographically diverse and more diffiult to see ( but just if not more harmful) are the denied loan applicaions that results from credit being sucked out the rest of the economy in order to finance the bailouts, the expansions not taken because low interest secured bonds are no long secure and the fact that the billions of dollars in tangible assets, Michigan and Ohio and else where would have remained and may well have been under new and better management. This new management would probbly have done better and did what Detroit did decades ago, made cars that lots of Americans wanted to buy. Currently, the crown jewel of "New Detroit" is a 40K plus economy car called the Volt, that still needed an $8,000 tax credit (for most families that is year long tax holiday) and yet Americans are still opting for Japanese and Korean cars are lower end reliable cars and German cars and mid to high end reliable cars.

I guess I should not be surprised that the Obama White house would spin this Detroit disaster into a major triumph, anyone who can spend a whole summer of 2010, calling it "Recovery Summer," is capable of similarly dishonest salemanship. President Obama gave you such a good deal with the bailouts that he will have to check with his manager out back if it is okay for him to give you such a fabulous deal. Remember though, he is only giving us such a good deal because he likes you so don't tell anyone else about his unbelievable deal that you are getting from him.


Seriously, if a botched auto bailout and 9.1% unemployment and soaring national debt are success I would hate to see a self described failure from this administration.

 

[rexanglorum]

I opposed the auto bailouts not because I thought that the two firms would be unable to get back on their feet financially. I opposed them because of the impact that it would have on corporate culture. It sent a signal that as long as your firm was large, you could mismanage it and when you were insolvent, Uncle Sam would rescue you. 

If you subsidize something you will get more of it. We subsidized, in both banking and in car making, the notion that corporate security comes in sheer size, if that size means that your firm become unmanageable and unprofitable, so be it, it is better to be inefficient and part of the "too big to fail" club than efficient and small enough to fail. The bailouts in 2008 also subsidized mediocrity, there was no need to change to fit consumer taste, just keep churning out gas guzzlers that cost more, had less longevity and had less reliability than their Asian counter parts, customers be damned, there was Uncle Sam.

It should also be noted that change and adjustment are not just present in but are crucial for the growth of an economy. If the Horse and Buggy trade guild had been as politically powerful in 1898, as the American car industry was in 2008, there would have been no Detroit in the first place and no American car industry.

As the bailout was refined in early 2009, President Obama, unwavering in his commitment to a small sector of US workers, workers who beloeng to his politically favored unions, were able to shred up all corporate bankrupcy law and they wiped out the secured bond holders. When you take out a secured bond fro ma company, you are legally first in line and you get the money that is raised when company goes out of business and the secured bond holders get the girst of prceeds that comes from the sale of the firms remaiing goods. Because of the high likely of partial or full repayment, secured bonds recieve a very low interest rate. Issuing secured bonds is way for firms to get financing on very good terms. Barack Obama tore up those contracts and gave almost everything to the Unions and told the secured bond holders to take virtually nothing.

The ramifications go well beyond just Chrysler, they now make all secured bonds less secure and as result the option available to many firms, to use their tangible assets as collateral, in order to secure low interest loans, has been weakened.


I suggest to my friends who support the Auto Bailout to read some of Bastiat, the French Economic Journalist, who talks about the "seen and the unseen." What is seen are the plants that are open and running, what is not seen is the government subsidizing of mediocrity, its encouragement of firms to get large and unmanageable and the precedent that no longer allows all firms, in any industry, to obtain very low interest loans (and since many firms run on very slim margins, the difference between getting a two percent rate a five percent rate) is the difference between making a major, job creating expansion and not doing so.


The president can smile, act smug and prance around in Toledo (while jobless numbers, a mere "headwide" in the eyes of his Economic Advisor, sruged back to 9.1%) and tout the inmitigated success of his plan but what is more geographically diverse and more diffiult to see ( but just if not more harmful) are the denied loan applicaions that results from credit being sucked out the rest of the economy in order to finance the bailouts, the expansions not taken because low interest secured bonds are no long secure and the fact that the billions of dollars in tangible assets, Michigan and Ohio and else where would have remained and may well have been under new and better management. This new management would probbly have done better and did what Detroit did decades ago, made cars that lots of Americans wanted to buy. Currently, the crown jewel of "New Detroit" is a 40K plus economy car called the Volt, that still needed an $8,000 tax credit (for most families that is year long tax holiday) and yet Americans are still opting for Japanese and Korean cars are lower end reliable cars and German cars and mid to high end reliable cars.

I guess I should not be surprised that the Obama White house would spin this Detroit disaster into a major triumph, anyone who can spend a whole summer of 2010, calling it "Recovery Summer," is capable of similarly dishonest salemanship. President Obama gave you such a good deal with the bailouts that he will have to check with his manager out back if it is okay for him to give you such a fabulous deal. Remember though, he is only giving us such a good deal because he likes you so don't tell anyone else about his unbelievable deal that you are getting from him.


Seriously, if a botched auto bailout and 9.1% unemployment and soaring national debt are success I would hate to see a self described failure from this administration.

 

[lazybonejone]

Number one of the dude's list is getting re-elected.

 

[lazybonejone]

Number one of the dude's list is getting re-elected.

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by lazybonejone

Number one of the dude's list is getting re-elected.

 Exactly so why would any President of the United States including this current President not care about High Unemployment?  

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by lazybonejone

Number one of the dude's list is getting re-elected.

 Exactly so why would any President of the United States including this current President not care about High Unemployment?  

 

[lazybonejone]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by lazybonejone

Number one of the dude's list is getting re-elected.

 Exactly so why would any President of the United States including this current President not care about High Unemployment?  

The people who are currently unemployed are not likely to vote.  There's no unemployment support group.  If you can galvanize all the unemployed to vote in one direction, then you will have the Obama looking to get their vote.  

 

[lazybonejone]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by lazybonejone

Number one of the dude's list is getting re-elected.

 Exactly so why would any President of the United States including this current President not care about High Unemployment?  

The people who are currently unemployed are not likely to vote.  There's no unemployment support group.  If you can galvanize all the unemployed to vote in one direction, then you will have the Obama looking to get their vote.