The September unemployment rate came in at 7.8% and people are downright excited.
I hardly ever like to dampen the excitement of an excited person, but there are so many indicators that indicate that Obama's programs have simply not turned the economy around.
The jobs picture is still in a horrid stagnation, and Obama either doesn't KNOW how to reverse it, or he has other priorities and agendas.
Here are some facts:
1. The average number of jobs created last year (2011) was 153,000 per month (compared to around 275,000 per month under Reagan's recovery).
2. The average number of jobs created THIS year (2012) is 146,000 per month, less than the year before!
3. Yet September only created 114,000, less than the years average! And September is the month all those folks are excited about!
4. If labor participation was where it was when Obama inherited it from Bush, the unemployment would be closer to 11%.
5. Part-time jobs jumped up to 8,613,000 -- a 582,000 increase in September, the biggest one-month jump since February of 2009. So the quality of jobs people are finding is dropping.
If you're still excited at 7.8% unemployment for September, well...I admire your optimism, but please vote for Romney anyway, because he is more likely to put into place economic policy that will end the stagnation.
Showing posts with label romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romney. Show all posts
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
My Two Favorite Lines From The First Debate
2. Romney: "Mr. President, you're entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts." (referring to Obama's mis-representing of Romney's economic plans)
1. Romney: "I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers." (referring to Obama's crony capitalism of giving loans or tax breaks to certain pro-Obama corporations, especially "green" ones, who were bad risks and/or went belly up)
Sidenote: If you honestly think Obama won the first debate, don't admit it or people will think you're foolish. And they would be right, of course :)
1. Romney: "I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers." (referring to Obama's crony capitalism of giving loans or tax breaks to certain pro-Obama corporations, especially "green" ones, who were bad risks and/or went belly up)
Sidenote: If you honestly think Obama won the first debate, don't admit it or people will think you're foolish. And they would be right, of course :)
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Romney's Plan For Jobs And The Economy
In my last post I referenced a question I ask Obama-supporters:
"What are Obama's plans to increase jobs and improve the economy the next four years?"
An embarrassing question that usually results in a blank stare, because he has no real plans, either because he doesn't know HOW to increase jobs and improve the economy, or he has agendas that don't include such nice things as that.
Well, is Romney any better in this area?
Absolutely yes.
Take some time to visit http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Click on each heading, and see how a basic understanding of economics, free enterprise, capitalism, and business can make all the difference in the world.
Such understanding includes things like:
- reducing corporate taxes, which frees up capital to expand business and hire more people
- reducing and simplifying personal taxes, which allows more money in people's pockets that they can SPEND, which in turn creates more growth
- reducing unnecessary (often insane) regulations that hinder business growth and waste their money that they could use to hire people and expand
It's not rocket science, but Obama doesn't get it.
Again, visit http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
"What are Obama's plans to increase jobs and improve the economy the next four years?"
An embarrassing question that usually results in a blank stare, because he has no real plans, either because he doesn't know HOW to increase jobs and improve the economy, or he has agendas that don't include such nice things as that.
Well, is Romney any better in this area?
Absolutely yes.
Take some time to visit http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Click on each heading, and see how a basic understanding of economics, free enterprise, capitalism, and business can make all the difference in the world.
Such understanding includes things like:
- reducing corporate taxes, which frees up capital to expand business and hire more people
- reducing and simplifying personal taxes, which allows more money in people's pockets that they can SPEND, which in turn creates more growth
- reducing unnecessary (often insane) regulations that hinder business growth and waste their money that they could use to hire people and expand
It's not rocket science, but Obama doesn't get it.
Again, visit http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Here's What I Ask Obama Supporters (The Answers Would Be Funny If They Weren't So Tragic)
Here's the question:
What are Obama's plans to increase jobs and improve the economy the next four years?
When you ask this to the typical Obama supporter, you will be amazed at the blank stares you will get.
The "sharper" O-supporters will immediately change the subject and barrage you with redirection and smoke-blowing.
Most will just "think" (I use the term loosely) and kinda make something up.
Why?
Because Obama has no plans to increase jobs and improve the economy!
On this day (September 22, 2012), even his Presidential candidate web site lists no plans under the "issues" topic "Jobs and Economy".
Before listing 4 items, on Obama's site the statement is made that Obama is fighting to "grow the economy from the middle class out, not the top down."
This is an obvious attempt to pander to the largest percentage of voters (who unfortunately may think it sounds good). But actually this is as economically stupid a statement as has ever been made!
But that's a subject for another article.
Here are the 4 items listed under "Economy" on the Obama website:
1. Rescuing The Auto Industry
I'm not kidding. That's point #1.
First of all, he didn't rescue the auto industry, he only temporarily rescued the very Unions that have bankrupted the auto industry. But that's a subject for another article too.
The point in this article is simply that this is not a PLAN for the next four years! It's the PAST! See what I mean? It's done! That's not a plan!
2. Reviving U.S. Manufacturing
That's not a plan either! It simply cites the fact that manufacturing jobs have increased the last couple of years. But a) it gives no reason "why", and b) it gives no future plan to continue manufacturing job growth.
The point is that Capitalism is dynamic. Growth is NORMAL. But all Obama has done regarding that growth is put policies in that have kept it from growing even more!
3. Made In America
Okay, I admit this is at least sort of a "plan", by definition. He says he will eliminate tax breaks for companies that "ship jobs overseas", and create incentives to businesses to bring back jobs to the U.S.
Fine.
One embarrassing question, Mr. Obama: If you did nothing along those lines in the first four years, is there ONE reason why we should believe you will do it in the next four years?
More nice-sounding smoke blowing.
=====================
By the way, building a business overseas in many cases can HELP the U.S. It's the power of free trade.
One huge example is Apple, with their iPhones, iPads, etc.
It cannot be calculated how many jobs in the U.S. and how much productivity in the U.S. has been produced by this one company, who manufactures in China and elsewhere.
If everything had been done in the U.S., an iPhone might cost $1500 or more, and be out of the reach of the "masses".
Steve Jobs, before he passed away, told Obama to his face that Government regulations and artificially inflated wages made it necessary to manufacture overseas.
But again, subjects for other articles.
=====================
4. Making Sure Everyone Plays By The Same Rules
Another nice-sounding platitude for the ignorant.
It references un-specified (and questionable) Wall Street reform already done. Again, it's not a PLAN, but some bragging on what's been done.
And yet, Wall Street guys are among Obama's hugest donors, regularly appointed by Obama to important positions, and a huge example of Obama hypocrisy.
I'll write more on the contrasting actual plans that Mitt Romney proposes, which show actual understanding of ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES, but for now, look at Romney's proposals, especially the two sections on "Tax" and "Regulation":
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
What are Obama's plans to increase jobs and improve the economy the next four years?
When you ask this to the typical Obama supporter, you will be amazed at the blank stares you will get.
The "sharper" O-supporters will immediately change the subject and barrage you with redirection and smoke-blowing.
Most will just "think" (I use the term loosely) and kinda make something up.
Why?
Because Obama has no plans to increase jobs and improve the economy!
On this day (September 22, 2012), even his Presidential candidate web site lists no plans under the "issues" topic "Jobs and Economy".
Before listing 4 items, on Obama's site the statement is made that Obama is fighting to "grow the economy from the middle class out, not the top down."
This is an obvious attempt to pander to the largest percentage of voters (who unfortunately may think it sounds good). But actually this is as economically stupid a statement as has ever been made!
But that's a subject for another article.
Here are the 4 items listed under "Economy" on the Obama website:
1. Rescuing The Auto Industry
I'm not kidding. That's point #1.
First of all, he didn't rescue the auto industry, he only temporarily rescued the very Unions that have bankrupted the auto industry. But that's a subject for another article too.
The point in this article is simply that this is not a PLAN for the next four years! It's the PAST! See what I mean? It's done! That's not a plan!
2. Reviving U.S. Manufacturing
That's not a plan either! It simply cites the fact that manufacturing jobs have increased the last couple of years. But a) it gives no reason "why", and b) it gives no future plan to continue manufacturing job growth.
The point is that Capitalism is dynamic. Growth is NORMAL. But all Obama has done regarding that growth is put policies in that have kept it from growing even more!
3. Made In America
Okay, I admit this is at least sort of a "plan", by definition. He says he will eliminate tax breaks for companies that "ship jobs overseas", and create incentives to businesses to bring back jobs to the U.S.
Fine.
One embarrassing question, Mr. Obama: If you did nothing along those lines in the first four years, is there ONE reason why we should believe you will do it in the next four years?
More nice-sounding smoke blowing.
=====================
By the way, building a business overseas in many cases can HELP the U.S. It's the power of free trade.
One huge example is Apple, with their iPhones, iPads, etc.
It cannot be calculated how many jobs in the U.S. and how much productivity in the U.S. has been produced by this one company, who manufactures in China and elsewhere.
If everything had been done in the U.S., an iPhone might cost $1500 or more, and be out of the reach of the "masses".
Steve Jobs, before he passed away, told Obama to his face that Government regulations and artificially inflated wages made it necessary to manufacture overseas.
But again, subjects for other articles.
=====================
4. Making Sure Everyone Plays By The Same Rules
Another nice-sounding platitude for the ignorant.
It references un-specified (and questionable) Wall Street reform already done. Again, it's not a PLAN, but some bragging on what's been done.
And yet, Wall Street guys are among Obama's hugest donors, regularly appointed by Obama to important positions, and a huge example of Obama hypocrisy.
I'll write more on the contrasting actual plans that Mitt Romney proposes, which show actual understanding of ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES, but for now, look at Romney's proposals, especially the two sections on "Tax" and "Regulation":
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Should I Vote "The Lesser of Two Evils"?
I say, "Yes."
Full disclosure: I have gone both ways on this question at times.
On actual Voting Day I have gone the lesser-of-two-evils route, but in between elections occasionally I have thought, "Doggone it, that's enough! I'm not going to vote for another phony RINO (Republican In Name Only) who pretends to support the [usually excellent] Platform, and then betrays us with Liberalism!"
I currently believe that such a rogue attitude (which I'm sure I share with many of you at times) is wrong.
This was brought more clearly to me in a recent post or tweet, I can't remember which, by an online friend, Dan Phillips -- blogger, pastor, and author. He made the simple but profound statement, "EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils."
Now, unless you think that your candidate is Perfect, you've pretty much got to agree with that.
In a recent exchange with Ambassador Alan Keyes (www.loyaltoliberty.com), whom I have admired greatly for many years, but who disagrees with me on this subject, I wrote this:
=========================================
"God only is perfect, and in that relative sense every imperfect human is 'evil'.
"Thus EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. To deny that is to demean the perfection of God, and His standard of perfection.
"We need a Savior precisely because we do not attain that standard. 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God', Rom. 3:23.
"So unless one thinks that Obama is the 'lesser of two evils', one ought to acknowledge that for a Conservative to vote a 'write-in' or '3rd-party' is a vote for the GREATER of two evils, Obama.
"This is because (and I realize 3rd-party-ists hate to hear this) no one else can win at this stage.
"While sadly I agree that both parties have huge Statist similarities, to say that there are no significant differences between Romney and Obama, as to policy, is a distortion of reality (deliberate or otherwise).
"Having said that, each should vote according to his conscience, but the conscience should be Scripturally informed, as opposed to thinking there is anyone completely absent of evil.
"To repeat, EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils."
===========================
Dr. Keyes responded:
"But you ignore the meaning of Christ's coming. By showing us the way to do good here, even here, he allows us to choose the sovereignty of God, 'on earth as it is in heaven.' Properly understood, this is what makes human self-government conceivable for us. We can choose to eschew evil, and learn from Christ's example to do good.
"Following Christ's instruction that we may aspire to be 'perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect'. For though God's perfection is beyond our reach unaided, it is not beyond our hope, through the mediation of Christ. Though in reaching we stumble, we never fall beyond the reach of the forgiveness Christ makes possible.
"The choice of Christ makes the choice of evils unnecessary. If we still follow that path it is because we choose to do so, not because we must.
"Since Christ came, Scriptural information isn't just a matter of words on a page, it is a matter of hearts transformed by the love of Christ and thoughts reformed by the mind of Christ. This is why the timid calculations of the 'lesser evil' leaders who profess to believe in the grace of God through Christ are so tragically mistaken.
"Their unprincipled calculus has brought us to the pass we're in. And as long as they persist in their pragmatic delusions, and people continue to follow them, we will not pass through the open door that leads back to our God acknowledging roots."
Full disclosure: I have gone both ways on this question at times.
On actual Voting Day I have gone the lesser-of-two-evils route, but in between elections occasionally I have thought, "Doggone it, that's enough! I'm not going to vote for another phony RINO (Republican In Name Only) who pretends to support the [usually excellent] Platform, and then betrays us with Liberalism!"
I currently believe that such a rogue attitude (which I'm sure I share with many of you at times) is wrong.
This was brought more clearly to me in a recent post or tweet, I can't remember which, by an online friend, Dan Phillips -- blogger, pastor, and author. He made the simple but profound statement, "EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils."
Now, unless you think that your candidate is Perfect, you've pretty much got to agree with that.
In a recent exchange with Ambassador Alan Keyes (www.loyaltoliberty.com), whom I have admired greatly for many years, but who disagrees with me on this subject, I wrote this:
=========================================
"God only is perfect, and in that relative sense every imperfect human is 'evil'.
"Thus EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. To deny that is to demean the perfection of God, and His standard of perfection.
"We need a Savior precisely because we do not attain that standard. 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God', Rom. 3:23.
"So unless one thinks that Obama is the 'lesser of two evils', one ought to acknowledge that for a Conservative to vote a 'write-in' or '3rd-party' is a vote for the GREATER of two evils, Obama.
"This is because (and I realize 3rd-party-ists hate to hear this) no one else can win at this stage.
"While sadly I agree that both parties have huge Statist similarities, to say that there are no significant differences between Romney and Obama, as to policy, is a distortion of reality (deliberate or otherwise).
"Having said that, each should vote according to his conscience, but the conscience should be Scripturally informed, as opposed to thinking there is anyone completely absent of evil.
"To repeat, EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils."
===========================
Dr. Keyes responded:
"But you ignore the meaning of Christ's coming. By showing us the way to do good here, even here, he allows us to choose the sovereignty of God, 'on earth as it is in heaven.' Properly understood, this is what makes human self-government conceivable for us. We can choose to eschew evil, and learn from Christ's example to do good.
"Following Christ's instruction that we may aspire to be 'perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect'. For though God's perfection is beyond our reach unaided, it is not beyond our hope, through the mediation of Christ. Though in reaching we stumble, we never fall beyond the reach of the forgiveness Christ makes possible.
"The choice of Christ makes the choice of evils unnecessary. If we still follow that path it is because we choose to do so, not because we must.
"Since Christ came, Scriptural information isn't just a matter of words on a page, it is a matter of hearts transformed by the love of Christ and thoughts reformed by the mind of Christ. This is why the timid calculations of the 'lesser evil' leaders who profess to believe in the grace of God through Christ are so tragically mistaken.
"Their unprincipled calculus has brought us to the pass we're in. And as long as they persist in their pragmatic delusions, and people continue to follow them, we will not pass through the open door that leads back to our God acknowledging roots."
============================
To Which I responded:
"Mr. Keyes,
To Which I responded:
"Mr. Keyes,
"I'm not ignoring the coming of Christ. He came because we are a fallen race in a fallen world. Even transformed hearts and minds are attached, as it were, to 'members' in which sin still dwells.
"Therefore, there are no 'perfect' candidates. So we are left with a) voting for a candidate who can win, b) voting for a [presumably better] candidate who cannot win, or c) not voting.
"Conscience can dictate which of those three we choose, but we have to at least admit that voting for someone who cannot win, or not voting at all, will aid by default one of the two who CAN win. This is math (though under the sovereignty of God, which I affirm at least as strongly as you do, even to the outcome of a dice toss).
"I don't believe you addressed two of my main points: 1) that realistically only BO or MR can win, and 2) that there are substantive differences between them, even though sadly several similarities as well.
"I think it's worth voting for Romney in order to take advantage of those substantive differences (e.g., even though we have been disappointed by Justice John Roberts, I would far rather have a couple of him nominated in the next four years than, say, a couple of Ruth Ginsburgs to preside over perhaps decades)."
=========================
Whereupon, Dr. Keyes renounced his position and declared for Romney -- just kidding :)
"Therefore, there are no 'perfect' candidates. So we are left with a) voting for a candidate who can win, b) voting for a [presumably better] candidate who cannot win, or c) not voting.
"Conscience can dictate which of those three we choose, but we have to at least admit that voting for someone who cannot win, or not voting at all, will aid by default one of the two who CAN win. This is math (though under the sovereignty of God, which I affirm at least as strongly as you do, even to the outcome of a dice toss).
"I don't believe you addressed two of my main points: 1) that realistically only BO or MR can win, and 2) that there are substantive differences between them, even though sadly several similarities as well.
"I think it's worth voting for Romney in order to take advantage of those substantive differences (e.g., even though we have been disappointed by Justice John Roberts, I would far rather have a couple of him nominated in the next four years than, say, a couple of Ruth Ginsburgs to preside over perhaps decades)."
=========================
Whereupon, Dr. Keyes renounced his position and declared for Romney -- just kidding :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)