Barack Obama is saying the right things regarding the vital role government can play in creating jobs but, as Bill Boyarsky noted, he is still offering next to nothing in the way of job creation plans:
…The rhetoric of the campaign and the coverage by political journalists don’t deal with the subject except in the context of the back-and-forth insults that have marked this contest. For example, last month Obama, talking about why the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, stated the obvious: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. … The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet … when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
Any successful entrepreneur with a restaurant or retail operation on an interstate highway would probably agree. But Romney picked it up as more evidence of Obama’s rejection of the national entrepreneurial spirit. “It shows how out of touch he is with the character of America,” Romney said. Obama isn’t out of touch with the American character. But the negativity of his unrelenting attacks against Romney puts him out of touch with the main American need—specific ways of lowering the unemployment rate…
I have no problem with Obama’s attacks on Mittens — a job-destroying corporate raider when he wasn’t in politics — but I’m appalled that his campaign speeches thus far are just sound and fury, signifying total indifference to the long-term unemployed and underemployed.
I think Obama et al figures they can ride this election out by saying Romney/Ryan is scary (which they are, separately and together), and, after he wins, he can then say that he’s already told the public he himself was going to go after SocSec and Medicare. So, shut up with the complaints.
Grand bargain time is post-election, whether he wins or not, babeeeee!
I trust neither Obama nor Romney, but Romney is somewhat more open about his objectives. And he and Ryan are now saying they will explain their taxation plans, but after they win the election! They’ve learned a thing or two from Bush/Cheney and Obama: Never tell the people what you actually plan to do to them.
We are so screwed.
Would someone please explian how Obama, or any president, can force the private sector (Capitalists) to create jobs? Obama can’t authorize money to be spent. That’s the J-O-B of the Congress according to the Constitution. What would any of you have Obama do? Become ‘angry’ and demand that Boeing hire another 1000 workers? Somebody please enlighten us.
Imhotep — check out what FDR did and how he did it. Whole lotta jobs got put out there for thems as needed jobs.
But some Dem presidents don’t want to be associated with those silly old Dem values and Dem programs that, well, actually help the non-One Percenters.
What about the “green new deal” emergency job creation plan?
jawbone, check out how FDR ‘helped’ bring down unemployment by having CONGRESS ‘fund’ his New Deal legislation. Something the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans would not do for Obama. Then check out the fact that it took WWII to actually bring the Great Depression to an end. Would you have Obama declare a Third World War?
Imhotep, I don’t get your strange defense of Obama’s jobs record. He’s not Romney, but he’s definitely not FDR. Congress funded New Deal legislation because Roosevelt wasn’t afraid to use the so-called bully pulpit in his fight to actually get something done. He wasn’t afraid to say that not voting to help the poor and jobless was shameful. On the other hand, Obama spent his first two years in office bailing out banks and trying to appease Republicans. He spent the next two years prepping for re-election. He’s a Dem in name only.