A growing number of economists are coming to the conclusion that America's unemployment woes are due to the fact that Barack Obama has no idea where jobs actually come from. To face this accusation head on, the president used his weekly speech to address the situation and prove, once and for all, that he has no idea where jobs actually come from.
Specifically, Mr. Obama said that the way to spur private sector job growth was by having the government put more taxpayer money into education programs to ensure "that every worker has the necessary skills for the job they're applying for."
In other words, the president doesn't think that businesses or market demand create new jobs, he thinks job applicants create new jobs. Which should come as a considerable shock to the 30 million or so unemployed or underemployed Americans whose countless job applications haven't created doodly-squat.
But while the evidence points strongly to Barack Obama being a complete idiot, Hope n' Change feels compelled to offer an alternate explanation out of journalistic fairness and a sincere desire to decrease our odds of being audited.
We think it's likely that the president knows he's spouting logically incongruous nonsense, but his ideology keeps him from admitting the one and only thing that the government can actually do to increase private sector job creation: reduce taxes and burdensome regulations, and let capitalism create jobs as it's always done in the past...when allowed to.
-
Apparently "cause and effect" was not a required course at Harvard.
17 comments:
"But that CAN'T be right, I mean George Soros would not actually WANT the economy to collapse, right? After all, we CARE for the 'little people' - their taxes pay our salaries, right?"
Meanwhile, the fluffers of the LSM and the GOP elites continue to tell Republicans/Conservatives that what we really want is Obama-lite as our candidate in 2012. They are afraid of any candidate who is the opposite of Obama, because America right now is craving the opposite of Obama and they know it. They just don't know who that person is and will likely stick with the devil they know in 2012 instead of some little demi-demon that casts an Obama-like shadow. That's why I've been saying we need a bold color to contrast with the pasty, washed-out socialism of the current regime. And who's leading the pack right now?...Me too Mitt. The prettiest of the elites. Effing wonderful! Of course I know who is the anti-Obama, but some think she can't win. Surrender with a clean uniform and all your ammo intact if you want but when I go down it will be with an empty magazine, blood on my ka-bar and at least some of the enemy at my feet.
And how bad is Mitt? He lost the Republican Primary for the 2008 election ... to McCain! It's almost like they are TRYING to put forth the least they can, knowing that this time around, even a milquetoast like Mitt has a chance against the One.
On topic: what do you expect from a president (and party) that see nothing wrong with spending before earning; withdrawal before victory; death before life; ends before means; ...
@Pete(Detroit)- That's one of the scariest parts of all this; that our country's rush to oblivion is by design.
@Angry Hoosier Dad- If it ends up being Romney versus Obama, I'll vote for him...but that's not saying much. We need someone strong and bold, and we can't let the mainstream media choose our candidate again.
@Chuck- I love your "cause and effect confusion" rundown of the Left: "spending before earning; withdrawal before victory; death before life; ends before means." Exactly right.
Stilton my friend,
OF COURSE ... cause and effect WAS a required course at Harvard! BUT, you actually have to attend Harvard to take the course ... not just have someone doctor a few records, place your name in the files and then SAY you went there and graduated!
IF (hope, hope, hope) my fellow journalists ... and I use the term VERY loosely ... ever get thier collective butts off thier fancy chairs and report some real things ... they might just come to the conclusion that Obama is nothing but an empty suit (like Eupoeans alrady know and say). Albeit a very fancy one, but made out of very thin cloth! He is a creation of Soros and his ilk. Until the country wakes up and sees this for what it is ... we are basically doomed as a nation and a free country.
The photo at the bottom had me laughing so hard I started crying. Then I realized it was a real photo. Then I just cried.
Doc:
With the economy swirling the drain, unemployment at consistently high levels with length of unemployment exceeding depression levels, gas prices more than double since he took office, inflation in energy and food costs and America resembling Mr. Bean to the rest of the world...if that's not enough to wake the country up, it's not asleep; it's comatose.
And it's nonsense like this that will make "Recovery Summer, The Sequel" even worse than the original.
BO (Blatantly Oblivious) was in my fine state yesterday at a government funded factory that makes light bulbs that nobody neither wants nor can afford (but, by God, the're GREEN!). He was bragging about the US pouring bazillions into this place and the factory having 5,000 workers. OOPS! He conveniently forgot to mention that half of those workers are in China.
Yep, it makes me gag.... but not as much as knowing the that hoards of sheeple will eat it up.
@Angry Hoosier Dad... The media has already declared Mitten-head Romney the landslide winner of last night's debate. Now, I watched that and was actually quite impressed with ALL the candidates (with the possible exception of Paul who just seemed a little out of his element). All of them gave some good answers, including Mitten-head, but the clear winner to me was either Bachmann or Pawlenty. These are the two that the socialist bastards fear most.
Dope 'n' Strange....
Colby, still don't know anything about Pawlenty other than my libby brother in Minneapolis hates him. Good rec commendation, but but I need to get more info. Bachmann just strikes me as a bit flaky. Cain seems to be getting attention, which I can only think is good. As several radio people have said, any one of them would do a better job than the Current Occupant...
Stilt, or any of you other guys on this page....if you would run, I WOULD VOTE FOR YOU!!
But I'm afraid you're all much too smart for that. Personally, I feel the amount of cash any candidate can spend should be capped and the length of campaign time be set, say 6 months before election day, that way some really good people might have a shot at the presidency. Right now, only the folks able to raise MILLIONS of bucks stand a chance. Plus, we would not be subjected to months and months of their stupid campaign tv ads...Just a thought...
@Pryorguy- I would not make a good candidate for public office. I'd make a fun candidate, but not a good candidate.
Be that as it may, feel free to check off the box on your tax forms that will contribute $3 to my campaign fund. If I can only get about a million people to fall for it, I'll be in high cotton.
I'm wondering why nobody is (as of yet, so far as I know) using the single most potent Reagan 1980 quote against the big O: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, maybe they're saving it for next year. It's as good a shot at the Demo_rats this year as it was in 1980!
Obama understands perfectly that oil and gas creates almost NO jobs. How many people are needed to run and oil well? for 99 percent of the age of the well......NONE. On the other hand, if we switch to generating electricity from pedalling stationary bikes it will take more than 5 BILLION people working 80 hours a week just to power California.
Jeep, I have heard it, and I think they ARE saving it. Along w/ "It's the economy, Stupid!"
Pyro, if you lived in my district, I'd take your vote - I am seriously considering floating a internet write in campaign (I will take NO $$, I *will* accept help) to retire John Conyers this term. He has been in office since the year I was born (ok, not quite - he was ELECTED the year I was born) and is a reprehensible ass. Assuming he does not get gerrymandered out (god, I LOVE the thought of him and Dingle running for the same seat - at least ONE of those ship-dits would be gone) I will run against him (a decision made much easier since I was recently informed that my position has been outsourced, and I'm likely to join the ranks of the un(der)employed as of Halloween...) Anyway - platform points -
1) I will not vote for anything I have not read
2) I will not vote for anything I do not understand
3) I will not ask for cash.
4) I will not consort w/ Known Felons (ok, to be fair, it *is* his wife)
I *will* ask for people to print off signs, etc, and stick them up
I will ask people to engage their friends and neighbors
Will enough people care? dunno
WILL be an interesting experiment in "zero budget" campaigning...
I may get a different 'real' job, and be too busy
Hey, it COULD happen he decides to retire, and I'm just glad he's gone. But if he's running, I'm just about PO'd enough to give it a shot..
I'll keep y'all posted..
Oh, it is legal to run under a 'nom de plume'(assumed name)?
Been thinking "Hugh Mee" ("a vote for Hugh, is a vote for Mee!") is a KILLER name..
((-'pb
@Pete(Detroit)- I like your platform! And if you're thinking of changing your name, why not guarantee a landslide by making it "Buck Ofama?"
Obama isn't even a consistent Keynesian.
I have posted and linked to you with a heartfelt recommendation.
I only wish our managed media reported on this inane remark- Imagine if Sarah Palin had said this?
Post a Comment