Friday, October 21, 2011

Obama Facing Dissatisfaction

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

As the recession continues {the company I work for just laid off another 100 + people yesterday and today} Obama finds himself vulnerable as the possibility he may be a one term president appears to be more likely with each passing week.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The extreme funk that settled over the country during the summer has eased slightly, but Americans remain gloomy about the economy and more than half say President Barack Obama does not inspire confidence about a recovery.

A sizable majority - more than 7 in 10 - believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and, in a new high, 43 percent describe the nation's economy as "very poor," according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Among those surveyed, less than 40 percent say Obama's proposed remedies for high unemployment would increase jobs significantly.

The pessimism is not a good sign for the nation's recovery hopes and presents a more urgent challenge for Obama as he mounts his re-election bid.

About 4 in 10 think unemployment will rise in the coming year; just 23 percent expect it to decrease. And few expect the government to be able to help. Only 41 percent say the government can do much to create jobs, and less than 40 percent say the main elements of Obama's jobs proposal would increase employment significantly.

What's more, expectations for the coming year have not improved, with 41 percent believing the economy will remain the same, 27 percent saying it will get worse and 30 percent saying it will improve.

Obama's plan to create jobs by increasing spending on public works projects such as schools, roads and bridges finds only 37 percent of respondents believing it will create a significant number of jobs. Tax credits to companies that hire those who have unemployed for six months or more elicits a similar response.

Only 27 percent of the respondents said a Republican proposal that reduces regulations on businesses would create a significant number of jobs; 45 percent say it would create few or no jobs.

The poll, however, found substantial support - 62 percent - for a proposal by Senate Democrats to pay for Obama's jobs proposal with a surtax on incomes over $1 million. One quarter of the respondents opposed the idea and 10 percent said they were neutral. Though the surtax has little or no chance of passing, the poll results underscore the view of Democrats that the proposal has political appeal.{Read Full Article}

There are no easy answers to the issues facing us. Sometimes less is more, and recognizing that government should only do so much can result in positive change.

The question that remains for the American people to answer is... How much, and in what form should it take.

Perhaps the politicians, and the leadership of the nation ought to start talking with one another rather than at one another.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. I think that Mr. Obama's plan has some merit. The payroll tax cut extension will help with demand. The infrastructure spending should (at least according to Moody's) stimulate the economy further. Add to that the fact that it's paid for by people making over a million a year (as opposed to those making over $250,000) and it shouldn't be painful. Yes, I would feel better if it also had some regulatory reform to make it easier for start-up businesses to get off the ground and to reduce the amount of red-tape that they have (I heard one businessman say that he pays more for "compliance" than he does on rent) but it's a start.

  2. Obama is stuck in a trap of his own making. He's too liberal for the broad independent middle that elected him, and not liberal enough for his rabid left base.

  3. Meanwhile, those treasonous slobs of the lowest order over at Tea Party Nation have put out a pledge for small businesses to promise not to hire anyone until Obama is out of office ( What pathetic scum they are.


  4. jmj - Since you refuse to respect my request to discontinue the demeaning references {slobs} to those who disagree wit your point of view please don't visit until you are able.

    Got it DUDE?

    Oh... The same applies to my conservative and libertarian friends. ;)

  5. Well, crap. That means I'm out, then. :) Now I can't come here and pimp JMJ with my superior principles of true Conservatism. He, and his comrades, will simply not be happy until we have free everything, all entitlements, and the wealthy are destroyed in favor of a Socialist Utopia. Shame, that.


  6. @JMJ,

    What makes what the TEA Party is advocating any different from the unwashed Socialists in the OWS bowel movement?

    It is indeed a double-edged sword, is it not?

  7. ecc101 -
    Not at all, just be respctful. You have superior resoning, so lead by example.

  8. Jersey: All they are doing is what Obama demands. His health care plans and other regulations discourage companies from hiring anyway.

  9. Mr. Obama should have listened more to Steve Jobs. According Walter Isaacson's new book on Mr. Jobs, Jobs counseled the future President on the dangers of over-regulating....Oh, well, maybe he'll eventually get it (and, please, keep in mind, big businesses generally like regulation - this, in that it mostly tends to solidify the status quo with them reaping the benefit!).

  10. ask you, folks - do we really need fiction (and, yes, I'm clearly including the funny pages here) anymore, with stuff like this all around us? I mean, really.

  11. @Will,

    You obviously hate the progress of America and want us to remain in the America of your father and grandfather, where minorities couldn't drink at "white only" fountains.

    How dare you seek to mock the Socialist Party of America and try to get us to believe they are not relevant and in-tune with America's real needs.

    (sarcasm off)

    I read that article, Will. It was unbelievable. I'm still sitting here wondering 'WTF?' These Socialists are clueless.

  12. Les, I apologize.

    I do try to be a little more diplomatic on your site, because you clearly state in your commenting rules that you will not tolerate that sort of vitriol.

    I apologize. And I mean it.

    There's no excuse for foaming-at-the-mouth vitriol here on your site, but please allow me to say that I am extremely disappointed with TPN for this sort of activity. We do not currently live in the world of Atlas Shrugged. Now is not the time for further damaging the economy in the name of ideology.

    Look at it this way for a moment.

    Imagine if a Republican were president right now. McCain, right? I find it impossible to believe the economy would be any better today if he'd won. So, the Dems would probably outright own the House and the Senate. That's the way it goes, right? So, the Dems want the presidency too - because they would, right?

    So, imagine the unions, all over the country start striking, further damaging the economy, claiming McCain's policies are forcing them to do so, even if they aren't - even if they could be accommodated.

    What would you think about that?

    Would you think it's a healthy American thing to do?

    Playing militant retail politics with an economy that's in shambles is shameful. It's kicking a stray dog. Shameful.

    On top of that, it is useless and counter-productive.

    We have a capitalist system. If you remove actors from a capitalist system you create a vacuum. That vacuum will be filled. If you own, say, a landscaping company, and you pledge to not hire people for a period, and during that period the market grows in your area, other companies will move into your area to fill the demand. You make less profits, and really put the future of your business in question.

    Strikers strike against their bosses.

    Bosses can only strike against each other.

    And the notion that stopping hiring is akin to a labor strike is definitely arguable, but in some ways it's the same. You have to want to damage the market to make your point. But labor strikers can take the damage because they have the least to lose. The upper class has a lot to lose, but not the most. The middle class suffers the most when demand goes beyond domestic production and services. Because the void will be filled, one way or another, and often overseas.

    So really. I just don't get it. What does TPN want? Who exactly tells them what they want? It makes no sense to me.


  13. "So, imagine the unions, all over the country start striking, further damaging the economy"

    Striking should be treated as quitting your job. And if these union members did strike, there's plenty of real workers who would take up the jobs they tossed away.

  14. @dmarks,

    Therein lies the rub, doesn't it? Unions all claim to champion the middle class and working man and all that nonsense, all the while actually enslaving members in their cult-like organizations. Yet when they decide they want to be spoiled babies and strike, opening up the doors for real Americans to come in and gain employment, they piss and moan and act like common thugs.

    Screw the liberal progressive unions. Americans need solidarity against the government as much as they need it against the Socialist unions in America.

  15. Individualism is to be valued very highly. In fact cherished and protected.

    And yes we do indeed need to against encroshing over regulation and government intrusion.

    However, I might ask... Do we live as individuals aside and apart from society or do we live as a member os society.

    Perhaps just a philosophical {or rhetorical} question. IMHO it merits consideration none the less.

  16. Socialism is an individualism of sorts, but under socialism, the rights that all individuals should have are only enjoyed by the ruling elites.

  17. dmarks - As a radical for capitalism {which by the way does not exist anywhere in the world today, nor has it ever} have you ever heard of...

    Democratic socialism? If so perhaps you could explain to me its meaning.

    Because my understanding of democratic socialism {and I admit I could be wrong} does not fit with the description of socialism as you defined it.

  18. Rational: Under democratic socialism, the power structure of the ruling elites is controlled through a democratic process. But you still have it controlled by the ruling class, and not individuals.

    Democratic socialists are a lot less likely to kill you in order to implement and maintain a controlled/command economy than non-democratic socialists. This "milder" nature is probably one of the bigger differences.

  19. And today our mixed economy and over regulated one is controlled b what?

  20. Socialism more traditionally refers to the "means of production" being controlled by the ruling elites (as opposed to capitalism where the people control it).

    Regulation of industries, as opposed to the industries being entirely government-run, fall short of this.

    Such things are a lot easier to call for example if we stalinize healthcare and go with "single payer". That would definitely be socialist.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.