Obama’s Tour de B.S. Rides On
Am I beating a dead horse? Well, not entirely…because it’s not dead yet. As long as Obama keeps spewing rhetoric that falls somewhere between baseless nonsense and outright lies, I will continue to address it. On Saturday, during his weekly radio/internet address to the nation, B.O. offered the following,
‘Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences.’
So, what you’re saying is that not extending unemployment benefits beyond two years is obstructing progress? What the hell constitutes progress then? Three years of unemployment benefits? Is he actually advocating that continued unemployment benefits will create jobs? Haven’t we been trying this for some time now? Newsflash Barry: it’s not working! Continuing to pay people to not work, with money we don’t have, coupled with a complete refusal to implement any legislation that may actually spur job growth is not progress. It’s continuing to pour gasoline into a gas tank with a big-ass hole in it and waiting for the car to run; and when it doesn’t, advocate for the pouring of more…on credit.
Obama has made job creation his top domestic priority and has traveled repeatedly to the U.S. heartland to tout policies that lift hiring, including to Holland, Michigan, on Thursday for the groundbreaking of an electric car battery factory that has received federal dollars.
While not a direct quote from Obama, this is certainly a position he has offered before. Assertions like this one continue to make me wonder if I’ve completely lost my mind. How exactly has Barry made “job creation his top priority?” Is there any basis for this contention? What policies have been implemented that “lift hiring?” Is it those unemployment benefits you keep talking about?
Oh, and that electric car battery factor in Michigan that is producing all of those jobs? It’s mostly federal subsidies. And yes, I can here it now: “but it’s job creation! those are jobs that wouldn’t be there without the factory (and government money)!” Well, that’s true. But what happens when the factory stops receiving government subsidies? If at that point the factory isn’t making the company money, it will close its doors. See, this is the problem with “government stimulus” or “government subsidies.” They’re temporary by their very nature. Why? Because the government doesn’t make any money, but always finds new stuff to spend money on. We need sustained private sector job growth; not a one-time steroid injection.
U.S. growth has resumed after the worst recession in decades, thanks in part to a $862 billion stimulus plan Obama signed last year.
But this recovery has been slow to produce new jobs, and his Democrats risk punishment by voters in congressional elections on November 2 unless he can start to curb unemployment now running at 9.5 percent.
It’s true that slow growth has resumed. It’s also true that the private sector is slowly adding new jobs — not enough to equate to net job growth since not enough jobs are being created to match population growth — but at least we’re not losing them, right? Has it resumed because of the stimulus though? The fact is, no one knows. What we do know is that, without the stimulus, the economy would have bottomed out simply because all the companies that couldn’t stay in business would have eventually gone out of business, and everyone else would have, at some point, slashed enough overhead to survive. We also know that the stimulus didn’t keep unemployment maxed out at 8% like the obama administration claimed it would. Does that make it a failure? I would argue yes (duh), especially when no one can provide evidence that its net effect has been to create jobs.
Frustratingly for the White House, its proposals to extend unemployment insurance, cut capital gains taxes on investments and set up a fund to boost lending to small businesses have been repeatedly blocked on Capitol Hill.
This is the liberal talking point that will continue to be argued for the next three months or so. It’s a complete sham, as we discussed here on Friday. Simply put: if Obama actually wanted to pass a tax cut, he could. So could the Dems. Instead, they attach tax cuts to some other monstrosity of a bill that would completely defeat the purpose of the tax cuts contained therein. Thus, it is filibustered. Seems kind of like a self-fulfilling prophesy, huh?
‘They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money,’ chided Obama.
‘So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,’ he said.
The issue of Clinton’s “surplus” was also tackled here recently. The fact is, Bush did not inherit a surplus; he inherited a projected surplus based on a forecast of perpetual roses and sunshine, which is a very different thing. I actually enjoy Obama’s continued reliance on Clinton’s fiscal responsibility, however, because it shows he has no answers of his own. Barry possesses no counter-arguments to the assertions that all of his domestic policies have been total disasters. Simply put, the president is lost (which is a scary thing). That’s precisely why he brought in Clinton and previous supporter Warren Buffet for a closed-door White House session on the economy this past week.
Yep, Barry inherited a terrible economy. But that doesn’t excuse his complete failure to do anything about it, and then lie about why he hasn’t done anything about it. Of course, Obama’s privately hoping that the Republicans regain control of at least the House, because it will provide him further excuses for failing to do anything constructive. Who knows, maybe it will even allow him to move to the center and get stuff done, just like 1994 did for Clinton. After all, that mid-term election helped create all of those “surpluses” we hear so much about.