Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged unemployment

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Cameron G

The Rich versus Everybody Else in Obama's America - 4 views

www.americanthinker.com/...dy_else_in_obamas_america.html

shared by Cameron G on 25 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • John West on 30 Sep 12
     
    While I think the ideology behind this article would be hard to debate productively on a forum like Diigo, a conversation about the portrayal of each candidate as a champion of "class warfare" might be a little more fruitful. Class is definitely an issue that any comment, by Romney or by Obama, could incite claims like these. The issue I have with this article is the wordplay it involves: while taking minor quotes from Obama (or just referencing what he's saying) makes him sound like this class-warfare champion, I would be interested to see this author write the same article about Romney. For every spending figure the author cites, I believe a similar one could be drummed up to paint Romney as a villain. The wildly controversial video of Romney, in which he basically divides the country into two halves, those who are dependent and those who are not, strikes me as the very definition of class warfare. If the author wants Obama held accountable for his words, the same can be done with Romney (I don't think it's a coincidence that this article was published shortly after the video leaked). I generally have a problem with using ideology to paint one candidate as hero and another as villain: I would rather take on faith that each candidate truly and honestly thinks his plan will work, and find which one I agree with. The idea that, next month, we will permanently decide the "vision of America" seems like a distraction to me.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Eli Melrod on 01 Oct 12
     
    This article is full of generalizations that are not true. First off, Chris Christie is not some hero that created jobs (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/christie-talks-of-a-comeback-but-jobs-data-may-say-otherwise/?ref=christopherjchristie). New Jersey has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any state in the country. His entire "New Jersey Comeback" is essentially not true. A plethora of top scholars have pointed out that New Jersey is in fact not doing that well. In that vain, it is quite telling that Christie didn't once mention the "New Jersey Comeback" in his speech at the convention, because it is frankly just rhetoric. Second off, the claims that this author makes about Democrats are pure generalization based upon ideological rhetoric that doesn't provide for a fruitful debate at all. This statement: "Single women, a major Democrat voting bloc, like the anti-rich message for several reasons. They are more likely to be poor and use government aid. Idealistic young women enjoy feeling kind -- how enjoyable it is to feel virtuous by being generous with other people's money" is offensive. There is no statistical analysis, just a generalization about women. Also, where is this anti-rich message? Not once did the author of the article provide any basis for his idea that Democrats are anti-rich. In fact, Democrats have time and time again clarified that they are not anti-rich; they just want policies that will allow all the chance to succeed and eventually become rich. Another absurd claim the author makes is, "Our minorities who receive preferential treatment in jobs and education are happy to think the system is still unfair fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, and that they deserve more privileges and more money." The system is still unfair! There are m
  • Cameron G on 01 Oct 12
     
    Eli, I understand your concern with details of this article, but the point I was more concerned with is the representation of the upper class in modern America. I tried to get an article I read in Fortune, but it was not online, so this was the best I could do. I do think that the rich are often portrayed as the villains. Why should people be concerned with "spreading the wealth" and not with learning how to get more themselves. It is true that less well off individuals tend to favor the Democrat candidate. I just think that everybody needs to stop accusing the rich and learn from them.
  • mabel taylor on 02 Oct 12
     
    I agree with a lot of what John and Eli said, not only because of the inaccuracy of the comments made in this article but also as a liberal "idealistic young [woman]," I didn't know before that I only like Obama because of some misguided desire to be nice to people! Otherwise, Cameron, I think that you are delegitimizing this article further by pointing out that the details are irrelevant. The details are only irrelevant because they are so broad-sweeping and false that they end up outlandish and almost humorous. In actuality, they represent the ignorance that defines this article and the lack of respect for real people in the United States who might not be as privileged as the upper class Americans you also referenced. This is something that I often see as flawed in Republican values, very few poor people have the resources to simply "learn" from the rich and completely pull themselves out of their situations which are exasperated by entire social systems inherently working against them.
cody s

Barack Obama's economic record: End-of-term report | The Economist - 3 views

www.economist.com/21561909

barack obama economy record employment unemployment obama

shared by cody s on 04 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • cody s on 04 Sep 12
     
    I chose this article, from The Economist. It's long, and pretty boring, but I think it addresses the issue of Obama's economic record from an (as far as I can tell) objective standpoint. Obama and Romney are making conflicting claims about the state of the American economy under Obama, both of them citing statistics, and, unsure of who to believe, I went in search of an article like this.      The article neither adulates nor lambastes Obama, which I think adds to its credibility. Interestingly, it seems to support Mitt Romney's characterization of Obama as a starry-eyed idealist, saying "Mr. Obama's personal priorities carried the day... Mr. Obama has always portrayed himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. In practice, though, he usually chooses bigger government over small."      The articles casts Obama as having arrived to the Oval office with unrealistic goals, but still having made progress despite not living up to those goals. These unrealized goals, though, can still be used against him by the Republicans to win disillusioned Obama voters over to the right.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • mabel taylor on 08 Sep 12
     
    I think this article does a good job of summarizing Obama's relationship with the economy in a methodical and detailed way. It gave clear descriptions of the steps through which Obama has attempted to restore the economy, balancing heavily number-based evidence with explanations of how Obama's personal initiative comes into play in the world of policy. There is also a good transition in the article to discussing how Obama will tackle issues if he has a second term, which discusses how Obama's often lofty promises, like saying he will not "not to raise taxes on 95% of families" are simply unrealistic and do not make a lot of sense. There is often a general feel that the promises presidential candidates make will be hard to bring to life, so having straightforward evidence to support this was helpful.
  • John West on 09 Sep 12
     
    The point Cody brought up about unrealized goals, but goals with progress, is one that I see being key to the arguments both sides are making. It's a good summary of what's at the heart of Obama's hope to "finish the job" and Romney's sad portrait of the last four years. I think the article really gets at the tough place he is in: are we supposed to criticize or praise Obama for doing basically everything a president should do, but not delivering what he promised? The way it talks about the mini-recession that occurred just because of the transition sort of sells me the claim that a lot of went wrong can't be pinned on him. Granted I don't know that much about economics, the decisions he made for sections of a tanking economy (stimulus, etc.) seemed level-headed, and seemed like they came from a pool of options limited to a "Democrat" choice and a "Republican" choice. Also, debt vs. deficit?
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Sep 12
     
    I thought it was interesting to read the description of Obama's unique position as a president influencing the US economy. Comparing him to FDR's response to the Depression shed new light on the difficulty of Obama's position and the complexity of his response. Being reminded that the months between FDR's victory and his inauguration were the worst months of the Depression put perspective on Obama's need to both quickly gain credibility and take some serious risks. It was interesting to read that The Economist felt that his stress tests were more effective because they were tougher and more transparent that those set up in Europe. In fact, the only clear criticism they make is that he didn't take the risk to spend a lot of money on the mortgage crisis. I would have thought a more conservative magazine, like The Economist, would think the government should have spent less. It is interesting to think that with all these complicated decisions, Obama's biggest mistake may have been that he promised too much. I think that might be right. Listening to him now, he seems to understand that. His speeches are less inspirational, but in may ways more realistic.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page