Skip to main content

Home/ Palin Group/ Group items tagged rate

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Yadira Rodriguez

Barack Obama gets a post-debate boost as unemployment falls below 8 percent - Dale McFe... - 3 views

www.newsday.com/...alls-below-8-percent-1.4079591

Obama unemployment rate down

shared by Yadira Rodriguez on 05 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • September unemployment rate
  • fell to 7.8 percent
  • economy added 114,000 jobs in September, good but not enough to keep up with the potential growth in the workforce.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • there are now officially more jobs in the U.S. than when Obama took office.
  • The gains were spread across most sectors of the economy
  • Average pay and the average work week were also up slightly.
  • last month this report may help Obama keep his next month.
  • Mitt Romney carped, "This is not what a real recovery looks like,"
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 05 Oct 12
     
    This article discusses the how the rate of unemployment has decreased and it's affects on Obama's campaign.  Although this is good according to Romney, it is not the best that we can do. Does the fact that the percent it decreased is not a lot? Is it still an accomplishment?
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 06 Oct 12
     
    I think this is a big part of this article: "there are now officially more jobs in the U.S. than when Obama took office." Yes, we need more, and any unemployment at all isn't a good thing, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what matters. The Republicans can't say that Obama has done nothing, because there's clearly some improvement.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 07 Oct 12
     
    I think this is an accomplishment and "the trajectory clearly indicates a recovery" but am not sure why this is related back to the debate. I thought Romney answered the questions more thoroughly and didn't shy away as much as Obama did. Overall, I thought Romney did a better job even though I don't agree with every thing he said. Just because these numbers came out doesn't mean Romney didn't debate successfully.
  • Abby Schantz on 08 Oct 12
     
    I agree. I think what is key about the article is the quote, "Indeed, the economy has added jobs for 24 straight months." What resinates with me which the article touched on and our speaker on the economy in class went in detail with is the idea that because of the growth in population, to have job growth, not only does Obama have to create more jobs than before, but he has to do that on top of an addition number of jobs that account for the increase in population. This is something I never really thought about before but makes a huge difference in how I look at his success in making more jobs.
  • Savannah L on 08 Oct 12
     
    However, unemployment inequality has increased and college students are coming out of college with jobs that they are vastly overqualified for. Also, long term unemployment rates have increased, which in my opinion is a more important number than the short term. If Obama wants to be respected in my opinion, he has to create more long term jobs, which he hasn't done. He has only made our country more dependent on government influence. Just because unemployment is 7.8 does not mean that the economy is actually getting better. The 7.8 is taking into account part time employment, which does not indicate economical well being, especially since 2 million will be laid off before the holiday season. And I'm curious to hear what this speaker you are talking about said, please explain.
Sabrina Rosenfield

Romney and his Tax Returns : The New Yorker - 2 views

www.newyorker.com/...omney-and-his-tax-returns.html

romney tax tax returns

shared by Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12
     
    This is an article about the release of Romney's tax returns for 2011, and whether or not he is being completely honest in saying that he paid 14.1% because he can go back later and get returns for his charitable donations. He argues that not doing so would discourage people from donating. I'm not sure about this quote, "As was widely noted, Romney has also said that he considers claiming every possible legal deduction an ethical test, with rather distinctive terms: if you pay any more than you really, really must, you have failed." I think that for many Americans, this is completely true, but for someone with such a high income, it seems unfair. But isn't fairness the same thing for everyone? What do you guys think?
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Savannah L on 25 Sep 12
     
    Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s
  • Savannah L on 26 Sep 12
     
    ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 28 Sep 12
     
    Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 30 Sep 12
     
    Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.
  • Abby Schantz on 30 Sep 12
     
    In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.
  • Savannah L on 01 Oct 12
     
    Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 01 Oct 12
     
    But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes
  • Savannah L on 02 Oct 12
     
    Sabrina, Let's look at this another way. If Romney made $13.7M in 2011, and donated $4M of that to charity, and also paid 14.1% (or < 13%)... he, in effect, only kept 57% of his income. He gave 13-14% to the government, and another 30% to charities -- hardly reprehensible behavior? He is able to more effectively do "good" with his money by giving it freely to those he feels deserve it can those that can be good stewards of the money. Clearly the President has NOT been a good steward of funds, just look at Solyndra and Beacon Energy. I don't know about you, but I would rather my money go to charities close to my heart rather than sham entities that sit there and waste billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, like Solyndra and Beacon. The tax system is not perfect at all but it does encourage behaviours that are beneficial to society. Why does it matter so much what Romney paid in taxes? Shouldn't we focus on what he gave away to others than to a fiscally irresponsible government?
  • Sami Perez on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree that the actual numbers of what Romney paid in taxes is somewhat unimportant, but symbolically it represents an ethical value that I've noticed in Romney's policies and beliefs. The Urban School recently had a visitor, a professor of economy, who informed us that the president him/herself does not actually have that much control over the economy as it is determined mostly by the private sector of the market. The president can, however, influence the economy through tax policy, and if Governor Romney is unwilling to pay his contribution to the system, which, as Abby said, is what we do to insure that "all opportunities are made possible," he seems to be implying something about how much the upper class should be paying. I realize that is just an opinion, but if you don't agree I hope you can at least understand my belief that all individuals/families, rich or poor, deserve to at least get an opportunity to make their lives more successful. Although the government may not have the power to fix the economy and everything themselves, they can at least provide that opportunity for the American citizens. A hard laborer with minimum wage may be working hard not smart, but that does not mean they don't have the potential to work smart. I believe that as Americans we should make sure that they can fulfill that potential.
James Foster

Lucky Obama: The News Is Bad, But the Mood Is Good - 4 views

www.businessweek.com/...ws-is-bad-but-the-mood-is-good

obama campaign economy

shared by James Foster on 25 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • James Foster on 25 Sep 12
     
    President Obama's reelection campaign is catching a break: The economic news has been bad, but the public hasn't seemed to notice. On Thursday, for example, came news of unexpected weakness in leading economic indicators and jobless claims. This post represents a key problem facing the GOP, which is if Romney can't beat Obama in such a poor economy, than there is something really going wrong within the GOP considering that Romney was picked because he was the "best" choice. What do you guys think is wrong within the GOP and what should they do to fix it?
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 06 Oct 12
     
    The article says "Democrats are likely to look at the economy with rose-colored glasses because they want their candidate to win in November" which doesn't really address anything. If they believe that the economy is bad and that Obama isn't going to fix it, why are they going to vote for him? The article doesn't give any reasoning at all for why people would want to vote for Obama, just makes them seem crazy for wanting to do so. As for your questions, James, I think they did pick the best candidate at the time. I just think that Obama is a really remarkable politician and public speaker, whether you agree with him or not, and Romney can't compete with that. That, and many people really do believe that Obama is improving the economy.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 07 Oct 12
     
    I'm not seeing the true point of this article. I think the "rose-colored glasses" refer to people that will support Obama regardless of the campaign. I think that there are people who like what he has done and trust him so will vote for him regardless of the economic state right now...but is that hard to believe? Not really. He probably has some advantage from winning people's trust in the past 4 years.
  • Abby Schantz on 08 Oct 12
     
    Yeah I agree. I don't think the article went into enough detail with enough facts to convince me of anything. Of course people who support Obama and want him to win are going to see him in a better way then people supporting Romney. And I think depending which part of Obama you choose to focus on, there is a good and bad just like with the policies or actions of any other politician.
  • Savannah L on 09 Oct 12
     
    Sabrina, I disagree with you in just about nearly everything that you said. The economy is not getting better. He's put more long term damage on us than I thought imaginable 4 years ago. I don't think that he has helped our economy, and here is why: Yes, he did help save us from total collapse, but even then, it wasn't him, it was TARP, signed into law under Bush, which even permitted his actions as acceptable. Gas prices have raised by 1.30/gal and the amount of americans on food stamps has doubled. Sure, short-term unemployment is down from a couple of weeks ago, but the fact of the matter is that at this time in 2008 it was 13M, and it is now 22M. Yes, I understand that Obama has to deal with the Bush era's layover, but in 2016 he will have only improved this number slightly to 19M, not nearly enough to say that he is helping our economy. Under Obama, income inequality was greater than in 2008. Long term unemployment rates have doubled, which in my opinion, is a better indicater of long term well being. The big 5 made 48% of our GDP this year, compared to 32% in 2008, thanks to Dod Franklin. He's increasing middle class tax burden by about 3,000$ with the passing of Obamacare. ACA will increase our debt by 500M a year because it calls for 1T in funds, but only allows tax raises totalling half of that, causing our budget deficit to increase rapidly. At current rates, excluding the increases in deficit from ACA and others, in 2016 our spending will be 130% of our GDP, which is simply instable and can in no way be considered 'helpful' to our economy. Let's not forget the high intrest on our debt, so this number will only drastically increase in the long run. Some of you will be paying taxes by 2016, and as a taxpayer you will owe the government around 220K apeice, because at that point in time an even lower fraction of our population will be paying taxes than currently. I do not like Obama as a politician at
  • Savannah L on 10 Oct 12
     
    all. Also, I think that Romney much better as a debater, Obama stumbled through the entire debate and was unable to use statistics to his advantage, and I personally believe that an argument without statistics is a flop and as a result do not think that Obama is a good debater.
  • Sami Perez on 11 Oct 12
     
    Even though the article does not provide much proof, I think our debate here provides good evidence to this issue. Being in San Francisco, I know and have spoken with many people who seem very dedicated to Obama because of his persona, but are very ignorant to facts and news about our current national position. I think that Savannah's point is also valid, and can understand why many people would be on the GOP's side. Thus it is difficult to say one point should be more valid than the other, and these arguments amongst ourselves seem to prove why many still favor Obama and why many today favor the GOP.
Savannah L

States Rush to Meet Tight Health Care Deadlines - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...ght-health-care-deadlines.html

shared by Savannah L on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
    • Savannah L
      Savannah L on 09 Nov 12
       
      Another reason why I feel ACA is a horrible law: because it cuts money from medicaid. 
  • that rates for older subscribers cannot be more than three times the rates for young adults. But, Ms. Handelman said, the administration has not said how those ratios will be calculated.
    • Savannah L
      Savannah L on 09 Nov 12
       
      It is simply too inspecific. I'm sure Obama meant well, but the fact of the matter is numerous aspects of the bill are jumbled and confusing.
Savannah L

Obama and Boehner Circle Each Other on Budget Impasse - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...h-other-on-budget-impasse.html

obama boehner house bush tax cuts

shared by Savannah L on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The Treasury Department expects the country to hit its debt ceiling, a legal limit on the amount the government is allowed to borrow, close to the end of the year.
    • Savannah L
      Savannah L on 09 Nov 12
       
      Anyone else completely frightnened that we will reach our new debt ceiling by the end of this year? We can't keep raising it to allow for this sort of spending. 
  • Savannah L on 09 Nov 12
     
    I think that it is nice to see some hope towards compromise at the white house, but at the same time respect Boehner so much more for saying that he simply will not accept any tax plan that isn't balanced. We  really can't afford to be increasing our budget deficit any more. At current rates, our debt to gdp ratio will be up 40% by the end of 2016, and we cannot afford to be increasing our deficit. By 2016, the interest on our massive debt because of our skyrocketing budget deficit will have tripled. We are financially headed in a horrible direction, and I am trusting Boehner to shut down any attempts to pass more debt-skyrocketing bills. I agree with this article's position on tax cuts to the wealthy, increasing taxes will only hurt the private sector even further. Even the CBO agrees that if bush tax cuts were to expire unemployment would rise to a whopping 9%, and as such should not be allowed to expire.The private sector, not the government, creates jobs, and this article confirms to me why the government should make it easier for the private sector to create jobs by allowing the bush tax cuts to continue. 
Abby Schantz

Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago? - 3 views

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...-off-than-you-were-4-years-ago

better off economy Obama Paul Ryan

shared by Abby Schantz on 03 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Abby Schantz on 03 Sep 12
     
    Obama's campaign is fighting to say that the country is better off than it was 4 years ago in response to Republicans saying otherwise.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'm looking forward to Obama's speech tomorrow night because I'm really curious the tone he will take. I liked the comment a lot in this article that said if he's too optimistic the Republicans will "pounce" and people will think he isn't taking the economic situation gravely.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 08 Sep 12
     
    One thing that stand out to me in this article is the idea that both candidates claim to be a champion for the middle class, and say that the other would crush the middle class. It's interesting that while they disagree in many areas, giving power back to the middle class is one that they agree on. I think the biggest mistake in this article is the lack of preparation on the part of the Democrats. "Are you better off?" is a fairly simply question…and one that you shouldn't say no to if you're hoping to reelect the president.
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 10 Sep 12
     
    This question of whether America is better of now than it was four years ago is really hard to measure. What does better of mean? Obama has been able to accomplish things like kill Osama bin Laden, create obamacare, and stop the war in Iraq. These things that Obama has done make me believe that we are better of.
  • Savannah L on 10 Sep 12
     
    This article really highlights their wars over the middle class and shows different definitions on what is considered to make the country better off. I'm not surprised that both the GOP and the democrats are trying their hardest to make themselves better in the eyes of the middle class, which is the 'swing state' of the financial world. I agree with the republicans completely on this, I feel like 50,000 dollars per citizen in debt, a doubling of our long term unemployment rates, the 40% of every dollar being spent that is borrowed, and that our national debt under him is growing at a rate fast enough to equal our gdp in a couple of months are all overshadowing anything else from obama's presidency. ACA is only going to increase our national debt at the steep price of those it is trying to help, not to mention the wars on terrorism are far from over even though Osama is dead.
Abby Schantz

What is really Romney's view oh healthcare and taxes? - 5 views

www.foxnews.com/...isan-tone-on-taxes-health-care

press romney healthcare taxes obamacare

shared by Abby Schantz on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Abby Schantz on 11 Sep 12
     
    This article gives quote by Romney saying he is not going to change all of Obama's healthcare and he is not going to lower taxes for the wealthy. The article shows him trying to "meet the press" 
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 16 Sep 12
     
    It seems odd that Romney thinks that "he said he wants to make sure young people can stay on their parents' plan 'up to whatever age they might like'" because that could be forever in many cases, if it really is to whatever age they like. It's also interesting that he said "I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers.", because that's definitely something that the Democrats are claiming he will do. Sometimes, it's really hard to tell who is telling the truth.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 16 Sep 12
     
    I also think it's interesting that the Obama campaign accused Romney of "unapologetic evasiveness," when from this article, it seems like Romney is being a little bit more clear by saying he will not reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 17 Sep 12
     
    I find it really interesting that Romney does not want to get rid of Obama's health plan, rather he wants to change some parts of the reform like give coverage to kids for as long as they want as well as allowing people with pre-existing conditions. In my opinion just looking at what Romney's wants to do with healthcare is not as bad as it seems, but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem.
  • Savannah L on 18 Sep 12
     
    Yadria- I am slightly confused by what you mean with "but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem". Do you disagree with his plan? Just wondering. I agree with Ryan. Cutting spending, not taxes is the best way to get ourselves out of debt. The federal budget deficit is roughly a third of our federal spending, and is growing at an alarming rate. Our gross debt to GDP ratio is 104% because of our excessive spending. The per-capitia taxpayer debt (since only a third of americans pay taxes) is around 140,000. The fact of the matter is, no matter what way you want to look at it, we as a country are spending way too much. Yes, tax cuts for the middle class would be nice, but placing the debts on those making more than 250,000 a year is far from a solution because it is punishing those who work hard and stimulate the economy. Those small-buisness-owners, the job creators, are only going to get slammed with tax increases, and they are going to drag the economy down with them. Yes, our tax revenue is increasing, but drastically slower than the rate of our spending, which is a massive problem that can only be solved by cutting spending and reducing our budget deficit, unless Obama wants to try to increase taxes by 150%.
Will Rothman

Romney attacks Obama over weak US job figures - Americas - Al Jazeera English - 3 views

www.aljazeera.com/...201297125335998311.html

Obama Jobs Romney Unemployment Eight Percent

shared by Will Rothman on 13 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Will Rothman on 13 Sep 12
     
    Romney is using Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment rate below 8% as one of his most convincing points against the president's last four years.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 16 Sep 12
     
    On one hand, creating jobs is an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and it's certainly not the only part of the campaign. On the other hand, if Obama specifically promised to lower unemployment by a certain amount, it's frustrating that he hasn't been able to. But you can't take that as the only fact in the question "are you better off than you were four years ago?".
  • Abby Schantz on 16 Sep 12
     
    Yes job creation is not the only question in "are you better off than you were four years ago?" but it is a big one. Having a job is a key to having a good life. It is one of the issues that most directly affects each American person. Even someone who pays no attention to politics or policy whatsoever is directly affected by jobs. So if Obama cannot create jobs now, I can see why the Romney campaign would choose to focus on criticizing that so strongly.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 16 Sep 12
     
    Unemployment has become such a pressing issue for many families that Romney is smart to bring up Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment. Because having jobs is important to everyone, it makes sense that Romney is using this to the best of his advantage. That said, there is only so much control that Obama has and I don't think his "failed promise" leads directly to "are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Will Rothman

BBC News - Barack Obama in Ohio Labor Day campaign stop - 4 views

www.bbc.co.uk/...world-us-canada-19468885

Obama Ohio BBC swing state

shared by Will Rothman on 04 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • "paying off for America".
  • For far too many Americans, today is another day of worrying when their next paycheck will come."
  • A Gallup opinion poll released on Monday suggested the convention had given the Republicans only the slightest of boosts, with 40% saying they were now more likely to vote for Mr Romney but 38% of respondents describing themselves as less likely to.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • He roused the crowd with the familiar slogan: "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."
  • Will Rothman on 04 Sep 12
     
    Obama is really emphasizing the Auto-industry bailout and the positive outcomes that have resulted from his revenue injection. Also, Romney is gaining ground.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 06 Sep 12
     
    Although Obama stresses the positive outcomes from "reviving" General Motive,s I'm wondering why he didn't (maybe it just wasn't discussed in this article) continue talking about the jobs he will create. The unemployment rate is still high despite the Auto-industry bailout and I would think Ohio needs to hear what he WILL do along with what he has accomplished.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 08 Sep 12
     
    I think Obama is making a smart move to reflect on the improvements he has made in Ohio, but I agree with Danielle that it's strange that he doesn't mention future progress. He also revisits a risky idea that he mentioned in his DNC speech: that the road to recovery is long and far from easy, and we're just starting.
  • Abby Schantz on 08 Sep 12
     
    I understand why Obama's campaign continues to focus on their success in the past four years because it is a lot easier for people to pick out the negatives themselves than the positives. That being said, I agree that it is important that he focus a lot on future progress which I think he usually does tend to do.
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 10 Sep 12
     
    I feel like this speech that Obama made at the car maker factory is similar to what Romney was doing at his stump speech at the oil company. They were both relating to their audience. This makes sense since North Carolina is a swing state. Obama was trying to appeal to them and gain their vote.
Savannah L

14 Things Obama Doesn't Want You to Know - 1 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...to-know-economy_n_1855172.html

obama economy housing banks

shared by Savannah L on 20 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Savannah L on 20 Sep 12
     
    Wow, very interesting and enlightening article that I feel like a lot of Obama supporters aren't aware of. Certainly goes against everything that Obama argued for, which I thought was very interesting. Statistically, it checks out.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 23 Sep 12
     
    This was an interesting article but I feel like it simplified a lot of the issues that Obama was being criticized on. While he didn't create as many jobs as he set out to, he did create many and it seems nit picky to me to discredit him because they were "low-income" jobs.
  • James Foster on 23 Sep 12
     
    This article isn't discrediting Obama because the jobs he created were "low-income" jobs, but because the many low-income jobs that he created replaced the middle wage jobs that were there before they were lost during the recession.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12
     
    What's most interesting about this article to me is that the Huffington Post, which is very liberal, is very openly criticizing Obama. I think this says a lot for their integrity and not just reporting news that supports their opinions.
  • Abby Schantz on 24 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Sabrina that it's interesting to see the Huffington post writing this. I really did enjoy the way this article was formatted though, it was a nice change to most of the articles I have been reading. It also left points that will stick with me as they were concise and came with visual as well.
  • Savannah L on 25 Sep 12
     
    James, you are right. College graduates from 2008-2012 are more likely to be overqualified for their jobs more than ever, in addition, short term unemployment has increased by 3% and long term unemployment under Barack has doubled. And besides, if you look at the current rates of which we are spending, failing to ignore the next four years of "more progress" that Obama wants to implement, our national debt will be 23 trillion dollars. This is the pure definition of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama alone will have spent twice as more as all of the presidents before him. And this is if his current policies stay the same, not taking into account on whether he will spend more money. This is all neglecting the 520 billion dollar interest, and neglecting the fact that less than half of each dollar being spent will be our own, the rest China's. I can't think of a more fiscally irresponsible president. These are some statistics I never hear mentioned at the DNC and am ecstatic that even a liberal news site recognizes their magnitude.
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20▼ items per page