By Chaplain Ayesha Kreutz
When running for President, Obama assured us that he had pro-growth policies and solutions that would make America competitive and would bring the whole nation together. He promised us that his policies would provide shovel ready jobs. In 2008, while in Scranton, he even implied that his policies were going to lower the sea levels. In 2009, Obama also said: “I will be held accountable. I’ve got 4 years, … a year from now I think people are gonna see we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still gonna be some pain out there. If I do not have this done in 3 years then there’s is gonna be a 1 term proposition.”
Obama’s “pro-growth” strategies are in lock step with the socialist ideals of how to “fix” the economy. He believes in government-based solutions and that the public sector is the key to saving the economy by growing government-based programs, building infrastructure, expanding state-sponsored welfare and unemployment. In short, he’d rather keep the government in control of things instead of individuals, even though government can never be held accountable like individuals can be. The people aren’t allowed to fire the whole government without some sort of bloody revolution.
So I wanted to explore the results of Obama’s “solutions” put forth as he has exhausted almost every government-based solution to fix the economy. Where have his “pro-growth” policies have gotten us? Let’s see look at the numbers and see if they stand up to the definition of “success.”
Unemployment is presently at 8.3%, meaning 12.8 million people are out of work (which means they are technically looking for a job because they are on unemployment, which hasn’t run out for them yet- they can be on unemployment for almost 2 years). Black unemployment is 14%, youth unemployment is 23%, and the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and more) is little changed at 5.2 million. These individuals accounted for 40.7% of the unemployed.
In the last three years, Obama has “created” 2.6 million new jobs — a number that does not even keep up with the average population growth or with the number of (legal) immigrants. Furthermore, there are still 4.3 million fewer people actually working than in January of 2009 when he was inaugurated. As well, in that same 3-year period, 3.1 million signed up for Social Security Disability. This is another history making moment for Obama. He is the first president in history to create more disabled people than workers. Should we call him the disabler-in-chief?
To be honest, when I started researching for this article, I thought that since Obama will meet privately with actors, homosexuals, Hispanic- and white-business owners before he meets with Black-business owners and that seeing as how he has no minority businessmen in his inner circle, this would be a great angle to go on. But after looking at the numbers, I discovered it doesn’t matter how we look at it. It is all bad.
There are many reasons for such a poor showing in the numbers, but I think two stick out. Small Business’s create 65% of all new jobs (not the Fortune 500 companies). So the first is the lack of predictability Obama provides. Obama is constantly shaming the successful, talking about raising taxes on the job creators (he calls them “the wealthy”- but who gets a job from some poor guy?) and hanging the costs of Obamacare on the backs of businesses. All that has been created is more uncertainty. That alone is the biggest business and job killer there is. Predictability and certainty are what gives business owners the confidence to risk more, spend more, try harder, expand and ultimately hire more people.
The second reason that stands out is the reason that most non-Marxist economists steer away from the socialist model. Why? The government is reliant upon taxpayer money, and, in order to have a windfall of taxes, you need economic and business growth. To fuel big government you need a big private sector economy, but socialism seeks to take over the private sector, so the economy becomes unstable. The government is not a profitable entity. It is funded by the taxes paid by profitable entities.
If the government takes over a part of the private sector, that newly nationalized private sector is no longer profitable. It’s just another part of the government. I know: but what about the fact that government workers pay taxes on the incomes they receive? Well, if they work for the government, their pay comes from the government, and it is ultimately paid with tax dollars that came from tax revenues from those that do not work for the government. Written another way, when a government worker pays federal income taxes on their salary, they’re just paying the same government that paid their salary in the first place. Their whole pay is nothing but the disbursement of income taxes paid by those who don’t work for the government.
So when socialism takes workers out of the private sector thus making them government workers, we have fewer actual taxpayers and more employed people being paid with tax dollars. This increases the budget and requires more private-sector money from a shrinking private sector. For example: doctors pay a lot in taxes because being a doctor is quite profitable. Under Obamacare, once the private insurers go out of business due to their inability to compete with the tax-free government insurance plans, all doctors will inevitably work for the government. Their pay will mostly come from government-issued checks, and so will the taxes that they pay. Where will the government make up for the loss of revenue? More taxes? Keep this in mind: if you took 100% of every wealthy person’s income, you couldn’t even fund the government for 4 months.
That’s part of Obamas’ “success”record- in my next part we will talk GDP but in the mean time, what is poor President Obama going to do if he gets re-elected? I mean look at the mess he is going to inherit
Powered by Facebook Comments