|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: September 09, 2012, 06:59:47 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 9-3-2012
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Shortage of Labor Day
September 3, 2012
The Foundation
"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." --Benjamin Franklin
For the Record
"Eight years ago, when John Kerry tried to defeat the incumbent George W. Bush, he accused Bush of leading a 'jobless recovery.' When the economy started creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, Kerry and the Democrats then claimed that Bush was creating mostly 'McJobs,' low-wage positions rather than higher-paying jobs for people with significant skills. ... Today, the Obama administration keeps claiming to have added 4.3 million jobs by choosing to start from February 2010 rather than the start of the recovery in June 2009 or the passage of Barack Obama's stimulus package in February 2009. The Obama recovery in full has only added less than 65,000 jobs per month, far below the level needed to keep up with population growth (125K-150K per month), and the civilian population participation rate has fallen to a 30-year low this spring. A new study now shows that even those jobs that have been added are the 'McJobs'1 that Kerry inaccurately accused Bush's recovery of generating. ... We're not even keeping up with population growth in this recovery. The average jobs added per month since January has been 83,286 according to the BLS ... still a long way from keeping up with population growth. That's not a recovery in jobs at all, which anyone looking at the participation rate (63.7%) would instantly recognize. The data shows that even the paltry job creation of the Obama recovery has done little to advance the economy. Businesses won't invest in job-creating activities that require more expensive labor until they can reliably calculate future costs, which in this regulatory and tax environment, they cannot do. That's why companies are sitting on their capital, and why we won't get anything but McJobs in significant numbers until those policies change." --columnist Ed Morrissey2
Opinion in Brief
"Both the offensive and defensive segments of [Mitt Romney's] speech [Thursday night] -- as of this convention as a whole -- strike us as a success. Romney's remarks about his own agenda were sketchier but promising, and conservative. In the past Romney has described conservatism as a three-legged stool resting on free markets, moral truth, and national strength. He mentioned all three elements [Thursday]: promising to protect the sanctity of life, to guard against unwise cuts to the defense budget, and above all to remove governmental impediments to economic growth. The economic policies he suggested -- energy development, school choice, new trade agreements, spending restraint, reductions in taxes on business, regulatory simplification, and the replacement of Obamacare -- impress us as sensible if incomplete. (We also need a monetary policy, for example, that reduces uncertainty rather than adds to it.) We would not be surprised if the president delivers a finer literary production in his speech next week. What he cannot talk away is a high unemployment rate, a legislative record most Americans dislike, and a philosophy they do not share. [Thursday] night may be remembered as when the Obama tide began to recede." --National Review3
Political Futures
"[Paul] Ryan's speech made an understated bow towards Reagan's political message with a signature passage. 'The right that makes all the difference now is the right to choose our own leaders. You are entitled to the clearest possible choice because the time for choosing is drawing near,' Ryan told the Tampa convention crowd. There is no doubt that he was reaching back to Reagan's classic political debut speech endorsing the 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater. Reagan burst onto the national scene with a speech he called 'A Time for Choosing.' He told his audience back then, 'The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.' ... Liberals are already throwing spitballs at Ryan. They recognize that his candidacy has energized Mitt Romney and the conservative base to run a campaign on bold ideas that calls on voters to make a fundamental choice about the country's future. ... Now we'll see how much the country likes the newly unveiled Romney-Ryan team. So far the signs are favorable." --columnist John Fund4
Re: The Left
"In the run-up to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., Democrats and their fellow travelers in the so-called mainstream media claimed that the GOP was waging a 'war against women,' depicted Mitt Romney as a heartless felon responsible for the death of a woman who lost her health insurance and blasted Romney for choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate. They then tried to define Ryan as a heartless ideologue who would eliminate Medicare and throw grandmothers off a cliff. ... That wasn't good enough for the potentates of the press. The GOP was castigated for going ahead with its convention while 'a terrible storm' was 'causing so much death and destruction.' We were reminded repeatedly that Isaac had hit the Louisiana and Mississippi coastlines on 'the seventh anniversary of Katrina.' One commentator, a former ABC and PBS political director, reporting for Yahoo News from the convention hall, said Republicans 'are happy to have a party with black people drowning.' It was a perfect storm of media hostility coupled with breathless live reports of wind, rain and flooding, all timed to disrupt and distract attention from the events in Tampa. Yet when it was all said and done, the Republicans provided a remarkably effective introduction of the GOP candidates for the tens of millions of Americans who tuned in." --columnist Oliver North5
The Gipper
"Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, 'Well done'? Can anyone compare the state of our economy when [this] administration took office with where we are today and say, 'Keep up the good work'? Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, 'Let's have four more years of this'? I believe the American people are going to answer these questions ... and their answer will be, 'No, we've had enough!'" --Ronald Reagan6
Government
"On Tuesday, the [Obama] administration announced that it had finalized 'historic' new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything's 'historic' with these narcissists, isn't it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that '(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.' Jon Carson, director of Obama's Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how 'auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards' and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will 'save consumers $8,000' per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America's Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have 'veto power' over reporters' quotes from campaign officials. ... Given this crony government's abysmal track record in 'investing' in new technologies (cough -- Solyndra -- cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What is real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now." --columnist Michelle Malkin7 |
