Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

How do you sell Obama's policies in the state with highest unemployment?

Obama's visit to Nevada on Harry Reid's behalf is particularly interesting because the unemployment rate in that state is the highest in the nation. How can Obama and Dems sell that state on the idea that their policies are working?

Here's how Obama tried to do that today, per the White House transcript:

When we took office, amid the worst economy since the Great Depression, we needed Harry's fighting spirit. We had lost nearly three million jobs during the last six months of 2008. Over 750,000 jobs in January of 2009 alone -- the consequence of a decade of misguided economic policies; a decade of stagnant wages; a decade of falling incomes.

So our first mission was to break the momentum of the deepest and most vicious recession since the Great Depression. It was to stop the freefall; and to get the economy and jobs growing again.

And digging ourselves out of this mess required making some tough decisions -- decisions that weren't all popular. But Harry was willing to lead those fights because he knew we had to change course; that to do nothing; to simply continue the policies that were in place, would mean an even greater disaster. And to fail to act on some of the great challenges facing our country would mean a lesser future for our children and grandchildren.

As a result of those tough steps, we are in a different place today. Our economy is growing, instead of shrinking. We have gained private sector jobs for each of the past six months, instead of losing them. Almost 600,000 new jobs.

And then the nod to the reality that Nevadans live daily:

Of course, that's not nearly enough. I don't have to tell you that. Many of you have felt the pain of these hard times personally. Maybe you've found yourself underwater on your mortgage and faced the terrible prospect of losing your home. Maybe you're out of work, and worried about how you're going to provide for your family. Maybe you're a student at UNLV and wondering if you'll be able to find a job when you graduate, if you'll be able to pay off your loans, if you'll be able to start your career on the right foot...

I know we've been through tough times, Nevada. And I can't promise you the difficult days are all behind us. I can't promise you there won't be more times to come. But I can promise you this: we are headed in the right direction. We are moving forward. And I am absolutely confident that if we're willing to keep on moving forward, and if we refuse to turn backward; if we're willing to show a little of that same fighting spirit Harry Reid has shown throughout his career; then we will make our way through these storms, to brighter days ahead.

The problem for Obama and Dems: While they need to argue that their policies are responsible for stabilizing the economy and putting us on the road to recovery, how do they do this without seeming out of touch with the reality on the ground? How do they do this without making it tougher to point to how awful things are in order to spur Congress to act? At what point does it become counter-productive happy-talk?

My question to you: Is Obama's pitch good enough? If the unemployment rate remains at 14%, will anything he and Dems say even matter?

By Greg Sargent  |  July 9, 2010; 12:34 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Financial reform , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is Obama a patsy, or a thug?
Next: Obama: Yes, government can facilitate recovery

Comments

"While they need to argue that their policies are responsible for stabilizing the economy and putting us on the road to recovery, how do they do this without seeming out of touch with the reality on the ground?"

Two words:

THE SUN.

"""Hours before Obama arrived in the Nevada on Thursday to hold a fundraiser for Reid, the Departments of Energy and Interior joined Reid in announcing a new “Solar Demonstration Zone” in Nevada where new solar technologies can be tested and developed.

The developments combined to underscore Reid’s influence in bringing jobs and benefits to his state, a central theme of the Democratic leader’s re-election campaign that’s been undercut by Nevada’s highest-in-the-nation unemployment figures."""

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2481526,obama-in-nevada-070910.article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100709/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 9, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's "pitch" doesn't occur in a vacuum. There are multiple examples of stimulus projects and other government interventions in NV that have helped keep it from being even worse.

The more salient question is this: how can Sharron Angle hope to beat Harry Reid when she actually ATTACKED him for making some phone calls to help rescue the CityCenter project in Las Vegas from being shut down?

Posted by: allanbrauer | July 9, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

And you run ads of your opponent saying:

"I'm not in the business of creating jobs."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/9/882909/-NV-Sen:-Reid-blasts-Angle-on-job-growth

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 9, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Poll: 55% Of Likely Voters Think Obama's A Socialist. as they say on that 70's show: BURN!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/shocking-poll-55-percent-of-voters-think-obamas-a-socialist.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: obrier2 | July 9, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

He needs to point out that it is the GOP that is standing in the way of keeping the unemployed and states out of the dumpster. If more people lose the ability to support themselves at a minimal level, the whole economy goes down because they can't spend and everyone else hoards against further bad times. He also has to remind voters that if the GOP gets in they will cut Social Security and raise taxes on the middle class while cutting them for the multimillionaires.

In short, he has to hammer the GOP for wanting things to stay bad through the election and refusing to pass anything that would make things better. He needs to come right out and say that, and Sharron Angle is the perfect candidate for that kind of argument.

Posted by: Mimikatz | July 9, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The pitch is not effective for two reasons. He is still using a strawman argument that folks can see right through, and most people do NOT feel wthe economy is moving in the right direction.

"To do nothing; to simply continue the policies that were in place, ... to fail to act."

No one proposed this. Insulting to the intelligence.

His other point: "I can promise you this: we are headed in the right direction. We are moving forward."

Carville's poll shows the people beg to differ:

56% of respondents feel the economy is either "at the bottom but is not yet getting any better" or "Has not yet bottomed out and will still get worse."

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcor062210fq6.web_.pdf

Posted by: sbj3 | July 9, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

That's the best way to sell it, by being honest and realistic about the situation we are in. I'd also like to see some shots against the GOP as a reminder to voters how much damage there is to undo, and how long it will take to heal.

Pointing out that the deficit is mostly because of Bush's tax-cuts for the rich...for example. Remind them that most legislation out of the Congress is now being designed to cut the deficit with pay-go, something that wasn't done in the past administration.

That's because it won't be political effective unless they CONTINUE to do more to try and fix it.

An analogy I made one day in coversation was that this really is like recovering from a serious injury. You get hurt bad, so you get surgery to make the repairs that are needed. Even while the surgery may have been successful, the initial healing afterwards is always roughest part of the whole ordeal. That's where we are right now.

It's also one of the most cruicial times, since you have to make sure care is taken when everything is still so vunerable. You certainly wouldn't want to go back to doing what got you hurt in the first place at this point...such as GOP economic polices.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 9, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

As my daughter states - FAIL.

Senator Reid will be the second leader of the Senate to be taken out in the last 10 years by his grip on a fantasy world of unbridled government spending, 'do not visit Las Vegas', etc.

TOAST.

Posted by: jhpbriton | July 9, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I find the headline Patsy or Thug? offensive and unworthy of a national newspaper. I can't imagine, for example, that you would dare pose the question that way about GWB.

Posted by: CJackson36 | July 9, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

There is no hope for Reid. Obama sounds about like when McCain said "the fundamentals are strong". The unemployment rate is much worse now than it was in 08. RNC has ad up in NV hammering Reid and Obama as two peas in a pod.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 9, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Based on the recent NPR poll and latest Democracy Corps poll it looks like doomsday scenario is developing for Dems. They could lose 60 House seats and 11 Senate seats.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 9, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

For those willing to believe anything, here is what Obama, an embarrassment to our country, is saying to Nevadans: if you are better off now than when I was elected, then vote for dirty Harry; if you are not better off now than when I was elected, then vote for dirty Harry anyway because things will get better. I promise!

Posted by: numbersch13 | July 9, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid's new ad about Sharron Angle is going to leave a mark. Much more than any speech by Obama.

It's more devastating than Sestak's ad about Specter.

So that's one weapon Reid can use. The voice of Sharron Angle saying "It's not my job to create jobs" over and over and over.

Economy might suck, but who wants a senator who doesn't want to create jobs?

Posted by: CTVoter | July 9, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3: "To do nothing; to simply continue the policies that were in place, ... to fail to act."

No one proposed this. Insulting to the intelligence.

Actually this is exactly what republicans are proposing, extend tax cuts for the wealthy, cut taxes on business, more deregulation of industry, privatize social security and medicare. Isn't this the Bush economic plan in a nutshell? Isn't this what is in the Ryan plan, the top repub on the budget committee? Isn't this what is in the republican platform?

@tt12: They could lose 60 House seats and 11 Senate seats.

And its possible that the flying spaghetti monster could swallow all of the dems up, but its not likely...Polls 5 months out from an election in the middle of summer vacation are probably not that reliable. How man people outside of the blogosphere are even paying attention right now?

Dems will probably lose some seats as is normal in a off year election. I think it is premature to try and put numbers on it at this point. I think that your # are at the fringes of what is possible. The repubs retaking the senate in particular seems like wishful thinking. Remember, no matter how bad the Dems approval # are, the republicans #s are worse...

Posted by: srw3 | July 9, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

CJackson36: Greg was being ironic, as he is wont to do.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 9, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Srw3,
"Actually this is exactly what republicans are proposing, extend tax cuts for the wealthy, cut taxes on business, more deregulation of industry, privatize social security and medicare. Isn't this the Bush economic plan in a nutshell? Isn't this what is in the Ryan plan, the top repub on the budget committee? Isn't this what is in the republican platform?"

You may not like it but your proving the point about strrawmen. Those proposals require effort, ergo they are not "nothing".

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

And I for one extend my condolences to all the families of the strawmen murdered by President Obama.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 9, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

One sells Obama's policies by detailing what the alternative has been: the Republican's campaign, from Limbaugh to the "do nothing," filibustering members of Congress, to make sure Obama's policies fail. They have no solutions to the unemployment problems. They vote against any stimulative economic solutions. They vote against unemployment insurance extensions. Thus, these Country Club Republicans want this Country to fail, they want Obama to fail, they want the unemployed in Nevada and elsewhere to fail. The Democrats are the only ones providing solutions; ergo, the more Democrats elected, the better chance to get these solutions passed and get this economic downturn reversed.

Posted by: dozas | July 9, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Rosas,

I'm as cynical about politicians motivations as the next guy (or gal) however, the Republicans are not denying UI benefits, they're asking that they be paid for out of the disastrous ARRA unspent fund. As far as stimulus spending goes, there are reasonable people who think that effectivenstimulus can come in other forms

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 9, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It makes no difference if GOP approval is lower than the Dems. The gap is as narrower than usual. Typically Dems have better approval than GOP. The generic ballot is what matters and Greenberg has GOP +6. If Dems don't take that seriously they are whistling passed the graveyard. This is coming from one of the best Dem pollsters. It's 4 months out yes but that means it could get worse for Dems and that's the way things are trending. Feingold and Boxer are even in trouble now as well as Murray.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 9, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I meant Dozas. Stupid predictive text.

It's not wrong to not conflate Barry and the country. His failure is not the country's.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 9, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

All, good to see that Obama restated affirmative case for government as a facilitator of economic recovery today:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/obama_restates_role_of_govern.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 9, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"It makes no difference if GOP approval is lower than Dems".

Sure it does. People might be unhappy with Dems, but they really don't like Republicans, and when it comes to voting, that might have an effect. At any rate, it's pretty premature, some four months before the election, to categorically announce that the Republicans' execrable ratings aren't going to have an effect.

Posted by: CTVoter | July 9, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

@TrollMcWingnut: You may not like it but your proving the point about strrawmen. Those proposals require effort, ergo they are not "nothing". Remember the original quote I was commenting on

"To do nothing; to simply continue the policies that were in place, ... to fail to act. No one is suggesting that."--sbj3

In fact, the policy positions I listed above are the stated positions and policies of the republican party and are in fact carbon copies of the bush economic plan.

No they are not nothing, but they are nothing DIFFERENT than what republicans did during the lost bush decade.

Posted by: srw3 | July 9, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

GOP favorables don't matter because they aren't in charge. They can't pass a bill. The election is a referendum on Dems leadership up or down.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 9, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

O/T

Military scrambles jets after Obama air space violated, NORAD says

(CNN) -- The military scrambled two F-16 fighters jets Friday morning after two small private aircraft violated restricted air space related to President Barack Obama's visit to Las Vegas, Nevada, the North American Aerospace Defense Command said.

Both planes that violated the restricted airspace landed at nearby airports and were met by authorities, NORAD said.

The first incident occurred around 7:05 a.m. PT (10:05 a.m. ET) when the fighters jets intercepted a Cessna 210 and escorted it to the North Las Vegas Airport, NORAD said.

The second interception occurred around 7:34 a.m. PT (10:34 a.m. ET), NORAD said. That aircraft landed in Mesquite, Nevada, the military said.

No further information was immediately available.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 9, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

@TMCWT: there are reasonable people who think that effective stimulus can come in other forms.

Oh I know...tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses...that worked out sooo well during the last decade.

Taking money from ARRA to pay unemployment benefits is like eating your seed corn. The idea is to inject more money into the economy and unemployed people will spend that money as soon as they get it on stuff like housing and food and clothes. Taking money from job creating programs to pay unemployment is like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

"they're asking that they be paid for out of the disastrous ARRA unspent fund."

Just a passing note that economists on both sides of the aisle and "non-political" observers like Moody's agree that ARRA has kept unemployment 2-3% lower than it would have been without ARRA. I sure didn't see states refusing the 1/3 of the ARRA that went directly to them so they could avoid massive layoffs. I sure didn't hear any complaining about the largest middle class tax cut in history courtesy of the ARRA. I saw repiglican congresscritters taking credit for the jobs created in their states at home while voting against the bill that made those projects possible.

And the hypocrisy of repiglicans complaining about deficit spending after they pushed 2 rounds of tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy, 2 wars, and medicare d, WITHOUT PAYING FOR THEM AND EXPLODING THE DEFICIT, is just stunning. As Orrin Hatch said, "Well, we didn't pay for a lot of things back then..." And they have the gall to lecture other people about deficit spending...It would be comical if it weren't so disgusting.

Posted by: srw3 | July 9, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

swr3,

You and I obviously disagree on what "doing nothing" means, from a semantical standpoint. I get that you were referring to sbj3's comment, which I agree with (sb3's comment that is), but I was referring to The World's Greatest Strawman Slayer's statement about "doing nothing" in which I believe he was implying that all but HE were standing mute with no suggestions. Such is his ego that I almost believe he believes it.

As far as stimulus spending goes and the universally acknoweledge disasterous ARRA (see, I can do it to(o)(sp)), again, apologies for repeating myself, but there are plenty of reasonable people who see ARRA as worsening the economic climate rather than stregthening it and therefore taking from it to spend on UI extensions is not "eating the seedcorn". You and I disagree on ARRA's value.

As I've said previously, I do not support decicit spending expcept in times of existential threats of war. So financing the "lost decade" (nice!) via deficits was in fact wrong and I have had words with my Dark Lord, Cheny about the matter.

As a friendly suggestion, we prefer Rethuglicans to Repiglicans (capitalization is still up to individual preference). Repiglicans just imply's slovenlyness whereass Rethuglicans impyl the beating of defenseless children to access their stroller to avoid walking. Also, as a Rethuglican, were all armed and twitching to shoot. Repiglicans just implies wallowing in filth, I think a Rethuglican does much more than JUST wallowing filth. Just trying to help with the perjoratives.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 9, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

@tmwn: there are plenty of reasonable people who see ARRA as worsening the economic climate rather than stregthening it

The difference is that I have credible economists like Mark Zandi of Moody's as well as most conservative and liberal economists on my side. Who exactly are the noted economists (as opposed to political hacks) who disagree with the 2-3% unemployment differential between ARRA and no ARRA? I am pretty sure that this is a consensus opinion, not just a bunch of socialist economists from the politburo that believe this.

"While economists might quibble with specifics, the vast majority agree that some kind of massive government spending plan is necessary.

"Most conservative economists are all for it," said Mark Zandi, a founder of Moody's Economy.com who advised GOP presidential candidate John McCain." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-18/news/0901170271_1_tax-cuts-government-spending-spending-and-job-creation

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) — Recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s has begun as President Barack Obama's fiscal stimulus — derided as insufficient and budget-busting months ago — takes effect, a survey of economists indicated.

The economy will expand 2 percent or more in four straight quarters through June, the first such streak in more than four years, according to the median of 53 forecasts in the monthly Bloomberg News survey. Analysts lifted their estimate for the third quarter by 1.2 percentage points compared with July, the biggest such boost in surveys dating from May 2003.

"We've averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working," said Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board in New York."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/economist-reflects-on-stimulus-092909#ixzz0tDrvm9YC

And don't you support the tax cuts that 95% of all Americans got as 1/3 of ARRA? Was that also a failure?

Don't you support the aid to state and local governments? Despite all of their whining, not one republican governor refused the ARRA money.

Don't you find it outrageously hypocritical that rethuglican congresscritters are taking credit for the big checks that pay for projects in their districts, creating jobs for their constituents (you know something that ARRA didn't do according to them), while they rail against ARRA because it is a failure and didn't create a single job?

Posted by: srw3 | July 9, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

@tmwn:So financing the "lost decade" (nice!) via deficits was in fact wrong and I have had words with my Dark Lord, Cheny about the matter.

so you agree that rethuglicans in congress are massive hypocrites for blocking a vote on unemployment benefits because it is deficit spending, when they were the biggest deficit spenders when they were in control?

Posted by: srw3 | July 9, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, I didn't look at the full transcript of the speech, but in his stump-for-others speech Obama needs to skip the platitudes and present specific policy he wishes to adopt and specific legislation he wishes to sign in order to adopt said policy, and explain how he needs [insert pol name here] in the [insert Congressional chamber here] to get it through Congress.

Posted by: disputo | July 9, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

@tmwn: BTW I agree with most economists that ARRA was too small for the size of the crisis it was meant to address by about 1/3 to 1/2. Obama's first big mistake was not asking for a bigger bill when he had the momentum to do so. As we see, there is no chance of getting a second stimulus. The first one was his one shot and he didn't make it count enough. Still ARRA did a lot of good, again the consensus opinion among most credible economists.

Posted by: srw3 | July 9, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

swr3,

I'll repeat, I am, and have been for a long while (at least two decades) been against deficit spending unless faced with an existential threat of war. I was pointing out that all the histrionics about supposed Rethuglican (thank you!) obstructionism belies the fact that Democrats could get UI passed in a second if the drew it from the unspent ARRA funds. I was not arguing the value of the UI extension. It seems that the Democrats hate the unemployed. I'm fascinated to watch them use the suffering of the unemployed as a political tool rather than alleviate that suffering.

I appreciate your links to credible economists who think that ARRA kept unemployment from reaching 2-3 points higher that it did. As a side note, did Barry McStrawmanSlayer dismiss C. Romer, the Tax Cheat and the Sleeper for getting the expected unemployment rate under ARRA so wrong? Wasn't the top end supposed to be 8%, not 10%?

As far as bailing out state governments, I find that disgusting. Why are we forcing taxpayers of states that have sacrificed to maintain fiscal discipline to bail out state that have spent obscenely? To me, that is criminal. If you live in California, you get to benefit from a bailout paid for by a resident of a state that decided that fiscal responsibility was more important than knowing that the imported eggs produced out of state were grown (is that right?) humanely? There is not alot that shocks me but state bailouts really do.

And yes, it was disgusting for Rethuglican Governors and legislatures to accept this "blood money". It was as disgusting and Democratic governors and legislatures that took it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 9, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

No it doesn't matter a bit what progressive say any more. It is their failures more than anything else that speak for them. Socialism was a big failure in Europe and so far it's an even bigger failure here. Bush might have sucked as a president (he wasn't conservative enough and spent tax dollars like a Democrat)but Obama has already made him look like George Washington. November will have all the pundits and state run media types scrambling to explain "what happened".

Posted by: Orlandojon | July 10, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I may be wrong but I think this election will be a lot more important to more people than is usually the case.

Americans wanted to give Obama a chance to do all the lofty things he spoke of, especially bring people together. It was magic for many.

Then little by little it became clear what Democrats really wanted: implement those things Clinton was not able to at all cost, more government agencies with more power and control over more aspects of our lives.

They did not want to work with all Americans but for their base.... who are minorities with conflicting demands.

Will independents risk letting a Pelosi whip her people into line against what most believe without the public discussions promised? I doubt it and from polls it is clear that Obama really only still has the support (if not trust) of his minority base(s).

It is sad that we could have been proud of Obama and ourselves... if he had only tried to keep his campaign promises and control his Alinsky reflexes to consider everyone mainstream as his enemy.

There were warnings, even in the WaPo back in 2007 but many didn't want to see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

"Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton face off for the Democratic presidential nomination, their common connection to Alinsky is one of the striking aspects of their biographies"

Posted by: sally62 | July 10, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

About the economic situation in Nevada.

What's in Nevada? A desert and a city of gluttony.

Unfortunately for Las Vegas, Reno and Nevada, Americans no longer have the spare cash to waste gambling. Big banks have already lost our retirements gambling with our monies on the stock markets. Besides the generations to come don't waste money gambling like the generations before. Sorry Vegas.

Nevada is going to have to come up with something new to make a living on, and something new (Solar Energy) is being promoted by Reid and Obama. So if you care at all about the state of Nevada's economy you might want to lend the Democrats your ear.

Republicans never cared about you, but they did get you angry at "illegal's" so you weren't angry at yourself for voting for them.

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | July 10, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious Greg!!! Why even brother asking such a stupid question.This must be the article for most of the republicans. There comments are ignorant as usual and they sound stupid, you can tell once you begin reading the comments. The Democrats are the best except for Nelson who voted against the unemployment benefits. The republican will not stand a chance in the next election. Well only for the red states that's it. The republicans are the most narrowed minded people I ever seen on this earth and it is sad to know that they even exist. I like President Obama and Harry Reid they stand up for the american people,the republicans keep trying to but, everytime they open their mouth something stupid comes out. God Bless the Democrats forever!!!

Posted by: danafrmn | July 11, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

The choice is not between the Bush policies that "got us into the recession" and Obama's policies. The choice is between the Obama plan of a much larger government, that is involved in virtually every part of our economy with much higher taxes to pay for it, or our history of limited government and economic growth driven by the private sector.

Obama just announced 3100 new "green" jobs at a cost of $2B. So his plan is to borrow $645,000 dollars per "green job created" that we do not have and that have to be paid back and whose interest adds to our deficit in order to get unemployment down?

There are 14.6 million people unemployed as of this moment. Let's assume you have to get half of them back to work to get the unemployment rate back to a reasonable level. That is 7.3 million people who need jobs. There is only one way to get this many people hired and it is not through government jobs or subsidies.

The only answer is to get government taxation and regulation (including ObamaCare) off of the backs of the American people and our free enterprise system. The Fed estimates that US corporations were holding $1.84 trillion in uninvested cash as the end of March 2010. There are trillions more held overseas looking for a good place to invest. If we make America THE place to invest, we can solve all of our problems if we simply hold down the growth of Federal spending. But this is the exact opposite of what Obama is doing

Posted by: Berndh | July 11, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

pretty soon now, Obama and the Dems are going to have to do something besides blame Bush. that excuse is getting really old.

that said, I have real doubts about the very right-of-center Angle being able to beat Reid, who richly deserves to be beaten. the "tea party" may find they've been too smart by half, and the GOP may not realize the huge gains they're predicted to make.

seems to me that the question should be, as usual, "are you better off than you were x years ago?" since Nevada's clearly way worse off than they were when Obama took office, it SHOULD have been an easy call.

Posted by: michiganruth | July 11, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

People can debate whether Obama has dug the economy further into the ditch or has attempted to dig us out.

However, his slams about not going to Las Vegas were really inept politically and play especially poorly now that Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the nation.

Posted by: bot_feeder | July 12, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company