(Associated Posers) – WASHINGTON DC – Many people missed it in the first debate when President Obama said that his policies have made the average American better off enough to buy a new car or a computer. Despite the fact that those average American incomes are down by more than a few thousand dollars and prices for everything from food, electricity and gasoline have increased- some by a lot.
The claim was hardly mentioned after the debate through all the hoopla about how challenger Mitt Romney “won” the debate, but the fact is that the claim has not gone away. So how exactly does President Obama define “better off”, some observers are wondering?
The price of gasoline was a major point of attacking George Bush and Republicans in 2008 but the President now claims that gas prices being twice as high is a sign of a better economy. Economists are flummoxed by the notion, saying it makes no logical sense. “Gas prices were getting higher four years ago and he claims it was an economic mess, but now the same thing is a good sign?”
Harkening back to the 2008 campaign Barack and Michele Obama denounced the notion that higher income meant “better off”. They, instead, encouraged people to join non-profit organizations or activist organizations, even if they would be paid less, “to make a difference”. They denounced the notion of making more money being the “American Dream” as “middle class-ism”.
With new economic figures showing that more people are using Medicare and Medicaid than there are full time private sector workers, the cost of entitlements are almost certainly going to be a defining issue in the 2016 election. Observer Leon Hartsky, of the Hartskey Institute says “It is not optimal to have more people receiving than people giving. The people paying for all of this face a heavier and heavier burden until they decide to shrug it off”.
As America watches subsidized corporations fall into bankruptcy after receiving large amounts of taxpayer money, often without producing a product, many are starting to wonder if this policy makes any sense at all.
“Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. These companies get massive amounts of taxpayers money, their executives are well paid for a while and then the companies shut down. Does this make any sense for any reason besides politics?” One economist asked “He highlights these corporate handouts as 'saving the environment' but often we are funding these companies that produce no useful products whatsoever”.
“Taking money out of the economy to subsidize unproductive ventures is extremely wasteful but it also shifts investment away from where it might do some real good” Leon Hartsky explained “All this does is give some politicians a very temporary talking point or photo-op about 'creating jobs' where none exist except phantom jobs funded by taxpayers. Many of these 'jobs' cost a million or more each”.
Observers suggest rather than roaring back that the economy is teetering on the brink of disaster and the end of the Bush tax cuts could push it over the top. “Even the lowest tax bracket will see their tax rate increase from 10% to 15%” one said “This is obviously not a 'tax on the rich' unless he defines rich as anyone with a real job.