THE JOB REPORT WAS BAD; BUT...

... and a stiff opposition to Obama; but why?

Friday's new job numbers, (including those that had stopped looking for work), that came out from the Department of Labor, were disappointing in all respects, as the official target was about only a fraction more than the 96,000 jobs number that was realized.

However, the election was not just about jobs alone; it was about the whole economy, meaning the run away deficits, the enormous national debt of $16 trillion dollars and counting, and of course, non-farm or private sector jobs.

That was the whole picture that voters should be looking at; but they must also be wary of the huge amount of promises that were coming from Mitt Romney, the candidate for the Republican Party for the presidency.

He was always referring to "millions of jobs" that he would create in 48 months; sometimes the number was 4 million, and then other times it would change to 16 million, and that has caused a great deal of confusion in many people's minds.

Come to look at his rhetoric on the economy, it was low on the deficits and the national debt and high on private sector jobs. That made his statements on job creation an open book, as they (statements) showed that "deregulation" was his only weapon to deal with the economy.

The free market and Wall Street would be pulling the strings and controlling the nature of it (economy); but that method has been tried before and it did not work. In fact it was the same one (method) that has brought the country into the mess it was in.

On the one hand, judging from the "promises" that Romney was making on job creation, many other issues would be left out, or would be placed on the back burner; like health care, the infrastructure, national security and a whole lot more. That was what the public should be worried about.

On the other hand, President Barack Obama has said that, if only the United States Congress would pass a bill relating to a proposal he made to that body a year ago, there would be at least one million jobs being created as of now. Yet, Congress would not take him on that, and the bill was still pending in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also spoke about the other factions that made up the entire economy. He had his eyes on the whole ball of wax, so to speak.

No government has been faced with such stiff opposition by the House in the nation's history than that of the Obama administration; and the idea was that to stave off his proposals would prevent him from seeking a second term; and that shenanigan has started a long time ago, from the very day that Obama was inaugurated president.

The time was now, and he was making a plea for a second term to complete a better plan that he had for the country's economic advancement and well being into the future.

However, even the business sector has joined forces with Obama's opponents, and producing ads in the media that would undermine his efforts; like a grotesque looking old man, sometimes sitting on a horse and pitching gold, who would say, "an unstable government printing money to solve the country's problems...", or another ad that had people looking like ordinary folk narrating "... I am an energy voter." which was suspiciously being put out or sponsored by the oil companies.

Therefore, people should take a good look at what the candidates stood for, and on which side of society they were part of or supported, whether it was the middle class and working men and women or billionaires and millionaires; as well as listened closely to what was being said on the campaign trail, to help them decide on whom to vote for, either Obama or Romney.

They both have two different paths that they thought the country should follow to come out of the difficulties that it was facing; with one plan (or path) being seemingly pragmatic, and the other being full of "promises", shady and secretive.

Voters should be very careful before they took another step on entering the voting booth on November 6th, 2012, election day; because their decision on that special and fateful day would determine who would be the leader of the free world; and not just that, but the winner of the election and therefore president of the U.S.

It (decision) would affect their own future and that of their children and grandchildren. They should never rely on just one factor, like a job report, to make that decision.

Comments 5 comments

gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Excellent hub, fine points made. I have a forum post regarding the same subject. Voted up for informative!


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

The job report was bad, no doubt about it and no buts about it. Examination of the numbers clearly show things are not going in the right direction.

First, this number is going to readjust and readjust huge. Do not be surprised when it is just down at least 30,000. Closer examination also shows they any jobs that already existed. Now this is not the first time and will not be the last time. They counted 9000 jobs as new who are merely just people that were on strike and were not collecting unemployment.

You are right this is not all about jobs, but also the entire economy. But with keen insight in reading these numbers you can see where the economy is going. For example president Obama is telling you how great the manufacturing sector is. In reality the manufacturing sector laid off 15,000 employees last month. In other words manufacturers are not making goods because people are not buying goods and people are not buying goods the GDP is in the toilet.

Obama likes to brag about how great the auto industry is, they lay off 8000 people last month. What was not included encountered in the report for the approximate 10,000 auto manufacturers who were laid off due to retooling. But you can count on Obama including them as new jobs when they read hit the factory line.

Warehousing construction retail trade and transportation showed no change or a small loss of jobs.

Obama likes of blame Republicans that under Bush middle-class salaries shrank by a long margin. Of course he doesn't tell you that the percentage of shrinkage is larger under his administration but hey what's one more mission. In the month of August once again average hourly earnings declined.

These are not good numbers leading up to the holiday season. I could feel my bones already, the retailers are quaking in their boots worried that a poor Christmas buying season.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

You just spoke about unemployment and employment, and at the same time admitting that the 2012 presidential election was not just about jobs; but you got stuck with those two topics throughout your argument; which did no make any sense at all.

Of course, they were part of the whole economy, but even so, the numbers have been small, they were better than nothing. Some jobs were produced, rather than "no jobs" whatsoever; and that would have made the situation even worse.

The Republicans thought that they could use the unemployment figures to make a case for themselves, but they forgot to tell why they were shelving the jobs proposals that President Barack Obama sent them in the United States Congress over a year ago.

Their party's candidate, Mitt Romney, has the idea that the voters were gullible, and that he could use just one aspect of the economy, i.e. job creation, to bamboozle them; but he would be disappointed as they were likely to remember his performance as governor of Massachusetts, where unemployment was high and placed the state at 46th or so out of 50 in that category.

In other words, almost only three states failed to be as unproductive as Massachusetts, when it came to job creation.

How about the economy itself, and what was involved in it; like the Afghan war and its cost? How about the regular military expenditure, the huge deficits that came up so often from normal government spending; and one should also count the discretionary spending in addition to that; and the national debt that kept rising from $16 trillion, and national security, with respect to law enforcement and Homeland Security agencies , and the monies spent on U.S. diplomatic responsibilities around the world? You ignored them all.

... and the infrastructure, education, industrial or manufacturing sector, and jobs training, Social Security and Medicare; and a whole lot more. They all escaped your mind. Romney has not uttered a peep on those subjects either, but just one; and that was the national debt, which was common knowledge, a twelve year old could tell anyone about it.

There was so much monotony in his speeches. Why? Because, he has no inkling of what he would do after, IF he should win the election. Showing that he has no specific plans worth talking about; and Americans would be naive to vote for a candidate with no plans.

Foreign policy has hardly been mentioned by him on the campaign trail, except for his trip to Europe and Israel. The European part of it (trip) was a trip.

He was inexperienced all around; and so, Americans were worried about his candidacy.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

You're correct, I did speak of unemployment and employment after all that is the topic of your hub. And since that is the topic of your hub, why would I discuss something else, if I did that would make any sense. I was merely agreeing with you that this presidential election is more than about jobs.

I can't quite fathom your argument when you say "the numbers were small better than nothing some jobs are produced rather than no jobs". Did you read the report? Even in the worst economy there'll always be some sector that will hire jobs the question is what is the overall view. And if you dissect the jobs report the overall report also tell you what's going on in the economy you can predict trends of what's going to happen. For example the manufacturing section laid off 15,000 people last month. So why is that important? Because if manufacturers are laying people off that means consumers are not spending, consumers not spending means is going to be a horrible GDP coming up. Just a side note here, I know how much you like the blame Republicans for everything but it was President Obama who has been boasting how strong the manufacturing sector is and has done so as recent as yesterday. Obviously he didn't read the report.

You say the Republicans are showing the job proposals from President Obama. We may not be talking about the same. From last year but if it was even his own party was against it. You cannot blame the Republicans for that. However if you can be truly honest with yourself, if you're really truly willing to do some research I'm talking a several day commitment, and be willing to go back and read the bills of this Congress, the 112 Congress, don't have to read the entire bills just to bill numbers and what they were for and their outcomes. It will be quite revealing to you to find out how many bills that were introduced, who and the parties that are introducing them, what they were geared towards, and where they are currently. I will give you just a quick fact before you research it, Harry Reid has tabled over 2700 bills. Who's doing the obstructing?

So you think the unemployment Massachusetts is high but you're okay with the job Obama is doing. Unemployment under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts was never as high as the lowest point on the president Obama and during Mitt Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts unemployment went down and was 4.7% when he left office. What Obama would give for 4.7% unemployment rate, unfortunately with his policies he could never happen. So tell me who's bamboozling who?

Do you want to talk economy, I don't think that's a discussion you're going along with me. You say that Romney is not uttered a peep in all the subjects you listed above but you're wrong. You either have selective memory, are not reading or listening to his speeches, or you're just drinking the Kool-Aid and spouting it back out

And lastly, I'm real curious you say he's really experienced all-around, makes we wonder what she thought of Obama when he came along with absolutely zippo under his belt


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

I never said that Romney was "experienced" all around. I would rather say it again, that when it came to foreign policy, his mate, Paul Ryan, could tutor him (Romney).

Look at the diplomatic "no, no", that he got himself involved in, with respect to the London Olympics debacle.

It (incident) reflected very badly on the United States.

Obama would never bring so much shame on America.

After all said and done, Romney did not deserve to be the Republican Party candidate, let alone the president of the U.S.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working