It may sound contradictory, but Barack Obama's 1.9 per cent lead over Mitt Romney in the coming November presidential election is matched by 1.8 per cent more people who disapprove of the job he's dong, than those who approve of it.
Although most black voters will overwhelmingly support him come Nov. 6, it's unlikely he'll get the numbers he did in 2008, when hope, enthusiasm, confidence and a desire for "change" reigned supreme.
In the 2008 election, Republican John McCain got five per cent of the black vote. Romney is said to be hoping for 11 per cent in November -- enough to make a difference. Hence his recent foray into the liberal waters of the NAACP in Texas to deliver his message.
Since the rampant optimism expounded by Obama in 2008, everything seems to have mitigated against him. The only achievement of his administration is Obamacare, and it is in some disrepute despite the Supreme Court's ruling that mandatory payment of health insurance is not a matter of choice, but a "tax."
A flat or descending economy doesn't bode well for a sitting president.
As for Romney, his pitch to the NAACP invoked more boos than cheers. He knew he'd get the raspberry, but plunged ahead anyway.
To his credit, to didn't soften pedal or twist his message to pander to African American, but said to them what he's been saying all along -- that America (and people of colour) will do better with him as Prez, than it has done, or will do, with more of Obama.
It's not what his audience wanted to hear, but with many it must have registered. African Americans are suffering economically these days, as are all Americans. Everyone wants a job, but jobs are not blossoming -- and forget about jobs the government says it created.
Those kind of jobs are not productive, but payoff jobs. The only jobs that add to the economy are those that produce returns: private enterprise or entrepreneurial jobs. New businesses, big or small, that require employees and produce sales.
Obama gets applause when he trashes the rich -- promises to make the rich pay higher taxes. Reality is that in a democracy you can never "get" the rich. Raise taxes too high, and those with money will invest elsewhere.
As Margaret Thatcher noted when she was Britain's PM, liberals and socialists often seem more intent at punishing the rich than they are at raising the incomes of the poor. In a thriving economy, when the rich get richer -- so do the un-rich. The workers.
While a sitting president always has an advantage over a contender, and while overall polls show Obama with an edge on Romney, a survey of America's "independent" voters indicates huge disillusionment in Obama.
His support among independents has plummeted, where in 2008 they put him over the top. If this trend holds true, the likelihood of a Republican president in November increases dramatically.
To many who once had great expectations for the Obama presidency, there is disappointment if not disillusion. Apart from innumerable celebrity fund-raisers and Holidays, Obama seems out of his depth in running or inspiring the country.
The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer notes: "The Republican presidential campaign centres on the ineffectiveness of this administration: failure at home, passivity abroad...As citizens we should be grateful. Given the administration's extravagant ambitions, incompetence is its saving grace."
As for the wealthy creating jobs and economic prosperity if we let them get richer, it's an urban myth that began in 1981 and has caused devastation for the middle and lower income classes not prosperity. Corporations are sitting on billions of dollars in liquidity, mostly cash, but are not investing or hiring in North America; specify, North America. The reason given is the uncertainty and vile business environment Obama has created. So where are these profits and this cash coming from; outsourcing to offshore companies which began full throttle during the 1980's. The nouveau riche we've seen on the rise in the last 30yrs have no intention of creating industries and jobs that create consumers at home and abroad. The nouveau riche are self-serving and devoid of any conscience which would allow them to see America beyond their own reflection in the mirror. The majority, like myself, are a hinderance to them and the policies the Republicans are preparing to implement when they return to power may just wipe us out.
And Romney? He is so thoroughly 1% it boggles the mind that anyone would even comsider the question.
In the last 30 years, we've seen a dramatic rise in millionaires and billionaires, while we've seen people drop out of the middle class. That's disconcerting, and Mitt Romney's answer is a tax plan that raises taxes on the working poor while it slashes tax rates for the top two brackets.
Americans would be better off with President Obama because he cares more about creating a level playing field while Romney's plan works to benefit the few.
Except Thatcher was wrong. The rich have been getting richer--a lot richer. The un-rich have been getting poorer. And yes, government jobs can stimulate the economy. Proper government spending can, in fact have a huge multiplier in terms of dollars earned versus dollars generated. The trick is having the government jobs being used in some productive capacity. The government could give the economy a huge boost by creating a national broadband internet strategy, or high speed rail, or whatever. Neither cutting spending or reducing taxes cannot solve the problem of unemployment. We know this because it has been tried, many times, and has consistently failed to do so.
Still living in the dream land of economic hypothesis.