America Loses If Obama Wins

President Barack Obama, speaking of the 2012 election and hoping to rekindle the vigor of his political fundraisers, said recently, "We are going to win this thing, and America is going to win as a consequence."  In order for American voters to believe Obama's claim that America will win if he wins, they must overlook the fact that the quality of life for a number of major demographic groups has worsened during Obama's term in office.

Take America's children as an example -- a favorite group used by liberals for voter sympathy.  According to a report published by the National Center On Family Homelessness, the homelessness of children rose 33% from 2007 through 2010.  Were 2011 data available, the increase would have no doubt been significantly higher still, given the plethora of foreclosures during the Obama term.

We now have about 1 in 45 children in America who are homeless-a staggering figure indeed.  Essentially, we have about one child in every two school classroooms who is homeless.

While liberals often claim to be pushing legislation "for the children", the most liberal president in decades has been a disaster for America's children.  The historically high unemployment and underemployment rates have pushed millions of families into foreclosure and eventually out of their homes.

Then there are the minority groups that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 with their votes and their wallets.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans, 96% of who voted for Obama, stands at 15.5% as of last month, while Hispanics, who pulled the lever for Obama at a clip of 67%, have an unemployment rate of 11.4%.  When Obama took office, those rates stood at 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively.

The massive government spending and bailouts have done nothing to improve the living conditions of these minority groups as a whole.  In fact, under Obama, not only have blacks and hispanics been less employed, but the wealth gap between minorities and whites has reached an all-time high. In 2009, white U.S. households had median wealth of $113,149 compared to $5,677 for blacks and $6,325 for hispanics, according to a report from the Pew Research Center.

That gap has most certainly risen since 2009 with the further increase in the spread of unemployment rates between whites, blacks, and hispanics during Obama's presidency.  Essentially then, under the first black President of the United States, whites have become increasingly wealthier than blacks and hispanics, and to an unprecedented degree. 

Liberals often tout the wealth gap between ethnic groups as an ill of society that needs to be fixed such that all groups have similar wealth.  So the question begs then as to why, from a financial and economic perspective, would anywhere near the same percentage of these minority groups vote to relect a man whose presidency has been nothing short of an economic disaster for them?  Furthermore, we might ask why would opinion leaders from these groups seek to reelect Obama if they are indeed fighting for the prosperity of the people within these groups?

Then consider those between the ages of 18-29 who voted for Obama back in 2008 by about a 2-1 margin, many of which were in college or just beginning their respective careers.  Getting that first job out of college which relates to their degree has been extremely difficult for a large number of college graduates during Obama's time in the White House. 

Business owners have been reluctant to hire new employees due to broad economic and tax policy uncertanties, along with the affects ObamaCare might have upon their costs of doing business. 

Obama knows that these recent college graduates are an important voting bloc for him and so he recently threw them a bone by suggesting a reform in the student program that would save them a whopping $8-$12 month.  For these voters, some of whom may be carrying a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars or more, that should be seen as a slap in the face.  Like the minority groups, from an economic sense, it would be illogical at best for them to support Obama again in 2012.

What about the low-income voters?  Better than 70% of those earning $15,000 or less and nearly 60% of those earning between $15,000-$30,000 cast their ballots for Barack Obama in 2008.  Of course, these workers have been hurt disproportionately more than those in the middle and upper-level wage earners during the weak economic growth that has characterized Obama's presidency. 

The Obama presidency has simply been a disaster for our nation.  From an economic sense, there seem few if any groups that can say they are better off now than they were when Obama took office.  If the economy is the number one issue in the minds of these voters, they cannot and should not re-elect President Obama to another four years in the Oval Office, as sending President Obama back into the White House will not result in a win for America.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached at stafko@msn.com.

President Barack Obama, speaking of the 2012 election and hoping to rekindle the vigor of his political fundraisers, said recently, "We are going to win this thing, and America is going to win as a consequence."  In order for American voters to believe Obama's claim that America will win if he wins, they must overlook the fact that the quality of life for a number of major demographic groups has worsened during Obama's term in office.

Take America's children as an example -- a favorite group used by liberals for voter sympathy.  According to a report published by the National Center On Family Homelessness, the homelessness of children rose 33% from 2007 through 2010.  Were 2011 data available, the increase would have no doubt been significantly higher still, given the plethora of foreclosures during the Obama term.

We now have about 1 in 45 children in America who are homeless-a staggering figure indeed.  Essentially, we have about one child in every two school classroooms who is homeless.

While liberals often claim to be pushing legislation "for the children", the most liberal president in decades has been a disaster for America's children.  The historically high unemployment and underemployment rates have pushed millions of families into foreclosure and eventually out of their homes.

Then there are the minority groups that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 with their votes and their wallets.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans, 96% of who voted for Obama, stands at 15.5% as of last month, while Hispanics, who pulled the lever for Obama at a clip of 67%, have an unemployment rate of 11.4%.  When Obama took office, those rates stood at 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively.

The massive government spending and bailouts have done nothing to improve the living conditions of these minority groups as a whole.  In fact, under Obama, not only have blacks and hispanics been less employed, but the wealth gap between minorities and whites has reached an all-time high. In 2009, white U.S. households had median wealth of $113,149 compared to $5,677 for blacks and $6,325 for hispanics, according to a report from the Pew Research Center.

That gap has most certainly risen since 2009 with the further increase in the spread of unemployment rates between whites, blacks, and hispanics during Obama's presidency.  Essentially then, under the first black President of the United States, whites have become increasingly wealthier than blacks and hispanics, and to an unprecedented degree. 

Liberals often tout the wealth gap between ethnic groups as an ill of society that needs to be fixed such that all groups have similar wealth.  So the question begs then as to why, from a financial and economic perspective, would anywhere near the same percentage of these minority groups vote to relect a man whose presidency has been nothing short of an economic disaster for them?  Furthermore, we might ask why would opinion leaders from these groups seek to reelect Obama if they are indeed fighting for the prosperity of the people within these groups?

Then consider those between the ages of 18-29 who voted for Obama back in 2008 by about a 2-1 margin, many of which were in college or just beginning their respective careers.  Getting that first job out of college which relates to their degree has been extremely difficult for a large number of college graduates during Obama's time in the White House. 

Business owners have been reluctant to hire new employees due to broad economic and tax policy uncertanties, along with the affects ObamaCare might have upon their costs of doing business. 

Obama knows that these recent college graduates are an important voting bloc for him and so he recently threw them a bone by suggesting a reform in the student program that would save them a whopping $8-$12 month.  For these voters, some of whom may be carrying a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars or more, that should be seen as a slap in the face.  Like the minority groups, from an economic sense, it would be illogical at best for them to support Obama again in 2012.

What about the low-income voters?  Better than 70% of those earning $15,000 or less and nearly 60% of those earning between $15,000-$30,000 cast their ballots for Barack Obama in 2008.  Of course, these workers have been hurt disproportionately more than those in the middle and upper-level wage earners during the weak economic growth that has characterized Obama's presidency. 

The Obama presidency has simply been a disaster for our nation.  From an economic sense, there seem few if any groups that can say they are better off now than they were when Obama took office.  If the economy is the number one issue in the minds of these voters, they cannot and should not re-elect President Obama to another four years in the Oval Office, as sending President Obama back into the White House will not result in a win for America.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached at stafko@msn.com.