Tag Archives: Diploma

Recent college graduates realizing that Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t produce jobs

From the Daily Caller. (H/T Right Wing News)


A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.

“These rock-solid Obama constituents are free-agents,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, based in Washington, D.C. She recently completed a large survey of college grads, and “they’re shopping around, considering their options, [and] a fair number will stay at home and sit it out,” she said.

The scope of this disengagement from Obama is suggested by an informal survey of 500 post-grads by Joe Maddalone, founder of Maddalone Global Strategies. Of his sample, 93 percent are aged between 22 and 28, 67 percent are male and 83 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But only 27 percent are committed to voting for Obama again, and 80 percent said they would consider voting for a Republican, said New York-based Maddalone.

That’s a drop of almost 60 points in support for Obama among this influential class of younger post-grad voters, who Maddalone recruited at conferences held at New York University and Thomson-Reuters’ New York headquarters.

The bad news for Obama was underlined May 19 with a report by a job-firm Adecco that roughly 60 percent of recent college-grads have not been able to find a full-time job in their preferred area. One-in-five graduates have taken jobs far from their training, one-in-six are dependent on their parents, and one-in-four say they’re in debt, according to the firm’s data.

Let’s see. These graduates voted for Obama during college, and now they’ve just finished going through many years of indoctrination from teachers who are typically isolated from real life, i.e. – isolated from private sector employment, military service, entrepreneurship, stay-at-home motherhood, and so forth. They parroted all of the secular left-wing views of their indoctrinators, got their diplomas in social work or English or peace studies, and now they are out on their own for the first time, looking for jobs from the people they have been taught to hate and despise. Imagine their surprise to find out that the world is nothing like they were led to believe, their non-quantitative degrees are useless, and that they are now $60,000 in debt, and they will never collect a dime from entitlement programs from Social Security.

Not to mention the $534,000 dollars that each household in the US owes because of  Nancy Pelosi’s $5.34 TRILLION dollar addition to the national debt. (H/T Doug Ross)

Obama Unemployment Stimulus Graph
Obama Unemployment Stimulus Graph

Image from Conservative Compendium.

Here’s another interesting article from the Washington Examiner, by political guru Michael Barone.


Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional supermajorities of 2009-10 raised federal spending from 21 to 25 percent of gross domestic product. Their stimulus package stopped layoffs of public employees for a while, even as private sector payrolls plummeted.

And the Obama Democrats piled further burdens on would-be employers in the private sector. Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill are scheduled to be followed by thousands of regulations that will impose impossible-to-estimate costs on the economy.

[…]It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the threat of tax increases and increased regulatory burdens have produced something in the nature of a hiring strike.

And then there is the political posturing. On April 13 Obama delivered a ballyhooed speech at George Washington University. The man who conservatives as well as liberal pundits told us was a combination of Edmund Burke and Reinhold Niebuhr was widely expected to present a serious plan to address the budget deficits and entitlement spending.

Instead the man who can call on talented career professionals at the Office of Management and Budget to produce detailed blueprints gave us something in the nature of a few numbers scrawled on a paper napkin.

The man depicted as pragmatic and free of ideological cant indulged in cheap political rhetoric, accusing Republicans, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan who was in the audience, of pushing old ladies in wheelchairs down the hill and starving autistic children.

The signal was clear. Obama had already ignored his own deficit reduction commission in preparing his annual budget, which was later rejected 97-0 in the Senate. Now he was signaling that the time for governing was over and that he was entering campaign mode 19 months before the November 2012 election. People took notice, especially those people who decide whether to hire or not. Goldman Sachs’s Current Activity Indicator stood at 4.2 percent in March. In April — in the middle of which came Obama’s GW speech — it was 1.6 percent. For May it is 1 percent.

“That is a major drop in no time at all,” wrote Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal.

After April 13 Obama Democrats went into campaign mode. They staged a poll-driven Senate vote to increase taxes on oil companies.

They began a Mediscare campaign against Ryan’s budget resolution that all but four House Republicans had voted for. That seemed to pay off with a special election victory in New York’s 26th Congressional District.

The message to job creators was clear. Hire at your own risk. Higher taxes, more burdensome regulation and crony capitalism may be here for some time to come.

Corporations do not hire workers or expand their businesses when there is uncertainty and looming tax increases.

Should government spend so much money to push people into higher education?

Both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives agree: government spending on higher education should be cut.

Fiscal conservatives oppose government spending on higher education

Consider this podcast from the libertarian Cato Institute.

Here is the MP3 file. (7 minutes)

It’s an interview with Dr. Neal MCluskey.


  • does higher education necessarily deliver skills that employers want?
  • do most degrees really benefit employers?
  • should government subsidize higher education?

About the guest:

Neal McCluskey is the associate director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. Prior to arriving at Cato, McCluskey served in the U.S. Army, taught high school English, and was a freelance reporter covering municipal government and education in suburban New Jersey. More recently, he was a policy analyst at the Center for Education Reform. McCluskey is the author of the book Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education, and his writings have appeared in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Baltimore Sun, and Forbes. In addition to his written work, McCluskey has appeared on C-SPAN, CNN, the Fox News Channel, and numerous radio programs. McCluskey holds a master’s degree in political science from Rutgers University.

I think people should face the costs of the university education themselves. Then they would choose areas where they could make enough money to live and pay back their loans.

Social conservatives oppose government spending on higher education

My wonderful friend Andrew sent me this notice about an upcoming Family Research Council lecture.

Allan Carlson to Speak on Student Loans at Family Research Council

World Congress of Families founder and International Secretary Allan C. Carlson will deliver a Witherspoon Lecture at the Family Research Council on December 4 at 11:00 am, on “The Crushing Burden of Student Loans on Family Formation For Generation X.”

Studies have shown that significant numbers of graduates who are burdened with college loans are less likely to marry and have children – with negative consequences for society. Thus, there is a need to re-think the entire program.

[…]Allan Carlson has a Ph.D. in Modern European History. He is the author of many books, including “Conjugal America: On the Public Purposes of Marriage” and “The Natural Family: A Manifesto,” with Paul Mero. Click here to order his books.

Click here to download the flier.

Isn’t it amazing that fiscal conservatives agree with social conservatives? Actually, they should agree on many more things, in my opinion. It’s a bad idea for government to redistribute taxpayer money to schools, because the teacher unions just turn around and use it to influence politics, which cannot be good for giving children a quality education. Teacher unions are bad for fiscal and social conservatives – we really need to unite and make sure that they are de-funded, and de-fanged.

A funny story about libertarians

And I have to tell you a funny story. One of the quirky things about me that everyone knows is that I am able to get into the most deep and controversial conversations within a few seconds of meeting someone. For example, in the time it takes to get a blood test, I was talking to the nurse about lethal injections, capital punishment and different goals of the criminal justice system. Well, I managed to beat my score on Monday.

I was passing by a security guard to show him my badge and I noticed a book on his desk. As soon as he turned his back I leaned over the desk and read the back cover. It was a book by Lew Rockwell. So I asked him about it, and then we started talking about how libertarians ought to support social conservatism in order to keep government from having to deal with the fallout from broken homes and crime. I was just about to start talking about John Lott’s study on the link between abortion and increased crime, but there was a line-up by then, so I moved along.

So that’s what my life is like – the joy of a comprehensive Christian worldview means that you are never at a loss for something interesting to talk about. And there is a lot of reading people – knowing who you can talk to and when you’ve gone too far. Practice, practice, practice.