What Barack Obama has going for him in 2012 is, well, put it this way: human nature.
WASHINGTON - Somewhere between the New Frontier and the Age of Obama, the Democrats turned fiercely anti-capitalism, anti-business, anti-wealth and anti-success.
Check out the hypocritical thinking on college campuses today where many are willing to redistribute wealth but not grades.
America is a land of class mobility. That's what makes America a magnet destination for people all over the world: Come to America and make something of yourself.
President Obama has laid out the core message of his reelection campaign. It is a message whose claims are blatantly false and whose point is irrelevant to what is of greatest concern to Americans today.
Have you noticed that what modest economic improvements we have seen occurred during the much-lamented "gridlock" in Washington? Nor is this unusual. If you check back through history, doing nothing has a far better track record than that of politicians intervening in the economy.
All-American rocker Bruce Springsteen has taken to the pages of Rolling Stone magazine to lament the existence of income inequality in our country today: “You cannot have a social contract with the enormous income disparity — you’re going to slice the country down the middle. It’s not going to hold.”
In his front-page-of-the-business-section "Economic Scene" column in The New York Times last week, Eduardo Porter wrote, "The United States does less than other rich countries to transfer income from the affluent to the less fortunate."
Filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, has unleashed a firestorm of social controversy by interviewing some welfare recipients who told her on camera that they believe they're entitled to "Obama money." That is, welfare checks.
President Obama says he want to make society more fair. Advocates of big government believe fairness means taking from rich people and giving to others: poor people; or people who do things politicians approve of, like making “green” energy equipment (Solyndra); or old people (even rich ones) through Social Security and Medicare.
I well remember 1984, riding with my cousin to see “The Boss” on his "Born in the USA" tour in Lexington, KY. The arena was packed that night, and after playing for about two hours Springsteen looked out at the crowd and asked: “Do you guys need a break?” He then played for another hour.
Growing up in Levittown out on Long Island, I remember my father buying pants through the mail. This seemed strange to me. There was a Robert Hall clothing store nearby, and it had pants all over the place. But my dad said he could buy two pair for the price of one from some guy in South Dakota. One problem: The pants never fit.
To the Occupy movement: I know some of you mean well. I even share some of your concerns. The dismal economy has made it difficult to find a good job with benefits. Meanwhile, the government is bailing out the wealthy banks and mortgage lenders that helped precipitate this depressed economy.
Whose job would you want to have? Would it be President Barack Obama's or Governor Chris Christie's in the great state of New Jersey? Would it be President Obama's, whose budget woes are getting graver, or would it be Governor Christie's, whose budget is at least looking to be survivable?
With all the talk about "disparities" in innumerable contexts, there is one very important disparity that gets remarkably little attention -- disparities in the ability to create wealth.
If you want redistribution, you'd better first produce growth.
The Commerce Department's revised GDP report ?Thursday threw cold water on the fading hope that the economy is ?breaking out of its doldrums.?
“No matter your thoughts about the Occupy Wall Street movement, the protesters were right in at least one respect: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.”
We are a land, as our president explains it, where the success of one American comes at the expense of another. Where the poor are poor because the rich are rich. And where the role of government is not to ensure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but to tax away wealth from those it deems to have too much and determine how to invest our nation’s resources.
Barack Obama channeled Teddy Roosevelt this week in a speech in Osawatomie, Kan. Supporters are calling it the most significant economic speech of his administration.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
Benefiting from a hint from an article titled "Is Harry Potter Making You Poorer?", written by my colleague Dr. John Goodman, president of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, I've come up with an explanation and a way to end income inequality in America, possibly around the world.
What should be done about income inequality? That basic question underlies the arguments hashed out in the supercommittee and promises to be a central issue in the presidential campaign.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Everything demanded by the Occupy Wall Streeters -- whether "free" health care, a "world-class education" or a "guaranteed living-wage income regardless of employment" status -- costs money.
White House Squirms Over Hillary's Email Scandal, Forgets Embrace of Regular Law Breaking | Katie Pavlich
Clinton Used Server From Family Home For Personal Emails, Gave Her Additional Legal Protections | Matt Vespa