I'm Voting for Bush Because Kerry Says He'll Create Jobs 

Wait... what? Don't you mean you're voting for Kerry because Bush hasn't created jobs? No... you heard (read, whatever) me right. I'm absolutely amazed at how many people think that there is some sort of switch that the president can flip that will magically create jobs. If such a switch existed... what president in their right mind wouldn't flip it. For more on that read A Phony Jobs Debate at WashingtonPost.com.

We are having a ferocious jobs debate, most of it fraudulent. If presidents could easily create jobs, the unemployment rate would rarely exceed 3.5 percent. But all they can usually do is influence the economy through taxes, spending and regulatory decisions -- and hope that job growth follows. In our market system, private employers play the pivotal role. They will add jobs only if: (a) demand justifies new workers; (b) labor costs aren't at unprofitable levels; and (c) they think healthy economic conditions will last. Electing a president based on job creation makes as much sense as selecting a doctor based on palm reading.

Facing a weak economy, a government can do three things: cut interest rates; run a budget deficit; and allow -- or cause -- its currency to depreciate. The first two promote borrowing and spending; the last makes a country's exports cheaper and its imports costlier. All these weapons have been deployed. Bush's policies are mostly standard economics; based on past patterns, these policies should have produced stronger job growth. But private employers have resisted hiring. "Economists are scratching their heads," says Randell Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Indicators, which surveys 50 economic forecasters.

What's even worse then Kerry trying to pretend like he has a magic bullet that he can use to solve our economic woe's... is the fact his campaign, and the media right with him is lying about the unemployment rate.

Here's a Badger State sample:

• Madison Capital Times: "In Wisconsin alone, 84,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since Bush became president."
  
• San Francisco Chronicle: "... a state that has lost 80,000 manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office."
  
• Chicago Tribune: "The state has lost 90,000 manufacturing jobs since 1999."
  
• UPI: "Trade policy and jobs are major issues in Wisconsin, which has lost more than 75,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000."
  
• Newsday: "Employment is a major focus in this state where more than 70,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the past three years."
  
• Knight Ridder: " Wisconsin has lost 84,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001.”
  
• Charlotte Observer: "Wisconsin has lost 85,000 manufacturing jobs over the last four years."
  

So who's right? Read the article about Where do we get jobless stats for more information. So why make a big deal about this? Isn't this all just political rhetoric that we should be expecting? A lot of people may say yes. I say no.

Either John Kerry is so stupid that he thinks there really is a magic switch he can throw, in which case I don't want him elected because he's liable to f*** things up even worse, or he's lying through his teeth and he knows it, which means he's someone you can't trust. Seeing as how I don't like either version of John Kerry... especially in light of his flip flopping on his views depending on who he's talking to, I'll vote for Bush. For those of you who really know me... this should come as absolutely no surprise. :D

So who can create jobs? How about the businesses that will actually hire people. If anything, Kerry and his liberal policies will only make things worse by adding more stupid regulations on businesses, encouraging more of them to move jobs out of the country.