http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama...0.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode= Just like the title says. This is why he wants the kids to work hard. Need to make lots of money so Obama can collect all those taxes!
In the past year, 40 children attending Chicago Public Schools have been shot to death-many within blocks of the Obama/Rezko estate-yet Obama has nary a peep in comment. Why is urban homicide so ignored by the national press too? Gee, wonder why. Glad to see those Chicago gang bangers are so STOKED at the change provided from a President of Color.
I know of a few instances where the parent(s) has the means to move to a different/safer school district but have no inclination to do so. They like their ghetto life, their scared kids do poorly, drop out, get pregnant, whatever, the parents response is "oh well!" or "I told them".
Guys like Obama made the ghettos what they are... he's a race industry attorney.. they sue the private sector and stir up racial resent among blacks until you'd have to be nuts to hire one... then they give them welfare and tell them to keep voting for the Democrats... and the welfare doesn't pay that much and never will, so they subsidize their income with crime... which leads to kids getting killed on Obama's doorstep and he doesn't likely give a shit really... he's here to help after all...
---------------------------------- From the link "Still, never once would I have characterized him as "creepy" because he wanted to talk with schoolchildren. He was the president. My kids needed to listen to what the commander in chief had to say. It's respect for authority. It's respect for the president. It is respect for our upbringing." ---------------------- Perhaps the uproar is due to the fact that people are fed up with gov't intrusion in their life. I wonder if he ever thought about that? I'd rather show respect from "afar". People talk too much anyways. Everyone is going to do something for me, no thanks.
Teenage Unemployment Rate at Record High: NYT Blog Post Commenters Explain Why By Tom Blumer September 5, 2009 - 23:03 ET Yesterday's Employment Situation Report from Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics had lots of dismal news. One of the bigger disappointments, but sadly not one of the bigger surprises, is that the teenage unemployment rate reached an all-time seasonally adjusted high of 25.5%. People who know even a little bit about economics should understand why, but an oddly titled New York Times blog post by Catherine Rampall took a pass on realistically trying to explain it: Many blog post readers explained it for Ms. Rampall, and accurately. Here are some of them: The federal minimum wage was $5.15 per hour from September 1, 1997 until July 24, 2007. The 1997 increase did not have a material effect on the employment market, because most employers were already paying starting workers more than $5.15. During the following 10 years, the highest seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment rate was 19.0% (June 2003). The federal minimum wage was increased to $5.85 on July 24, 2007; to $6.55 on July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. In July 2007, teenage unemployment was at 15.1%. By August 2008, it was at 19.2%. Now we're at 25.5%. I'd say there's a correlation, and that the press isn't willing to make it. The minimum wage is a favorite of the left, no matter how many kids and low-skilled adults it throws out of work. Supporting minimum-wage increases is considered one of the things the late Sen. Ted Kennedy "got right." I don't see how.
In the last non-farm payrolls of 216,000, 150,000 were from teenegers. Predictible with the minuimn wage going up. Means only 66,000 regular jobs were lost (Goverment numbers)