Pushing Political Agendas With a Divided Public

Is The Mainstream Media Making a Mistake By Pushing Political Agendas With a Divided Public?

It seems to me rather unfortunate that the mainstream media spends so much time spinning and manipulating what was said and debated at the presidential debates in mid-October 2012. What I see as rather curious is how many left-leaning socialist thinking people have been on TV criticizing Mitt Romney for his strategy and plan to get America back to work. In almost all regards they have misconstrued what he has said, rebranded him as a liar, and completely misstate the facts. Over and over again the American people are being told by the media and political operatives for the Obama campaign that Mitt Romney's plan is unattainable, and that the numbers don't add up.
Pushing Political Agendas With a Divided Public


 Sure they do, and let me explain.


Mitt Romney wishes to aggressively boost domestic energy development and production. That alone would add a tremendous number of new jobs, and with that more people paying taxes into the system, therefore there would be more revenue for the government. This could add 500,000 high paying jobs and lower our energy costs helping small businesses and consumers, allowing them more money to spend - thus, boosting the economy as well.


He also wishes to complete trade deals with South America which have been on hold, therefore, increasing the number of products we export. That would provide more jobs at home in manufacturing. Further, on that note, he wishes to lean on China for their intellectual property theft, and their currency manipulation. That could easily add another 2 million jobs to our manufacturing sector.
He's also us spoken of allowing the states to administer their own job training programs rather than being dictated by the federal government. This is also quite wise because things should be done locally in the regions where those jobs actually exist or don't exist. It hardly makes sense to train people for jobs which do not exist in those particular states. This is why centralized control over such things never works, as the so-called economies of scale are lost to mismatching. By allowing the states to do their own retraining that means more jobs, again more people paying taxes into the system.


Mitt Romney also says that he wants to reduce the deficit by eliminating inefficiencies, duplication, and nonsensical agencies. That will reduce the amount the government spends. He doesn't wish to increase taxes, he wishes for more people to be paying into the system because they have new jobs. Lastly, he wishes to reduce the regulatory burden on small companies, our small businesses are being barraged by rules and regulations at every level of government. If we can reduce these regulations small businesses will expand and hire more people. When they hire more people more people will be paying taxes into the system.
With all of these new jobs and all of these new people paying into the system, the government won't have to run a deficit, or as it is working itself out of the budget deficits it will have more money coming in. Those who oppose Mitt Romney are only looking at the cost of the government and where the money is going, without looking at the revenue side of the equation, perhaps because they believe that since Obama couldn't create any jobs, then either can't Mitt Romney. But there is a big difference between a free-market capitalist and socialist-style leadership as they have in Europe.


Europe's way doesn't work, free-market capitalism does, and that's the fundamental difference. If the political opposition doesn't understand this (they hardly teach economics in our schools anymore), or quite frankly doesn't care because all they wish to do is a negative thing about Mitt Romney, and if the mainstream media continues making a mistake by pushing this political agenda when 50% of our population is against socialism, then the mainstream media will also suffer in the end, not only because socialism ruins business models, but also because the other 50% which believes in freedom, liberty and free-market capitalism is going to tune them out.

Media companies cannot operate without viewership, and without the ratings, as they will not pull in any advertisers after the election. Right now, perhaps they are promoting Barack Obama because the amount of money in advertising the Obama Campaign is currently spending with them, but if that is the case that's just another form of crony capitalism, and therefore their opinions and what is stated on their programming, or who they choose to interview cannot be considered unbiased.

In fact one could say they're part of the problem, therefore maybe it doesn't matter if they go out of business, or turn on the economic reality and basic math of this equation. Romney's right, for the right reasons. Please consider all this and think on it.

:

إعلان أسفل عنوان المشاركة

إعلان وسط المشاركات 1

إعلان وسط المشاركات اسفل قليلا 2

إعلان أسفل المشاركات