From Fox News: Earlier in the week, at a jobs council meeting, the president was called out for saying that "shovel-ready projects' weren't quite as shovel-ready as he thought. Then later, in an interview with NBC News, Obama suggested that innovation and technology -- like job-stealing ATMs -- were reasons why the employment rate was not rebounding as quickly as he had hoped.
"There's some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers," Obama said after being asked about a report that shows businesses were spending 2 percent more on employees since the recession officially ended, but 26 percent more on equipment .
"You see it when you go to a bank and ... you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate," the president said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16/revenge-machines-obama-mocked-for-blaming-slow-recovery-on-atms/#ixzz1PW0w9PCK
Umm, Mr. President, ATMs and Airport Kiosks were in place well before the recession/depression hit. Further, while there may not be a need for as many bank tellers, you still need to people to build ATM's, sell them, place them in service, fill the machines and then maintain them. The same can be said for the kiosks at the airports. In addition, these jobs probably pay more than a bank teller job.
Seriously, how stupid or out of touch is this president when he says ATM's are problems with employment? I suppose he would believe that automobiles were bad because they put horse and buggies out of business except for the Amish. Crap, strike that, with Obama's view on cars, he actually may believe this.
If George Bush said something like this, he would have been riducled in the press and the late night comedy shows. But because Obama is not all that intelligent but is a liberal, he is given a pass.
I used to think Obama was fairly intelligent, but comments like this makes me wonder how smart Obama really is. Certainly not Harvard material.
No comments:
Post a Comment