What does the president mean by giving everyone a 'fair shot?'
Just What is Obama's idea of a "Fair Shot?"
This is a passage we get from the Presidential website entitled Giving Everyone a Fair Shot:
So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today's economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we'll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who's best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who's best at busting unions, who's best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That's a race to the bottom that we can't win, and we shouldn't want to win that race. Those countries don't have a strong middle class. They don't have our standard of living.
The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top-the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.
That explains it?

Specifically what does he have in mind? More anti-discrimination laws? A better educational system geared towards real world jobs?
The same goes for "fair share." Aside from equal pay for equal work, what more does he have in mind?
And if the President knows how to get the fair shot right why is there need for the fair share adjustment? What are the criteria that will be used to determine who has not gotten their fair share? How will it be enforced? Determining raises is a big deal in business enterprises and in many industries it is a contentious contest between employers and unions. What nifty way to ensure fairness has the President got in mind?
Does Obama know or is it just empty rhetoric that he makes sound like a portentous insight?
All this points to the abject failure of the MSM to perform its role of investigative critical analysis. Our once vaunted free press held politicians accountable and asked hard questions of politicians and did not brook evasive answers. Now they have turned into puppy dogs wagging their tails and looking adoringly at their master. Disgusting. It also dangerous to the Republic..
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Transgender Armageddon: The Zizian Murder Spree
- Jasmine Crockett, Queen of Ghettospeak
- The Racial Content of Advertising
- Why Liberal Judges Have a Lot to Answer For
- Dismissing Evil and Denying the Holocaust — What’s the Endgame?
- The Witkoff Warning: Will Jordan’s King Fall?
- Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of Education?
- Carney’s Snap Election -- And Trump Saw It Coming
- We Can Cure Democracy, But Can We Cure Stupid?
- George Clooney: Master of Cringe
Blog Posts
- Two new revelations about the Signal leak, along with two theories
- Big Tech’s Invisible Hand: How Google and Meta manipulate our elections
- New report: Netherlands is now euthanizing minors
- Tantalizing tidbits: Five news stories about leftists, and sea lions, acting aggressively
- Rockets to Roses: Israel’s bizarre trade cycle with Aza
- Fort Knox? Gold cams!
- There is no birthright citizenship for illegal aliens
- Turn off the phone. Close the laptop.
- Nine reasons Democrats are doomed to irrelevance
- Wagner College should restore Trump’s honorary degree—and set a national example against cancel culture
- The Signal Scandal was a nothingburger, but the WSJ takes the opportunity to attack Vance
- The Trump effect: An unprecedented investment surge and economic renewal
- Hydrocarbon-friendly Trump a match for energy-hungry India
- And Big Bird can’t sing
- The DC appellate court order affrming Judge Boasberg dishonestly ignores its lack of jurisdiction