The American Dream is dead and you can thank the unsuspected villain -- student loans. How do you look a new graduate in the eye and say here take this low wage $15 per hour job to pay off $80,000, $90,000 or worse $100,000+ in student loans. Basically, student loans have turned professionals (recently graduates) into indentured servants. So who's to blame? You know who...the other guy. It's always the other guy. The GOP blames the Dems for financing students that don't stand a chance. Meanwhile, the Dems blame the GOP for holding jobs over the heads of students with six figure student loans. So who's telling the truth...well the truth of the matter is that there's a little truth to both positions. At the same time, how is it that bright intelligent new graduates are walking around with "will work for food" signs while Big Corp execs get golden parachutes for running the housing market in the ground? Gee let's ask Bank of America (purchaser of CountryWide Mortgage), maybe they know something. Book em' Danno!

No this is not a Walmart ad, but instead a reflection of the political climate that blames regulations for the sour economy. So what's the answer? Should we rollback regulations to create jobs? As anyone would guess, there are reasons on each side to support their cause. In that case, it's up to the picture (or should i say video) to shed some light on the truth.

So just when exactly does relaxed regulations create jobs? It depends on what you mean "create jobs." Sure relaxed regulations contribute to an environment favorable to businesses to jumpstart job growth, but invariably there are always those that abuse the purpose of streamlined regulations. Not convinced? Well if a picture is worth a thousand words, than a video must be work ten thousand words. Look for yourself. In the great state of Texas a horrible chemical fire is raging through Waxahachie. Who wants to bet is related to bumbling flagrant incompetence of workers at the plant under the direction of bean counters looking to cut corners at the expense of safety?

Given this example, just how many jobs did the Waxahachie plant create under the relaxed regulations of the great state of Texas? None -- when you count the lawsuits that will stem from this disaster, which will undoubtedly mean job cuts. This is precisely where the value of regulations come into play. Sorry Perry, big thumbs down on this one. Rolling back regulations to create jobs is merely an illusion and shortsighted as this video clearly illustrates.

Sure it's a touchy feely kind of topic, but the whispering suggests that at least some think Obama may be neglecting the Black Job Crisis. Is this simply the stuff that gets people riled up or is there some merit to such a suggestion? Well, for one thing I would say Obama is having a difficult time with job creation Black, White or otherwise. Let's face it, the private sector hasn't been so willing to work with this Administration. Maybe that's because big corps have $2 Trillion on the sidelines and they would like to keep it that way? Anyway, be that as it may that leaves public sector jobs which a good percentage of Blacks do occupy. That's true, at least for now, until the House cuts more public sector funding (or simply refuses to keep portions of the government running).

So what are Obama's options in terms of helping with the Black Job Crisis? Well for one, he could acknowledge the situation take a hard line against it and cause some massive wave of jobs to somehow surface. What happens next? Well, hillbilly Jim Bob and his pals gets real upset and uses that as validation that Obama was out to turn poverty onto Whites as some form of retribution for slavery. Would that help with a re-election bid? No. Is politics involved? Yes. Now the other option is a little more sensible, which is he could address the American Job Crisis as a whole is such a way that would help not only Blacks but Whites, Hispanics, Latino, and others. Why? You know why - if you help one and don't help the other then the others cry foul play. Sure, it's no secret that Blacks are affected most by this economic situation but helping only what some consider to be a small segment of the population and leaving others to fend for themselves opens up a can of worms that I'm sure Obama does not want on his plate.

In reality, given the politics around jobs, deficit reduction and spending, getting a plan to work for anyone is a difficult task. So, it's somewhat of a reach to say Obama is neglecting the Black Job Crisis. If anything, what Obama is neglecting to do is get the private sector into the game. Granted that isn't an easy task when big corps have more cash flow than the federal government, but that's where the real problem exists. How do you get the private sector into the game? So even if you still aren't convinced that's the problem - do tell me; do you really think Perry or Romney will do more for Blacks? Get real. Expect nothing from Romney, and as for Perry, well he might call up a few of his pals in Texas and help a few Blacks out with those low wage jobs. Suit yourself, Obama or Perry/Romney.

Jobs are hard to come by these days; everyone knows this, especially the unemployed. So what is so bad, on the job, to make one even consider leaving? In a word - growth. If you are not going to grow on your current job, it may be time to go. That is at least what some people are thinking these days. Sounds like an arrogant position considering so many people wish they had a job. Here's the logic, should you settle for a paycheck now that will in the longer run prevent you from having a paycheck later via loss marketability of your skills since you aren't growing in your current position? Like most situations such as this, the only real answer is that - it depends. It depends on your situation.

For those who are close to retirement grow or go is a none issue for others it is real. At the end of the day if you're pretty close to retirement does it really matter if you growing your skills? Probably not. It is probably more important to simply collect a steady paycheck. Of course there are always the under achievers who have serious skill deficiencies that they do want to fix and simply want to milk the cow for all it is worth. Sounds like a HR hiring policy issue - you think? Why would you want to bring on under achievers except for the low wage benefits...susssh, don't tell Perry I said that. Somehow, Perrry thinks low wage jobs are the answer. As for the over/achievers, "riding the pine" and no playing time on the court is simply unacceptable. Can you blame them? After all most employees don't just want to earn a paycheck but they want to contribute in the process. What a terrible thing huh, you give them a paycheck and they are still complaining. Pull out the whipping post and show them a lesson or two. Bottom line is that yes, it's a tough career decision to say "grow" or "go" but it's one that has to be made or acknowledged as a none issue. That of course is an individual situation that must decided on a case-by-case basis.