Why doesn't Obama ask some of his rich supporters to invest?

[Zioneer]

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and I realized something; rather than have his rich supporters provide the money needed to fuel political ads, why doesn't Obama ask them to invest in or start companies (and/or hire new workers) to help his re-election chances and improve the unemployment numbers?

I mean, judging from how incredibly rich a lot of them are (not as rich as the Romney donors, but pretty respectably opulent), they could afford to do it, and it'd cost less than the millions of dollars they're forking over for political ads. Plus, many of them have businesses themselves, and they aren't stupid, so they could keep the employment going if they wanted to.

So why isn't this happening?

[WhyteRain]

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and I realized something; rather than have his rich supporters provide the money needed to fuel political ads, why doesn't Obama ask them to invest in or start companies (and/or hire new workers) to help his re-election chances and improve the unemployment numbers?

I mean, judging from how incredibly rich a lot of them are (not as rich as the Romney donors, but pretty respectably opulent), they could afford to do it, and it'd cost less than the millions of dollars they're forking over for political ads. Plus, many of them have businesses themselves, and they aren't stupid, so they could keep the employment going if they wanted to.

So why isn't this happening?

Good question.  I wish I had an answer.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I've thought about this myself, and reached this conclusion: it costs less to donate money than hire workers. You can just work out some numbers and see the staggering costs. Say Obama wants a 50,000 worker pump in the October jobs report, and the average salary dished out to the new workers is $50,000, you're looking at $2.5 billion to hire these workers.

Although money spent creating a job instead of funding a campaign (whether it be Obama's, Romney's, Johnson's, or Stein's), is money better spent in my opinion. Especially if it comes from wealthy or corporate donors.

[Meeker]

This isn't a serious proposal, right?

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, since rich people can unilaterally make the economy good, why don't they just make it good, right?

[Hatman 🍁]

Money spent on ads goes somewhere you know. Into the economy. Doesn't create long term jobs, but does get some grease in the cogs.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So why isn't this happening?

Because it's about the least cost effective way possible to win an election?

[mondale84]

So why isn't this happening?

Because it's about the least cost effective way possible to win an election?

This

[Averroës Nix]

Yes, since rich people can unilaterally make the economy good, why don't they just make it good, right?

[sarcastic opebo-ism]

[Zioneer]

Yes, since rich people can unilaterally make the economy good, why don't they just make it good, right?

Well, I don't think that, but surely they could pitch in a little bit; I don't mean that they could change even half a percentage point of unemployment, but every little bit helps. Plus, there's got to be a limit to the effectiveness of political ads, so why bother taking vast donations after that?