Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Wow.. this is ridiculous.

As to Pennsylvania's population.. yes, it has slowly grown int he past 30 years.  This is thanks to the number of births exceeding the number of deaths.  Even this natural increase is lower than in many places as birth rates are lower.

People are still leaving the state in larger numbers than they are coming in.  This is a good indication that there are not jobs available to the people there.

The people that are left behind are either

a)  retired or soon retiring
b)  unskilled and unable to "chase" the jobs

So, what you end up with is a poor, uneducated, older population that apparently has a massive coronary when someone tells it like it is.

Go ahead.. vote for Clinton.. or McCain or whatever...

But you'd better not be pointing fingers when Obama supporters massively overreact to something that really wasn't all that controversial.

If you were offended by it, toughen up.  We weren't put into this world to tiptoe around your feelings, and if you expect that, then I guess I'm glad you're supporting Old Man McCain... at least you can blame his sharp tongue on his senility.

[Torie]

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

I think we already know Obama's position on gun issues.  Which economic issues does this cast new light on?  And what "religious tolerance issues"?  I'm curious about specifics.  What don't we know about Obama already that this could indicate, is what I'm getting at.

I'd rather have a liar that is competent (Clinton) than an honest jackass (Obama). 

Cool.

There is this curious belief that political rhetoric has much to do with what will really happen when in power. Folks here will learn. Things don't happen that way. Major policy changes are only made in extremis. The inertial force is just too powerful, and in a global world, which constricts tax policy, spending policy, and foreign policy choices, and the demands of demographics (lots of impecunious old sick mouths to feed, and not enough sweat equity folks), the real policy options are just so narrow. When more posters start losing their hair here, they will appreciate what I am saying a bit more perhaps.

Ya, i know, Iraq. I am not sure a Dem would have not have resisted the allure of the tar baby actually. Everybody seemed to think Saddam was WMD city.  In any event, the policy option of a redux in some other nation run by a sanguinary tyrant, is now off the table too. Let them all suffer, alone, with some nice modest gestures of concern, from time to time. That is why we can debate some huge issue like whether Bush should go to Beijing for the Olympics or not. Punish the Chinese and punish them some more  for Tibet, by eschewing photo ops. That will get them back in line. All the world is a stage, but it's a Kabuki play.

[J. J.]

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

I think we already know Obama's position on gun issues.  Which economic issues does this cast new light on?  And what "religious tolerance issues"?  I'm curious about specifics.  What don't we know about Obama already that this could indicate, is what I'm getting at.

One thing I would be worried about is hostility from the government toward religion (note I did not say Christianity).

Guns seem to be far worse, his thought that it's related to economics flies in the face 250 years of history.

Economics, Obama is addressing the problems as the were 25-35 years ago.  Will he tell us next about his plans for dealing with the Soviet Union or his opinion of disco?

Obama is wrong here on so many levels.

I'd rather have a liar that is competent (Clinton) than an honest jackass (Obama). 

Cool.
[/quote]

[J. J.]

Wow.. this is ridiculous.

As to Pennsylvania's population.. yes, it has slowly grown int he past 30 years.  This is thanks to the number of births exceeding the number of deaths.  Even this natural increase is lower than in many places as birth rates are lower.

People are still leaving the state in larger numbers than they are coming in.  This is a good indication that there are not jobs available to the people there.

The people that are left behind are either

a)  retired or soon retiring
b)  unskilled and unable to "chase" the jobs

So, what you end up with is a poor, uneducated, older population that apparently has a massive coronary when someone tells it like it is.

It grew by over 100K in the 1990's.  We don't have huge unemployment rates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain is old, but what's the excuse for Obamality?  Too much substance use in high school?

[Alcon]

One thing I would be worried about is hostility from the government toward religion (note I did not say Christianity).

You're expecting Obama, a churchgoing politician who talks a lot about devotion and even opposes gay marriage on theological terms, to be hostile to religion?  On what level?

Guns seem to be far worse, his thought that it's related to economics flies in the face 250 years of history.

Which is attitudinally wrong and all, but we already knew that Obama is pro-gun control.

Economics, Obama is addressing the problems as the were 25-35 years ago.  Will he tell us next about his plans for dealing with the Soviet Union or his opinion of disco?

You're still not giving me specific policy, just telling me that this proves he'll enforce "disco" economics.  Again, I'm looking for specifics here.  Are you afraid that he will rock the boat, or do his policies just not ring your bell? 

Obama is wrong here on so many levels.

First thing I've agreed with outright this entire post.

[Torie]

The suggestion that Pennsylvania is some sort of tobacco road, even in the boonies, is just so bizarre. A lot of what is happening is the the state is slowly becoming more upscale, and sluffing off factory rat jobs to elsewhere, ala New England, just 20 years behind. Sometimes, losing population is a sign of health. It is an issue of just who is leaving, and who is coming in. Population growth is not a perfect proxy for economic health! Just ask the folks of Boston. And Las Vegas even with all the fleecing of gambling addicts is not economic paradise, or a paradise in many other quality of life data points (e.g., it's schools are horrible). Who knew?

Addendum: Connecticut has the highest per capita income in the United States. After DC, Mass is next.

[J. J.]

One thing I would be worried about is hostility from the government toward religion (note I did not say Christianity).

You're expecting Obama, a churchgoing politician who talks a lot about devotion and even opposes gay marriage on theological terms, to be hostile to religion?  On what level?

That we don't know.   He talks about his religion, but then give equivacal answers regarding his pastor.  He says now that it's part of being "bitter."

quote author=Alcon link=topic=74078.msg1520036#msg1520036 date=1208056502]

Guns seem to be far worse, his thought that it's related to economics flies in the face 250 years of history.

Which is attitudinally wrong and all, but we already knew that Obama is pro-gun control.
[/quote]

But we know now that he thinks the reason people oppose it are because they are "bitter."  He doesn't address the real reasons.

quote author=Alcon link=topic=74078.msg1520036#msg1520036 date=1208056502]

Economics, Obama is addressing the problems as the were 25-35 years ago.  Will he tell us next about his plans for dealing with the Soviet Union or his opinion of disco?

You're still not giving me specific policy, just telling me that this proves he'll enforce "disco" economics.  Again, I'm looking for specifics here.  Are you afraid that he will rock the boat, or do his policies just not ring your bell? 

[/quote]

He identifies the economic conditions as being those which have not existed for decades.  We had a collapse of manufacturing jobs, but the economy has changed in that time.  Notice what I said, he is a problem that no longer exists.  I'm not talking about policy, because there is really nothing there to set policy about.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Wow.. this is ridiculous.

As to Pennsylvania's population.. yes, it has slowly grown int he past 30 years.  This is thanks to the number of births exceeding the number of deaths.  Even this natural increase is lower than in many places as birth rates are lower.

People are still leaving the state in larger numbers than they are coming in.  This is a good indication that there are not jobs available to the people there.

The people that are left behind are either

a)  retired or soon retiring
b)  unskilled and unable to "chase" the jobs

So, what you end up with is a poor, uneducated, older population that apparently has a massive coronary when someone tells it like it is.

It grew by over 100K in the 1990's.  We don't have huge unemployment rates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain is old, but what's the excuse for Obamality?  Too much substance use in high school?

Minnesota, with a much smaller population to begin with, grew by 500,000 during the 1990s.  Pennsylvania has one of the slowest growth rates in the country.  Minnesota is just about at the national average and is the fastest growing in the midwest and northeast.

And what is it that really offended you so much anyway?  The fact that Obama is a bit condescending and he admits it?

It's certainly a hell of lot better than the elite attitude you get from the top Republican brass that shows through actions much more than words.

Obama has his heart in the right place even if he feels like he's on a high horse... I couldn't say the same for many of your party.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Here are the manufacturing jobs in the U.S. for the past 30 years.

Do you notice any correlation between REpublican presidents and falling manufacturing jobs? 



Apparently the massive bleeding of manufacturing jobs isn't a 70s issue after all.

[Alcon]

That we don't know.   He talks about his religion, but then give equivacal answers regarding his pastor.  He says now that it's part of being "bitter."

He said that some cling to religion in the light of hard times.  This is probably a caricature of middle-American folks, but that's a big jump to an indicator of hostility toward religion.  Also, I'm not sure what "but the give equivacal answers regarding his pastor" is supposed to mean...

And you still haven't given me a single specific policy decision this might affect, even if we do accept that this is a significant indicator that Obama is anti-religious.

But we know now that he thinks the reason people oppose it are because they are "bitter."  He doesn't address the real reasons.

No, he didn't, which has what to do with eventual policy?

He identifies the economic conditions as being those which have not existed for decades.  We had a collapse of manufacturing jobs, but the economy has changed in that time.  Notice what I said, he is a problem that no longer exists.  I'm not talking about policy, because there is really nothing there to set policy about.

First, you said:

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

Then, I asked you for specific policy examples.  When I did that, you gave examples.

And now you say that there are no specific policies involved in the examples you gave.

Que?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@soulty's posts in this thread.

Anyway, I don't see how this can be a huge issue. So it'll offend some people in Pennsylvania who weren't going to vote for him anyway. Big whoop.

[Nym90]

Here are the manufacturing jobs in the U.S. for the past 30 years.

Do you notice any correlation between REpublican presidents and falling manufacturing jobs? 



Apparently the massive bleeding of manufacturing jobs isn't a 70s issue after all.

But wait, that doesn't make sense....everyone says the economy was so much better in the 80's and that the late 70's were the worst time in our nation's history.

Hmm.

[Eraserhead]

I just got home from work and I have to lol at this hitting 23 pages. This is the stupidest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen. This almost makes the Rev. Wright scandal seem legitimate by comparison.

[Torie]

Are we now going to discuss economic history now?  Oh dear.

[Sam Spade]

I just got home from work and I have to lol at this hitting 23 pages. This is the stupidest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen. This almost makes the Rev. Wright scandal seem legitimate by comparison.

lol - and its far from done too...

[Torie]

I just got home from work and I have to lol at this hitting 23 pages. This is the stupidest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen. This almost makes the Rev. Wright scandal seem legitimate by comparison.

It is not a scandal at all. Obama just accidentally dropped his handlers' veil, and was being candid about what he really thought, and the public square is better for it. It really is.  If only we knew what most of our politicians really thought, and makes them tick.

[HardRCafé]

I just got home from work and I have to lol at this hitting 23 pages. This is the stupidest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen.

This is one of the most interesting and literate exchanges I have ever read here, though.  Whether the scandal is stupid has become almost immaterial.

[12th Doctor]

Here are the manufacturing jobs in the U.S. for the past 30 years.

Do you notice any correlation between REpublican presidents and falling manufacturing jobs? 



Apparently the massive bleeding of manufacturing jobs isn't a 70s issue after all.

But wait, that doesn't make sense....everyone says the economy was so much better in the 80's and that the late 70's were the worst time in our nation's history.

Hmm.

That graph is utterly meaningless, the reason for the decline is because people were getting jobs in other areas of the economy... jobs that didn't exist in the late 70's because Reagan created them.  If the Democrats are going to argue that free trade is bad, then that graph makes no sense again, because Clinton was a free trade crusader.  Job loses in manufacturing have just as much to do with technological improvements as anything else.  For instance, the US produces more steel today than at anytime in our history.  But, it only takes two guys to do the job it once took 20.

The graph is intentionally misleading also, by manipulating the scale so that the "GOP job losses" are the bottom of the scale, as opposed to the actually bottom of the scale being "0" it makes things look way worse than they really are.  BTW... what is the scale?  Sure its not just the tens of thousands.  Tens of thousands of what?

I'm not denying theirs a problem, but come on.

[tik 🪀✨]

I just got home from work and I have to lol at this hitting 23 pages. This is the stupidest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen. This almost makes the Rev. Wright scandal seem legitimate by comparison.

It is not a scandal at all. Obama just accidentally dropped his handlers' veil, and was being candid about what he really thought, and the public square is better for it. It really is.  If only we knew what most of our politicians really thought, and makes them tick.

I just got home from work and I have to lol at this hitting 23 pages. This is the stupidest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen.

This is one of the most interesting and literate exchanges I have ever read here, though.  Whether the scandal is stupid has become almost immaterial.

Agreed. Please continue folks.

[12th Doctor]

BTW... by arguing that the economy was better in the late 70's, you are basically arguing that stagflation is good for the economy, or at least preferable to a losing a few manufacturing jobs.  Are you really comfortable taking that position?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Then here we have the real median income divided by the CPI.  We peaked in '73 then fell, only to be back where we peaked by the end of Reagan's presidency.  Then we fell in Bush's term and regained it plus a bit during Clinton only to be stagnant.

Keep in mind that most households went from 1 income to 2 incomes during this time period.

If working more for less is your idea of a good economy, Soulty, then I guess you're voting for your best interests.  Look at that income growth prior to 1973... it must have been all those free-market policies that did that!

[Ban my account ffs!]

And here is the U.S. median income in its value in gold:

[Nym90]

BTW... by arguing that the economy was better in the late 70's, you are basically arguing that stagflation is good for the economy, or at least preferable to a losing a few manufacturing jobs.  Are you really comfortable taking that position?

I never said it was better overall. Just was pointing out that for some people, it was indeed better (as the graph shows). Those who lost their manufacturing jobs didn't all go into similar paying positions....many ended up working at Walmart instead.

Obviously inflation is bad for the economy, but unemployment was pretty low under Carter. There was actually pretty strong job growth during that period. So it's not quite as gloomy a picture as many have painted.

[12th Doctor]

Then here we have the real median income divided by the CPI.  We peaked in '73 then fell, only to be back where we peaked by the end of Reagan's presidency.  Then we fell in Bush's term and regained it plus a bit during Clinton only to be stagnant.

Keep in mind that most households went from 1 income to 2 incomes during this time period.

If working more for less is your idea of a good economy, Soulty, then I guess you're voting for your best interests.  Look at that income growth prior to 1973... it must have been all those free-market policies that did that!

The huge drop between 1979-1980 was during Carter's term.  We reached our peak during the Nixon years and the fall during the Bush years is insignificant at best.  I'm honestly not 100% sure whose point you are trying to prove hear, but these supposed massive falloffs of income associated with GOP Presidents haven't occurred.

That being said people probably do indeed have less disposable income now than they did 30 years ago, because the variety and definition of what people "need" has expanded far faster than real income.  Do you really "need" a computer?  How about a cell phone?  A TV?  College?  You didn't need them 30 years ago, but you would be in "poverty" without them now.

[Ban my account ffs!]

BTW... by arguing that the economy was better in the late 70's, you are basically arguing that stagflation is good for the economy, or at least preferable to a losing a few manufacturing jobs.  Are you really comfortable taking that position?

I never said it was better overall. Just was pointing out that for some people, it was indeed better (as the graph shows). Those who lost their manufacturing jobs didn't all go into similar paying positions....many ended up working at Walmart instead.

Obviously inflation is bad for the economy, but unemployment was pretty low under Carter. There was actually pretty strong job growth during that period. So it's not quite as gloomy a picture as many have painted.

And when you factor in that the government is currently slashing interest rates during a period of rising inflation, inflation is set to skyrocket.. and this time the Republicans won't be able to use Carter as a scapegoat for the next 30 years.