Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[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?

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.

Completely true.  I give you your points 100%.  That said, the record high inflation was destroying people's savings and thus the effects of growing employment and wages were not nearly as good as they could have been.  Look at the graph Snowguy just posted.  Real income was way down by the end of Carter's tenure and it was inflation the ultimately lead to high unemployment in 1981 and 82.

[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?

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.

Damn f***ing right.  I don't agree with it.

[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!

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.

No.  Disposable income used to go to things like vacation, new cars, etc.

My mom and uncle took a vacation nearly every year growing up.  My family hasn't been on a vacation since 1994.  My step dad has been at his company for 10 years now, and he is making less now in real terms than he was 10 years ago (our disposable income has not grown, and necessities are taking a larger and larger chunk of the paycheck).

And again, you have to factor in that during that period from 1973 to 2006, workforce participation increased dramatically.. and yet real median household income rose a whopping 3%.  So when you take individual incomes, it actually dropped substantially.

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

Well, perhaps it is. I'll have to play catch-up.

[J. J.]

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...

I think that raised by some other posters.  His first answer was lawyerly.  His second was also lawyerly, but coming closer to "yes, I heard these things."  He'd be a complete idiot if he hadn't.

The area has always been very religious; it is not a "hard times" triggered event.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of the faith based things, tax issues, possibly not being supportive of civil rights in that area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he can't realize that the situation doesn't exist, how can he make policy to "fix" it?

[Alcon]

I think that raised by some other posters.  His first answer was lawyerly.  His second was also lawyerly, but coming closer to "yes, I heard these things."  He'd be a complete idiot if he hadn't.

The area has always been very religious; it is not a "hard times" triggered event.

I understand that you feel that way, but that isn't replying to what you quoted.

Some of the faith based things, tax issues, possibly not being supportive of civil rights in that area.

I'm probably being unclear, but by "specific things," I  mean...well...things that are specific.  "Faith-based things" contains the word "things," so it isn't very specific.  "Tax issues" isn't very specific.  "Being supportive of civil rights in that area" both has an unclear antecedent and is  separately very non-specific.

If he can't realize that the situation doesn't exist, how can he make policy to "fix" it?

OK, so now your contention is not that this reflects his policy positions, but rather that his lack of recognition of economic conditions in the area will contribute to policy inaction.

I semi-disagree.  I think that most of the candidates don't know enough about economics to right a half-decent economics package, even if basic understanding is certainly a very important thing.  But that is a separate debate.

What you're presenting now is different from your original assertion, which was that this will affect individual policy decisions.  That's still my primary point of questioning.  This new subject that you've raised is a fair point, but it is not what I questioned.

[J. J.]

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 MN was smaller, and didn't have quite the one or two industry economy that the reagion of PA was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's neither condescension nor elitism.  It is his stereotyping.  Until you brought up McCain's past, this really wasn't about Obama's background.  I do not the country to go out into the street and grab someone to be the next president.  I expect a president to be talented, and to have an "elite" background.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a question of Obama's heart being in the right place, it is a question of if he can lead us.  I've said that love Obama as a neighbor or to date my (hypothetical) sister; I'd hate it if (hypothetical) my brother to bring Hillary home. 

Now, Obama has shown two things:

1.  He doesn't understand the current economic issues and has to hearken back 25-35 years to explain what he thinks is happening. 

2.  He doesn't understand the motivations and desires of the people he wants to represent. 

[JohnCA246]

ok this topic is really getting ridiculous.  The guy misspoke a bit at a fund raiser.   I hate when Democrats take on the whole patronizing tone but it will happen at unscripted events.  I'm sorry but people cant put all the right words together in the right way all the time, let's move on. 

[J. J.]

I think that raised by some other posters.  His first answer was lawyerly.  His second was also lawyerly, but coming closer to "yes, I heard these things."  He'd be a complete idiot if he hadn't.

The area has always been very religious; it is not a "hard times" triggered event.

I understand that you feel that way, but that isn't replying to what you quoted.

Some of the faith based things, tax issues, possibly not being supportive of civil rights in that area.

I'm probably being unclear, but by "specific things," I  mean...well...things that are specific.  "Faith-based things" contains the word "things," so it isn't very specific.  "Tax issues" isn't very specific.  "Being supportive of civil rights in that area" both has an unclear antecedent and is  separately very non-specific.

Since Obama hasn't been specific, I don't see how I can be more specific.

If he can't realize that the situation doesn't exist, how can he make policy to "fix" it?

OK, so now your contention is not that this reflects his policy positions, but rather that his lack of recognition of economic conditions in the area will contribute to policy inaction.

I'm saying that trying to solve a nonexistent problem can create a problem.  Since he didn't say how he'd fix this "problem," again, I can't more specific about the result of policy he'd support to try to do that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could you give me the policy quote.

Here are some of the earlier things I've said, but they don't touch on policy:

I'd like to know what owning a gun or having a strong religious faith has to do with a lack of industrial jobs from a quarter century before?

Yes, I find this remark to be offensive. 

This was the lead political story on the local news here.  Obama's comments an Hillary's (and McCain's) response. 

Well, this is straight talk, whether or not people are listening will be heard.

Bull, there is no relation with manufacturing jobs and guns and/or faith.  This is a massive non sequitur on the part Obama, at best.  At worst, it is stereotyping based on class and possibly race. 

The economy was largely based on steel production.  In the late 1970's, we stopped making so much out of steel.  The economy, in some of these smaller towns, never shifted, though that was changing even in the late 1980's.

The economy changed and it didn't change the attitudes or the value system of the people; that is what Obama doesn't understand.  He seems clueless.

[J. J.]

ok this topic is really getting ridiculous.  The guy misspoke a bit at a fund raiser.   I hate when Democrats take on the whole patronizing tone but it will happen at unscripted events.  I'm sorry but people cant put all the right words together in the right way all the time, let's move on. 

Then why doesn't Obama say it.

This unscripted event is a window into what Obama really thinks.  He's had the chance.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@this thread being almost twice as long as Erc's delegate counting thread.

Seriously guys:

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm just tired of Obama's "if you don't agree with me then you're a backwards hick" attitude.

[12th Doctor]

I'm just tired of Obama's "if you don't agree with me then you're a backwards hick" attitude.

As personified by our friends sig above, not that I share any love for any of the people above, but Obama's people seem to think they have the authority to deem who is worthy now.  Frankly, not kissing Obama's ring seems to be grounds for excommunication from the perfect society he wants to build.

[JohnCA246]

First of all, Obama already said he misspoke.  This will happen, today I was at an event with a bunch of supporters, and if someone was there with a recorder I probably said something too that wasn't articulate and dare I say patronizing which they could record and take out of context..  He took on a tone he shoudln't have, big deal.

  If you really think this is an insight to how he thinks, then you must also think that McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" shows that McCain loves war and thinks it will be fun.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

First of all, Obama already said he misspoke.  This will happen, today I was at an event with a bunch of supporters, and if someone was there with a recorder I probably said something too that wasn't articulate and dare I say patronizing which they could record and take out of context..  He took on a tone he shoudln't have, big deal.

  If you really think this is an insight to how he thinks, then you must also think that McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" shows that McCain loves war and thinks it will be fun.

From what I saw on TV, he said he was sorry he offended people with what he said. He didn't withdraw what he said or say he didn't mean it. He did the opposite, he stood by his statements. This isn't the first time he has said remarks like this. I do believe he thinks this and possesses this elitist attitude where he thinks he's above most everyone else. Why should I not? He's done more than enough to confirm it. Of course, facts and logic don't work with Obama voters. They live on hope and change.

I'm just tired of Obama's "if you don't agree with me then you're a backwards hick" attitude.

As personified by our friends sig above, not that I share any love for any of the people above, but Obama's people seem to think they have the authority to deem who is worthy now.  Frankly, not kissing Obama's ring seems to be grounds for excommunication from the perfect society he wants to build.

Our same friend wanted to recall Corzine in NJ because he refused to switch his support to Obama. This type of thing is scary for people to say in a free society.

[Alcon]

I'm saying that trying to solve a nonexistent problem can create a problem.  Since he didn't say how he'd fix this "problem," again, I can't more specific about the result of policy he'd support to try to do that.

All right:

Ideology on what?  I think this is a window into his failure to "feel the pain" of the people of Western Pennsylvania.  I don't actually think this would affect any policy whatsoever.

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

Emphasis mine.

So, we've established that this could reveal his position on gun rights, economic and religious tolerance issues (including faith-based issues and civil rights), but you can't outright name any of those issues, because Obama hasn't been specific?  Even though we're allegedly seen through his veneer, and have determined the genre of these positions he holds that we did not previously know of?

I'm only asking for theoreticals, not ones that we're certain this shows a different opinion on.  On which religion-related issues does this indicate Obama might have a different opinion than before you heard this?  I am only asking for examples.

[J. J.]

First of all, Obama already said he misspoke.  This will happen, today I was at an event with a bunch of supporters, and if someone was there with a recorder I probably said something too that wasn't articulate and dare I say patronizing which they could record and take out of context..  He took on a tone he shoudln't have, big deal.

  If you really think this is an insight to how he thinks, then you must also think that McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" shows that McCain loves war and thinks it will be fun.

He didn't say he misspoke, he said he regretted it.  Here is what he really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/obama_regrets_if_he_offended.php

And, I'm not too wooried about McCain singing something; the difference is Obama meant it.

[J. J.]

I'm saying that trying to solve a nonexistent problem can create a problem.  Since he didn't say how he'd fix this "problem," again, I can't more specific about the result of policy he'd support to try to do that.

All right:

Ideology on what?  I think this is a window into his failure to "feel the pain" of the people of Western Pennsylvania.  I don't actually think this would affect any policy whatsoever.

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

Emphasis mine.

So, we've established that this could reveal his position on gun rights, economic and religious tolerance issues (including faith-based issues and civil rights), but you can't outright name any of those issues, because Obama hasn't been specific?  Even though we're allegedly seen through his veneer, and have determined the genre of these positions he holds that we did not previously know of?

I'm only asking for theoreticals, not ones that we're certain this shows a different opinion on.  On which religion-related issues does this indicate Obama might have a different opinion than before you heard this?  I am only asking for examples.

One would be on the faith based initiatives.  I would be concerned about some free exercise of religion issues, such as maintaining some accommodation issues, that generally go through the civil rights division.  Tax issues, removing some legitimate exemptions.  Perhaps even removing the priest penitent exemption in law.  This one has really raised some flags with me, if he thinks religious beliefs are strongly held because people are "bitter."

It also disturbs me that he thinks people "cling" to their faith because of economic hard times.  That's the impression even many pro-Obama posters have gotten.

[12th Doctor]

First of all, Obama already said he misspoke.  This will happen, today I was at an event with a bunch of supporters, and if someone was there with a recorder I probably said something too that wasn't articulate and dare I say patronizing which they could record and take out of context..  He took on a tone he shoudln't have, big deal.

  If you really think this is an insight to how he thinks, then you must also think that McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" shows that McCain loves war and thinks it will be fun.

First off, misspeaking is when you say something thinking you are off the mic which sounds worse than it really is when taken out of context, or when you make a heated statement you regret, or when you are just caught with your pants down.  This wasn't misspeaking, and I am tired of people using "I misspoke" as an excuse everytime they say something that garners a negative reaction they didn't expect.

Secondly, the fact that another Obama supporter can only defend this through deflection, and not a very good one at that, just goes to show how indefensible the remark itself was.

[12th Doctor]

BTW... this story is now getting big play in Indiana as well.

[J. J.]

First of all, Obama already said he misspoke.  This will happen, today I was at an event with a bunch of supporters, and if someone was there with a recorder I probably said something too that wasn't articulate and dare I say patronizing which they could record and take out of context..  He took on a tone he shoudln't have, big deal.

  If you really think this is an insight to how he thinks, then you must also think that McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" shows that McCain loves war and thinks it will be fun.

First off, misspeaking is when you say something thinking you are off the mic which sounds worse than it really is when taken out of context, or when you make a heated statement you regret, or when you are just caught with your pants down.  This wasn't misspeaking, and I am tired of people using "I misspoke" as an excuse everytime they say something that garners a negative reaction they didn't expect.

Secondly, the fact that another Obama supporter can only defend this through deflection, and not a very good one at that, just goes to show how indefensible the remark itself was.

Not to mention that McCain was singing it to the turn of Barbara Ann.

Obama hasn't said, "I misspoke," or "I didn't mean it."  He meant it.  How little Obama really understands.

[J. J.]

BTW... this story is now getting big play in Indiana as well.

It was the Lead on the national and local news.

It will have a negative effect in PA and IN.  What about NC, a state that has been doing well since the 1980's.

[12th Doctor]

First of all, Obama already said he misspoke.  This will happen, today I was at an event with a bunch of supporters, and if someone was there with a recorder I probably said something too that wasn't articulate and dare I say patronizing which they could record and take out of context..  He took on a tone he shoudln't have, big deal.

  If you really think this is an insight to how he thinks, then you must also think that McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" shows that McCain loves war and thinks it will be fun.

First off, misspeaking is when you say something thinking you are off the mic which sounds worse than it really is when taken out of context, or when you make a heated statement you regret, or when you are just caught with your pants down.  This wasn't misspeaking, and I am tired of people using "I misspoke" as an excuse everytime they say something that garners a negative reaction they didn't expect.

Secondly, the fact that another Obama supporter can only defend this through deflection, and not a very good one at that, just goes to show how indefensible the remark itself was.

Not to mention that McCain was singing it to the turn of Barbara Ann.

Obama hasn't said, "I misspoke," or "I didn't mean it."  He meant it.  How little Obama really understands.

For what I have heard, he only seems to regret that anyone heard it.

BTW... this story is now getting big play in Indiana as well.

It was the Lead on the national and local news.

It will have a negative effect in PA and IN.  What about NC, a state that has been doing well since the 1980's.

It won't matter.  Every typical white person down there is already a Republican.  Maybe if we just get rid of Whitey altogether....

[J. J.]

I don't know; anyone religous could be offended by the remark

[12th Doctor]

I don't know; anyone religous could be offended by the remark

True... but anyone who is religious is already a backwards, redneck, gun totting Republican.