Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Outsourcing does work both ways, if you're wanting a plant that moving from here to Mexico stopped from happening then you equally need to be in favor of say BMW closing its US plants & moving those jobs back to Germany.
Obama will win Pittsburgh, but he certainly won't win western PA. I wouldn't be surprised if Allegheny is the only county he wins in all of western pa. You don't really think Obama is going to take Westmoreland, Butler, Fayette, Washington, or Beaver, do you? And he will do even worse in the rest of the more rural counties in western pa. Erie County would be the only other option for him in all of western PA, and he will probably lose that too.
Whether you count Western PA as an aggregate of 18 counties or 22 counties, point is Obama won the aggregate by 30K votes in the first instance and 20K votes in the second. Thus he won Western PA.
Fayette, Greene and Mercer were actually pretty close last time out - less than 1% margin for GOP. Does Romney win them, sure. But they're not strongholds - those are Butler/Armstrong/Clarion/Venango/Westmoreland/Forest. Erie is going Obama. McCain/Palin got smoked there, losing 59%-39%. Can't see any way Romney turns that around.
This time around, it really depends on how much people think for themselves and what their trigger is. Obama's record is clearly more NRA-friendly than even Bush's. Those benefiting from Marcellus Shale are definitely doing better than 4 years ago. Ryan has got be scaring the bejeesus out of those 45-55 on Medicare. Hell, if Obama goes to Somerset and talks about getting OBL, he'll cut his losses there significantly.
Obama's key failings are the deficit and Afghanistan. Everything else is fairly subjective, including healthcare, depending where you are on the scale of need. That's both the problem and advantage of long-view policies. If Romney goes the trickle-down economy route for alleged short-term benefit, we already know the deficit gets larger. And not only is Romney not going to pull out of Afghanistan - the GOP consistently blocks help to veterans. Finally, Romney's track record on offshoring jobs is an albatross. So what does he win on other than trying to overturn Roe v Wade?
GOP had a shot here if they had a Constitutional (e.g. Tea Party pre-Bachmann) candidate. Instead we got this losing ticket.
Right....it's similar to a household with credit card debt and a printer in the basement printing money. At a certain volume of printing, the value of the money gets debased.
Exactly!
But that critical volume is certainly higher then it is today, since the dollar is still viewed as a safe haven and inflation is as low as it's ever been. We certainly should not print infinite amounts of money, but to talk about a deficit as if it's just inherently bad is to show that one has NO idea whatsoever how a modern economy works. Deficits are critical components of any modern economy anywhere in the world... It's fiat currency people, to a government money is only a means to allocate resources efficiently. The United states is trying to allocate resources for billions of people and tens of thousands of organizations on a global scale. Anyone who thinks that is somehow similar to running up your Bank of America card... well... I doubt we can have a reasonable discussion.
You all should realize how critical deficit spending is to our own local economy. UPMC, Highmark, West Penn, PNC, BNYMellon, Westinghouse, Tech sector, Defense... all subsidized heavily via various government programs or direct governement contracts... Pittsburghians need to quit watching television and listing to talk radio and hope to god that the Paul Ryan budget never comes to fruition.
With you vast expertise in macroeconomics, perhaps you could explain why anyone should pay any taxes at all, given that printing money for deficit spending is such a good, even great thing.
Too bad we can't call up those running the central bank of the Weimar Republic to ask them.
With you vast expertise in macroeconomics, perhaps you could explain why anyone should pay any taxes at all, given that printing money for deficit spending is such a good, even great thing.
Too bad we can't call up those running the central bank of the Weimar Republic to ask them.
If Advil is so good why don't you take 1,000 given that it is such a good, even great thing. To bad we can't call up that guy who overdosed after taking 13 bottles to ask him.
I would suggest you heed Yac's advice and direct any anger-fueled rants to the politics board. If, on the other hand, you would like to reasonably debate structural deficits and their effects on the local economy, I would be happy to respond.
I think that's a right wing caricature. Labor unions are a key democratic constituency and government union jobs employ millions upon millions of people. By default the dems favor the working/middle class. The reality is that directly or indirectly, government is Probably responsible for a third to half of our economy. What do you think happens to upmc revenue when Romney cuts Medicare and medicade? How many West Penn employees will vote to lay themselves off? How many teachers will? How many city workers will vote to cut federal aid to cities? How many will vote to raise their own taxes, while cutting taxes even further for the wealthiest among us... Lots and lots.
The problem is that only 20% of people are smart enough to understand modern global macroeconomics. That leaves the rest of us susceptible to dubious intellectual arguments. How many people, with slightly above average intelligence, think that a nation-state that floats it's currency and runs a deficit, is similar to a household with credit card debt... Again, lots and lots... It's really a shame people vote directly against their own interests.
I'm no right wing apologist. I just don't think the Democrats have done much to benefit the middle 60% or so of Americans during the last 30-35 years, and have done a few things to alienate a lot of people who used to be solid supporters. Earning potential has eroded, median wages have fallen; if they've been supporters all along they haven't been very good ones. I certainly am not a supporter of Republicans, though.
The fact that it has come to hoping governments don't lay off workers (as for unions, government is one of the few places where unions are left - unions are on life support these days), hoping that long-established programs that may indirectly benefit the middle class (because they are intended to directly benefit the poor and elderly) don't get cut, and giving serious credibility to talk about continued tax cuts for the wealthy when the taxes are already at historic lows - never from 1932 through 1982 was the top rate lower than 50%, and it's 35% today - shows the paucity of what is being offered here. At best it's a back against the wall kind of favoring of the middle class - nothing to be very proud about.
That said, Obama will probably win the Pittsburgh region, partly because of those indirect benefits that you mentioned - people don't generally like to hear about potential cuts in those safety net programs - but relying on basically the same tactic year after year and being on the defensive without offering some bold changes is bound to erode support, so we'll see how things go this cycle.
If, on the other hand, you would like to reasonably debate structural deficits and their effects on the local economy, I would be happy to respond.
That was sarcasm, not anger. I was laughing when i wrote it. But nice try at threatening me with censorship if I don't comply with your views.
So....just what would you consider 'too much debt', if you now acknowledge there is such a thing? A trillion or more per year? How many years of that can be tolerated? Or maybe it's never 'too much' if your guy is doing it? What is your limit? And why?
Whether you count Western PA as an aggregate of 18 counties or 22 counties, point is Obama won the aggregate by 30K votes in the first instance and 20K votes in the second. Thus he won Western PA.
Fayette, Greene and Mercer were actually pretty close last time out - less than 1% margin for GOP. Does Romney win them, sure. But they're not strongholds - those are Butler/Armstrong/Clarion/Venango/Westmoreland/Forest. Erie is going Obama. McCain/Palin got smoked there, losing 59%-39%. Can't see any way Romney turns that around.
This time around, it really depends on how much people think for themselves and what their trigger is. Obama's record is clearly more NRA-friendly than even Bush's. Those benefiting from Marcellus Shale are definitely doing better than 4 years ago. Ryan has got be scaring the bejeesus out of those 45-55 on Medicare. Hell, if Obama goes to Somerset and talks about getting OBL, he'll cut his losses there significantly.
Obama's key failings are the deficit and Afghanistan. Everything else is fairly subjective, including healthcare, depending where you are on the scale of need. That's both the problem and advantage of long-view policies. If Romney goes the trickle-down economy route for alleged short-term benefit, we already know the deficit gets larger. And not only is Romney not going to pull out of Afghanistan - the GOP consistently blocks help to veterans. Finally, Romney's track record on offshoring jobs is an albatross. So what does he win on other than trying to overturn Roe v Wade?
GOP had a shot here if they had a Constitutional (e.g. Tea Party pre-Bachmann) candidate. Instead we got this losing ticket.
The deficit is a matter of debate. You can make the argument that a precedent of this kind of spending was set by Roosevelt during the depression. I wouldn't say that all of it is justified though.
Where you lose me completely are the comments about Afghanistan. If you're willing to do the research the prevailing expert opinion as to the cause of our recent struggles in that campaign was the opening of a second (and ultimately unnecessary) front in Iraq. Iraq spread the resources of our military thin, took the focus off of the Afghan theater, and allowed the Taiban/insurgency we were fighting to regroup after we had soundly beaten them.
Also, and this is nothing personal against Romney or the GOP, I honestly don't understand how anyone can even begin to think that trickle down economics will lead to job creation or a stronger economy. Assuming for a moment that the trend of outsourcing any and every decent paying position that could be outsourced to foreign labor markets just flat out never happened (that Corporate America was actually PRO-American for a change instead of trying to make 250x what the average employee of their company makes..that's a statistic, look it up) it will still not result in the intended job creation. Demand drives the creation of jobs. Tax cuts for the affluent or business owners (small or large alike) will not have the intended consequence. However, I honestly wish the solution were as simple as cutting taxes for the affluent, or raising taxes on the wealthy to put more money in the hands of the middle class, but unfortunately it isn't.
Obamacare is going to be very good for the middle class, but of course Romney/Ryan have pledged to repeal it. So that is something to keep in mind if the interests of the middle class are central to your thinking.
That was sarcasm, not anger. I was laughing when i wrote it. But nice try at threatening me with censorship if I don't comply with your views.
So....just what would you consider 'too much debt', if you now acknowledge there is such a thing? A trillion or more per year? How many years of that can be tolerated? Or maybe it's never 'too much' if your guy is doing it? What is your limit? And why?
There is no number as fiat money has no intrinsic value other than a belief or trust in the government issuing the currency. At any given time it's a purely sociological issue depending almost entirely on the feelings and perceptions of the international bankers that buy and sell currencies. If they estimate that a country is strong, stable, and efficiently run then that country can print money freely and that money will have value. If on the other hand, that country irresponsibly writes every citizen a million dollar check, or tea-party congressmen start irresponsibly threatening to not raise the debt ceiling... then there could well be a problem... My position is that we are no where near that point and wall street seems to agree. Moreover, when you remember that oil is traded in dollars, and the dollar is the reserve currency for most of the world.... pfffft... we have LOTS of room to maneuver. Why do you thing both parties increase spending with reckless abandon? Why do you think we go to war and cut taxes at the same time. Why did Dick Cheney say "deficits don't matter"?... because they don't ... Well, that's not true, they do matter but not nearly as much as the well paid political pundits tell you they do.
Trust me, policy makers on both sides of the isle understand these basic and simple facts. All the TV talk about deficits being like credit cards is just political pablum for the masses. This deficit as the bogey man idea is just a bunch of billionaires trying to scare you into cutting government spending so they can reduce their own taxes... starve the beast.
There will always be a structural deficit as well there should be. The global population increases by a billion or so people every decade, standards of living increase, and economies grow. Where do you think all this extra money comes from??? It is created out of thin air by central banks... deficits are central to this process.
And I wasn't threatening you with censorship... I was trying to brown nose Yac.
Last edited by zip95; 09-03-2012 at 05:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
