The reason President Obama should win the Pittsburgh region (Nixon: wages, tax)

[pit2atl]

I was driving through point breeze/ east liberty yesterday, and where the old Nabisco factory, which is now a fancy coffee shop, jimmy johns, clothing store. I began to think what’s the wages of the employee’s in those stores.

So the other day, I was at giant eagle and I bought some graham crackers, which are Nabisco product, and on the box it read packaged in Mexico. Why did that factory in Pittsburgh get moved to Mexico? I’ll tell you because Bush put more relaxed ethical practices and lower corporate tax rate for business, which allowed them to send our jobs over sea’s. Now if that isn't proof that our Private sector needs to be taught some ethical behavior then I don't know what to say about this country.

That $14/$15 hour job in Pittsburgh is now a 1.50$ job in Mexico. Corporate Profits are better yes, but at what cost "American" jobs. So my question to the Pittsburgh voters who plan on voting for Romney how will he create jobs in Pittsburgh when he want to go back to the policies that allowed Nabisco to send jobs to Mexico?

[Evergrey]

Isn't there another employer in that former Nabisco factory?

[BrianTH]

When an incumbent President is running for reelection, generally before you even get to the challenger's policies, you have to persuade the voters they should fire the incumbent, and that is typically a significant (although not impossible) barrier, particularly when the incumbent party has only been in place for one term.

I'd guess it will be pretty tough to get a majority in this area to want to fire Obama, if for no other reason than that things have been going pretty well around here economically. That also explains why the Ohio polling seems to be a bit more favorable for Obama than the national polling would ordinarily suggest--they got hit worse in the recession than us, but their recovery has been relatively good.

[I_Like_Spam]

Google is over in Bakery Square now in addition to the retail stores that you saw, and I think they pay pretty well.

Retail employers have always traditionally been pretty cheap employers, even back in the day.


BTW, the Pittsburgh area always votes for the Democrats- the last GOP'er to win a majority in Allegheny County was President Nixon in 1972.

[BrianTH]

Yeah, even looking at Western PA in general, it has been terrible for Republican Presidential candidates for a very long time--for example, I believe Reagan and the first Bush lost this third of the state even as they won it overall in 1980, 84, and 88 (they were able to win the state with broad support in the Philly suburbs).

That said, you could imagine a scenario in which the ongoing decline of union Democrats plus terrible local economic conditions swung this region to a Republican candidate with the right sort of economic message. I highly doubt those conditions have been met in this election, however.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by pit2atl

I was driving through point breeze/ east liberty yesterday, and where the old Nabisco factory, which is now a fancy coffee shop, jimmy johns, clothing store. I began to think what’s the wages of the employee’s in those stores.

So the other day, I was at giant eagle and I bought some graham crackers, which are Nabisco product, and on the box it read packaged in Mexico. Why did that factory in Pittsburgh get moved to Mexico? I’ll tell you because Bush put more relaxed ethical practices and lower corporate tax rate for business, which allowed them to send our jobs over sea’s. Now if that isn't proof that our Private sector needs to be taught some ethical behavior then I don't know what to say about this country.

That $14/$15 hour job in Pittsburgh is now a 1.50$ job in Mexico. Corporate Profits are better yes, but at what cost "American" jobs. So my question to the Pittsburgh voters who plan on voting for Romney how will he create jobs in Pittsburgh when he want to go back to the policies that allowed Nabisco to send jobs to Mexico?

You can place adequate and appropriate blame on the Bush administration for a great deal, but you can't blame just him for policies that promote outsourcing as its bipartisan and has been happening for years. Both parties have put the interests of 'big business' (for lack of a better phrase) ahead of the financial security of the American people. I recall a 'debate' (and I use the term loosely because one side had no argument, and history has proven this person completely wrong on this issue) on Larry King back in the early 90s between Ross Perot and Al Gore concerning NAFTA. Gore in support, Perot against. Perot's argument has been upheld by the course of history, and Gore made to look a fool in retrospect.


NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993 - YouTube

Vote for Obama, vote for Romney, either way the economy isn't going to change much until our elected officials put the best interest of the American people ahead of their most affluent constituents or lobbyists.

[Goinback2011]

Obama and the Democratic Congress (2009/10) could have reversed all the offshoring incentives enacted over the past 30 years. Why didn't they?

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Obama and the Democratic Congress (2009/10) could have reversed all the offshoring incentives enacted over the past 30 years. Why didn't they?

Either because they're incompetent or they didn't give a **** in the first place.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Google is over in Bakery Square now in addition to the retail stores that you saw, and I think they pay pretty well.

Retail employers have always traditionally been pretty cheap employers, even back in the day.


BTW, the Pittsburgh area always votes for the Democrats- the last GOP'er to win a majority in Allegheny County was President Nixon in 1972.

It's not the same employees, though.

[PB&J O'Rourke]

I'm voting for anyone but Obama.