Honestly, most of these jobs are nothing but headlines. The Carrier jobs was crony capitalism at its finest.
Fair enough. Of course, seeing as how the mess started on Bush’s watch in the first place, I’m not sure how much credit he deserves for addressing it.
Article is from 2013. Things have changed considerably since then.
I was referring to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010, which ended the practice of having intermediaries provide loans that were guaranteed by the US govt, a practice that cost the US billions annually, and was essentially a way for private lenders to make huge profits with no risk:
Two things have killed coal–natural gas as you pointed out, and automation of the mining process. Even if the coal industry were completely de-regulated, the once-plentiful coal-mining jobs would not return. The days of coal companies employing thousands of miners are gone, and they’re not coming back no matter who is POTUS.
http://www.mining.com/study-shows-96-of-some-mining-jobs-can-be-automated/
Not sure how one can be against both abortion and “more government intervention in people’s lives,” as those directly contradict each other. But setting that aside, Mitch McConnell said making Obama a one-term POTUS was their (the GOP’s) “top political priority.” That’s unprincipled obstructionism, not the pursuit of a policy agenda.
Indeed. This is one of the ‘costs’ to the GOP of electing Trump that I was referring to in a comment I made earlier–in many respects, his approach to economic issues is anathema to core Republican principles. (Thought experiment: I invite my conservative friends to imagine how they would have reacted if Obama had interceded with Carrier in like manner.)
Depending on the scope of the words primary and superiority, your definition of racism might imply that racism is a rather rational position. It can’t be disputed that people of different races of people have different genetics, and its well established that some of those genes lead to significant differences in average physical capabilities and also disease susceptibility. They might also lead to differences in average mental and emotional capabilities, but there is no real way to separate a study on this subject from bias, assumptions of bias, and accusations of bias.
That said, it generally makes more sense to measure and test those capabilities and susceptibilities individually rather than rely on generalizations. For instance, I work as an electrical engineer and, at least in the US, a disproportionate number of electrical engineers are White and Asian men. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good engineers in other demographics and given that there is no real need to make snap generalized judgments about the capabilities of an engineer, I don’t make assumptions. The variation within a race is almost certainly wide enough to overcome variations between a race and means that you can’t categorically judge someone based on their race.
At the same time, I reject the assumption that in a fair and unbiased society the population of electrical engineers would reflect the demographics of the population at large. There just is no evidence to support this, but publicly challenging it is a good way to get blackballed. In certain circles, it’s assumed to be true and any evidence to the contrary is taken as evidence of some type of bias. However, I believe it’s highly possible that certain aptitudes and interests have a genetic component that is correlated to race and almost certainly to sex. Does that make me a racist?
You mean like the way Jews dominate boxing and basketball?
The belief at the time was it ‘couldn’t be disputed’ that Jews were genetically predisposed to dominate both sports, just as many people today (including you?) believe it “can’t be disputed” that AAs are genetically predisposed to dominate them now.
So to the contrary: Your assertion certainly can be disputed (and has been, soundly).
There is zero scientifically-robust evidence to support such speculation.
You say you don’t make assumptions, but then go on to say:
You are making the same mistake made by observers of boxing and basketball in the 1920s-40s–you are looking at the current state of the world, and assuming that it reflects some sort of underlying natural order. They were wrong then (obviously); likewise, so are you now.
The problem with this line of reasoning is, geneticists completely discount the concept of race as a biological reality, because there’s simply nothing in our DNA to justify it. Which is not to say that race isn’t ‘real’–it most certainly is. But it is a socio-cultural construct, not a biological one.
Only if you continue to believe it after being made aware of evidence dismantling your beliefs.
Importantly, this quote came in 2010, not 2008, and directly after Obama and Pelosi opted for the “we won” strategy and commenced legislative cramdown, most notably ramming through the ACA on purely partisan grounds.
The House changed hands precisely to obstruct Obama.
I’m not here to carry water for the GOP during Obama’s tenure - resisting Obama was fine, but they simply decided not to govern at all at times. But Obama was just as bad in terms,of unwilingness to cooperate, if not worse.
It is common (to the point of expected) for the House to swing away from the party of the POTUS during off-year elections. Are you suggesting it’s always done to “obstruct” the POTUS?
Sorry, but I think that is flat-out false, at least initially. Obama hoped–naively, it turns out–that he could be the first ‘post partisan’ POTUS. It was only after many years of GOP obstructionism that he began to go his own way.
Careful now. If were starting the “started on so and so’s watch,” it opens the door for a lot of unwarranted criticism.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1247, topic:223365”]
Article is from 2013. Things have changed considerably since then.
The points in the article still stand. Also, the workforce is still shit. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Gotcha. Not familiar with it so no comment at this point until I research a little more.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1247, topic:223365”]
The days of coal companies employing thousands of miners are gone, and they’re not coming back no matter who is POTUS.
Fair enough… From your perspective, how will renewable energy help families? Is there evidence of it being cheaper or more efficient or is climate change the driving factor in renewable energy?
Take out abortion from my argument. Not a road we need to go down ha.
We need to stop this silliness about how the other party is obstructing the other. It happens during every presidency in some shape or form. Obstructing the other party isn’t new. That’s why we have checks and balances. (Stupid comment on McConnell’s part.)
Does Schumer saying he won’t nominate any judge Bush picks because the bench leans too far right count as obstruction or just politics as usual?
I’ve been away from my computer during the holidays and lost track of this thread but I’ve seen some mention of the Obama presidency so I’ll add this and let you guys get back to it. Much of the Obama presidency will be debated and studied and become part of history, but for me personally he is far from a complete failure. My family has prospered tremendously during the Obama administration. My portfolio has risen over 12% annually. I’ve received a raise and a bonus every year of his presidency. My wife and all of my kids have been more successful. My wife has been promoted 3 times and more than doubled her annual salary. So, when I ask myself if I’m better off now than I was eight years ago, my answer is a resounding yes.
1 Like
No, but 2010 was not common - don’t forget Massachusetts sent a Republican (in Ted Kennedy’s old seat) to thwart the ACA. Massachusetts.
Moreover, the bleeding never stopped, which is why roughly 1000 Democrats have lost their jobs since Obama began running the country.
[quote]Sorry, but I think that is flat-out false, at least initially. Obama hoped–naively, it turns out–that he could be the first ‘post partisan’ POTUS. It was only after many years of GOP obstructionism that he began to go his own way.
[/quote]
Respectfully, it isn’t false. Obama marketed himself as post-partisan to gain votes after the rancorous Bush years. After he won, it was a strategy of partisan cramdown to take advantage of overwhelming Democratic arithmetic. Recall his response to Cantor at his suggestion that Obama consider some GOP flavoring on the stimulus - “I won.”
And the evidence goes beyond his lack of relationship with House Republicans - Obama didn’t even cooperate well within his own party to get things done - he essentially had no relationship with Congressional Democrats, either.
Obama had every intention of going his own way from the outset. That strategy having blown up in his face and decimated the Democratic Party and its agenda nationwide, there is a popular revisionism that Obama was happy to be a bi-partisan incrementalist willing to work with Republicans, but who, darn the luck, was forced into being a left-liberal lone ranger by obstructionism.
But revisionism it is. I’ve said it a bunch, but I’ll say it again - Obama and the Tea Party weren’t nearly opposites so much as they were two different sides of the same coin.
Also important is to note that GOP leaders decided to oppose Obama at every turn, and that this decision was made on the night of Obama’s first inauguration:
Here it is from the mouth of someone who was at the meeting:
This is evidence that the opposition party was prepared to act like…the opposition party. That’s fine and expected. That comes as no surprise (but isn’t the same as McConnell’s announcement in 2010).
But the argument is that Obama and the Pelosi Democrats were open-minded, bi-partisan transactionalists and the GOP just refused to work with them, and that is false:
While climate change, as perhaps the most spectacular market failure/externality in the history of the world, would be enough of a reason to drive us to renewables, it is the case that the cost differential between renewables and fossil fuels is rapidly approaching zero:
No modern-era POTUS has faced the sort of mindless, politically-driven, cynical opposition that Obama has. None.
No, but the outrageous, unprecedented refusal of the Senate to give Judge Garland a hearing does.
If you can provide a counter-example to support your position–ie, evidence of the Dems deciding a priori to oppose a newly-elected GOP POTUS at every turn, no matter what the issue–I will concede this point. But I don’t think you’ll be able to do it.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this score.
That’s putting party and Russia before the country.
How things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised that in a couple of years’ time Russia could calmly launch a nuclear first strike without any fear of retaliation on a Blue State, with Trump’s answer being “Ha, Russia nukes Seattle! Very smart! Would love to see faces of those whiny liberals before they disintegrated!”
I’m not 100% joking here…
Well, you should be. With all due respect that is just ridiculous.
(But…if you are correct how about California? Now I’m kidding 
)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/814958820980039681
I truly am interested in where Trump is taking this Russia stuff? And if your answer is “he’s an idiot/buffoon/clueless” don’t bother responding
Before that, though, I think you’ve overstated your case with the examples linked. For example, Capehart uses as an example of obstruction from the outset Cantor’s whipping the minority into no GOP votes for the stimulus plan. Well, sure, but that happened after the GOP went to the table and tried to get Obama and Pelosi to consider some GOP proposals in the stimulus - they spurned that overture and froze the GOP out of the bill writing process, incorporated no GOP ideas, and told Cantor too bad, so sad, because “I won.”
But most importantly, that anecdote proves the GOP wasn’t nearly as obstructionist as the revisionists say they were early on. If the GOP had committed to complete refusal to work with Obama, then what explains the GOP attempt to get involved in the writing the stimulus bill? That’s not refusal - that’s cooperating.
And then of course, why would Cantor do anything but whip his colleagues into not voting for it after having the door shut on the GOP’s face?
Holding Obama blameless isn’t supportable on the facts. No getting around it.
Much will be written about this in the future no doubt, but Obama wanted to be a transformational liberal president, not a small ball pragmatist like Bill Clinton (whom Obama mocked precisely for being small ball). No way Obama was ever going to trim his sails, compromise, and let Republicans dilute his aims.