Barack Obama will bring world class jobs

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Xavier434Get over it already! Hope is all any of us will ever have with any candidate after you boil down all of the details. What more do you want? A crystal ball that allows you to look into the future? Do you believe that any of the McCain supporters are relying on much of anything but hope? McCain has a history of successes and as well as TONS of failures. His supporters are "hoping" that if he is elected that he will not fail again as he has so many times in the past.

Things are not always as they seem here in Virginia. I'm not sure how your point of Mark Warner was in trying to portray him as a great individual. I've lived in this state for 22 years, now. It is what it is. However, the best tax cut (by means of fairness) was initiated by Governor Gilmore. He developed a plan to progressively reduce and eventually eliminate our personal property taxes on our vehicles. Sadly, the successor to his position didn't complete the work. We're stuck at still paying for 30% of the amount of the actual tax.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, it's all about fairness. The personal property taxes on vehicles in Virginia was the most unfair tax that I've ever witnessed. It was very easy to evade the tax for many years. People didn't have to go to their county office and have their vehicles noted for the tax. This was unfair to those of us who were paying the taxes.

I'm not against paying taxes. I am against fairness in taxes - and those who were evading it were just screwing the rest of us.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why do people believe a President can deliver jobs anyways?

Because he can. First, with Congress, you take the money away from the other employers. Then you alone are the only employer left standing. People then come to you for their jobs AND are forced to vote for their employer in order to avoid starvation.

Win/Win, unless you care about that "aged" document that founded this nation. Move on man, get with the times, don't stop progress - people need change, people DEMAND change!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Then why don't you take Obama's for his?

Why don't you look into his plans because he does have them and they are out there. They are not available in line by line detail but they are still there and you will never get line by line from any candidate.

You're taking my quote out of context. I was challenging another poster on whether we should interpret a candidate's "vision" as a "promise". That context was much broader than just Obama. Of all the Presidents in my lifetime (b.1977), Bush 43 is probably the largest failure in this regard. Obama could be positioning himself for runner-up, but only time will tell. All I'm really saying is *if* he can't keep his word, I don't want to hear a damn person say "it was his vision, not a promise." Bull-fucking-shit.

I can't say I disagree with you, but let us not forget that allowing our expectations to match up line by line with a presidential candidates promise (doesn't matter who) is just not realistic regardless of their intentions and commitment. The world just doesn't allow anyone to do it that way. I don't expect any future president to deliver exactly what they promised during a campaign. I expect them to be what I consider reasonably successful. When it comes to Obama specifically, I expect him to lay out most for the ground work for many of his proposed solutions and set us on a course to turn that ground work into a successful conclusion. I also expect some of his solutions to deliver a lot more much faster due to the nature of the specific problem. I would expect more from him than that, but I just don't believe that any single president should be expected to do more with the time allotted to them given the current severity and complexity of the primary problems at hand.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
Title: Barack Obama will bring world class jobs

I don't believe I would do very well as Indian tech support.

But there's always Chicken Little.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: eleison
Yes, nice sig... at least the Republicans are being honest

They'd better be honest. They've had their heads in the sand for too long, and the general population has given up on them. If they can't realize true conservatism it's going to be a long century.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: Xavier434Get over it already! Hope is all any of us will ever have with any candidate after you boil down all of the details. What more do you want? A crystal ball that allows you to look into the future? Do you believe that any of the McCain supporters are relying on much of anything but hope? McCain has a history of successes and as well as TONS of failures. His supporters are "hoping" that if he is elected that he will not fail again as he has so many times in the past.

Things are not always as they seem here in Virginia. I'm not sure how your point of Mark Warner was in trying to portray him as a great individual. I've lived in this state for 22 years, now. It is what it is. However, the best tax cut (by means of fairness) was initiated by Governor Gilmore. He developed a plan to progressively reduce and eventually eliminate our personal property taxes on our vehicles. Sadly, the successor to his position didn't complete the work. We're stuck at still paying for 30% of the amount of the actual tax.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, it's all about fairness. The personal property taxes on vehicles in Virginia was the most unfair tax that I've ever witnessed. It was very easy to evade the tax for many years. People didn't have to go to their county office and have their vehicles noted for the tax. This was unfair to those of us who were paying the taxes.

I'm not against paying taxes. I am against fairness in taxes - and those who were evading it were just screwing the rest of us.

"Fairness" is a strange word in this country. It is a fine thing by literal definition, but it can also be a very dangerous thing when it gets in the way of realistic expectations and opportunities for progress.

"Fairness"...."Progress"

It is foolish for anyone to lean so much towards one leaving the other with a short end of the stick. Balance must be sought after and we will not achieve or maintain the proper kind of balance that both preserves fairness and progress optimally unless we are forever changing. Sometimes that means the changes need to come in the form of progressive taxation. Other times they do not. No matter what though, nothing should be constant and last forever and that includes tax breaks for the rich. As it stands right now in this country, we need to focus a lot more on progress because it has been lacking big time and it is effecting all classes of people.

 

[winnar111]

Al Qaida might be hiring suicide bombers on American soil. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: JD50
So on my drive in to work this morning I heard a Barack Obama ad with Mark Warner saying that Barack Obama doesn't think that you should have to leave your hometown to get a "world class job". Could someone please explain how Barack Obama is going to bring "world class jobs" to every town in America?

If Obama truly cared, he'd make it so I wouldn't have to leave my bed to get a world-class job. Getting out of a warm bed on a cold morning is absolute hell - why should I have to suffer and slave just to get a McMansion and an SUV?

Your sig is freakin' great :thumbsup:

Yes, nice sig... at least the Republicans are being honest

Yeah nice sig, too bad most of the defaulted mortgages are....from white people.

But go ahead and spread your race baiting myths you hacks.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Al Qaida might be hiring suicide bombers on American soil. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

Do you support using terrorism for fear mongering now or something? What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Then why don't you take Obama's for his?

Why don't you look into his plans because he does have them and they are out there. They are not available in line by line detail but they are still there and you will never get line by line from any candidate.

You're taking my quote out of context. I was challenging another poster on whether we should interpret a candidate's "vision" as a "promise". That context was much broader than just Obama. Of all the Presidents in my lifetime (b.1977), Bush 43 is probably the largest failure in this regard. Obama could be positioning himself for runner-up, but only time will tell. All I'm really saying is *if* he can't keep his word, I don't want to hear a damn person say "it was his vision, not a promise." Bull-fucking-shit.

I can't say I disagree with you, but let us not forget that allowing our expectations to match up line by line with a presidential candidates promise (doesn't matter who) is just not realistic regardless of their intentions and commitment. The world just doesn't allow anyone to do it that way. I don't expect any future president to deliver exactly what they promised during a campaign. I expect them to be what I consider reasonably successful. When it comes to Obama specifically, I expect him to lay out most for the ground work for many of his proposed solutions and set us on a course to turn that ground work into a successful conclusion. I also expect some of his solutions to deliver a lot more much faster due to the nature of the specific problem. I would expect more from him than that, but I just don't believe that any single president should be expected to do more with the time allotted to them given the current severity and complexity of the primary problems at hand.

I agree wholeheartedly. When I say he better keep his promise, I don't mean it in the strictest of terms. When I hear "bring world class jobs to every town in America", I simply interpret that as nationwide job growth. In my mind, he has promised 3% - 5% unemployment, and I expect him to deliver on that.

Now, I don't believe a President has direct control over such things, but his policies have the potential to swing it one way or the other. Specifically, his tax plan and his health care will have an indirect affect on unemployment. Likewise, if he chooses to try to strong-arm the economy into keeping certain sectors alive and on US soil (such as automotive production), I believe it will blow up in his face. Jobs move overseas for a reason, and while a small number of individuals suffer temporarily, the net effect on the economy (and the general population's well-being) is positive, as this usually occurs when the economy naturally strives for perfect efficiency. In Econ 200 terms, if it was "best" for Detroit's automotive sector to say alive, it will. If it dies, it's because it needs to die. Artificial life support rarely produces a better outcome. There are few circumstances under which it's a wise move, but saving the jobs of a relatively small percentage of a population isn't one of them.

Industry protection can be disastrous, and I really hope we don't see it from Obama.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
Title: Barack Obama will bring world class jobs

I don't believe I would do very well as Indian tech support.

There will always be Indian tech support - -they are cheap. People (globally and locally) buy the most inexpensive product when they can and if it provides a value.

Forcing American companies to use american tech support, introduces more cost compared to other global companies that use cheaper support.

Unless there is a value added, in a global economy the customers will pick the cheaper product. Hence, American jobs maybe lost. In the long run, it is better to find and create jobs that adds value instead of government mandating certain jobs to exist.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: JD50
So on my drive in to work this morning I heard a Barack Obama ad with Mark Warner saying that Barack Obama doesn't think that you should have to leave your hometown to get a "world class job". Could someone please explain how Barack Obama is going to bring "world class jobs" to every town in America?

If Obama truly cared, he'd make it so I wouldn't have to leave my bed to get a world-class job. Getting out of a warm bed on a cold morning is absolute hell - why should I have to suffer and slave just to get a McMansion and an SUV?

Your sig is freakin' great :thumbsup:

Yes, nice sig... at least the Republicans are being honest

Yeah nice sig, too bad most of the defaulted mortgages are....from white people.

But go ahead and spread your race baiting myths you hacks.

Where the fuck did that come from? If anyone is racist around here, it's you. Grow up and get your head screwed on straight.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
Title: Barack Obama will bring world class jobs

I don't believe I would do very well as Indian tech support.

There will always be Indian tech support - -they are cheap. People (globally and locally) buy the most inexpensive product when they can and if it provides a value.

Forcing American companies to use american tech support, introduces more cost compared to other global companies that use cheaper support.

Unless there is a value added, in a global economy the customers will pick the cheaper product. Hence, American jobs maybe lost. In the long run, it is better to find and create jobs that adds value instead of government mandating certain jobs to exist.

See my post right above yours

:thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
As it stands right now in this country, we need to focus a lot more on progress because it has been lacking big time and it is effecting all classes of people.

It hurts people when government doesn't shake this money tree?

Perhaps there was a reason the constiution gave them enumuated powers instead of god like powers. Perhaps there was a reason our founders explicitly warned us against giving our rulers the power instead of the people. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

Or perhaps we've been lacking "progress" for long enough that we have no concept of its consequences as defined by absolute centralization of power.

Jefferson:
?To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.?

If you think I'm harping on a recurring theme then you are correct. Centralization of power towards our rulers and away from our people ONLY leads to one thing. I thought you had enough Patriot Acts and wiretappings, guess I was wrong. That?s the sort of progress you will guarantee.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
Title: Barack Obama will bring world class jobs

I don't believe I would do very well as Indian tech support.

There will always be Indian tech support - -they are cheap. People (globally and locally) buy the most inexpensive product when they can and if it provides a value.

Forcing American companies to use american tech support, introduces more cost compared to other global companies that use cheaper support.

Unless there is a value added, in a global economy the customers will pick the cheaper product. Hence, American jobs maybe lost. In the long run, it is better to find and create jobs that adds value instead of government mandating certain jobs to exist.

So eleison, do you support lowering our wages so that we obtain these world class jobs?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I can't say I disagree with you, but let us not forget that allowing our expectations to match up line by line with a presidential candidates promise (doesn't matter who) is just not realistic regardless of their intentions and commitment. The world just doesn't allow anyone to do it that way. I don't expect any future president to deliver exactly what they promised during a campaign. I expect them to be what I consider reasonably successful. When it comes to Obama specifically, I expect him to lay out most for the ground work for many of his proposed solutions and set us on a course to turn that ground work into a successful conclusion. I also expect some of his solutions to deliver a lot more much faster due to the nature of the specific problem. I would expect more from him than that, but I just don't believe that any single president should be expected to do more with the time allotted to them given the current severity and complexity of the primary problems at hand.

I agree wholeheartedly. When I say he better keep his promise, I don't mean it in the strictest of terms. When I hear "bring world class jobs to every town in America", I simply interpret that as nationwide job growth. In my mind, he has promised 3% - 5% unemployment, and I expect him to deliver on that.

Now, I don't believe a President has direct control over such things, but his policies have the potential to swing it one way or the other. Specifically, his tax plan and his health care will have an indirect affect on unemployment. Likewise, if he chooses to try to strong-arm the economy into keeping certain sectors alive and on US soil (such as automotive production), I believe it will blow up in his face. Jobs move overseas for a reason, and while a small number of individuals suffer temporarily, the net effect on the economy (and the general population's well-being) is positive, as this usually occurs when the economy naturally strives for perfect efficiency. In Econ 200 terms, if it was "best" for Detroit's automotive sector to say alive, it will. If it dies, it's because it needs to die. Artificial life support rarely produces a better outcome. There are few circumstances under which it's a wise move, but saving the jobs of a relatively small percentage of a population isn't one of them.

Industry protection can be disastrous, and I really hope we don't see it from Obama.

Allowing industry to go overseas too much without regulation can be equally as dangerous though...just in a different way. This is yet another difficult equation that requires a delicate balance that must constantly be analyzed so that proper small adjustments can be made on a regular basis. It is anything but easy, but as it stands I believe we have let far too many jobs go overseas.

It is mending itself very slowly on its own in some cases. For example, it is starting to cost a lot more money to purchase software development and tech support over in India and China because they have realized that many companies over here in America have developed business plans which rely heavily on the foreign labor. That transformed them from a cheap alternative into a necessary alternative. They are now in demand. So what is happening as a result? Well, they are asking for more money and a lot of it. They know what software developers and tech support employees over here in America make and they are starting to ask for similar wages.

Now, that is great and wonderful news but it is simply not the case in many other industries and it most certainly is not changing anywhere near as fast as we currently need it to change. I believe that the government should carefully develop progressive plans to bring results faster. I also believe that Obama has some good ideas to make this happen which I provided some details about in previous posts.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Al Qaida might be hiring suicide bombers on American soil. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

roflwaffles. "A chicken Little in every home, and a terrorists under every bed!" You are out of your goddamned mind.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Xavier434
As it stands right now in this country, we need to focus a lot more on progress because it has been lacking big time and it is effecting all classes of people.

It hurts people when government doesn't shake this money tree?

Perhaps there was a reason the constiution gave them enumuated powers instead of god like powers. Perhaps there was a reason our founders explicitly warned us against giving our rulers the power instead of the people. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

Or perhaps we've been lacking "progress" for long enough that we have no concept of its consequences as defined by absolute centralization of power.

Jefferson:
?To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.?

If you think I'm harping on a recurring theme then you are correct. Centralization of power towards our rulers and away from our people ONLY leads to one thing. I thought you had enough Patriot Acts and wiretappings, guess I was wrong. That?s the sort of progress you will guarantee.

All I ever hear from your mouth is shit like FOUND FATHERS! NWO! CONSTITUTION! FEAR COMMUNISM! THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL! REVOLUTION ACTION! PATRIOT ACT!

RAWR! RAWR! RAWR! RAWR! RAWR!


If you ever hope to help this country, you really need to take a step back and realize that all of your hatred and anger towards where the majority of this country's people want it to go is not doing yourself or anyone else any good. People just don't want what you want and they don't believe what you believe and they most likely never will or at least they never will in your lifetime. While I realize our system of representation is not perfect, it works well enough and it is the primary reason why your party is never in power. You blame the government and the media for the LP not being in power but the reality is that most people just don't like you guys and they don't want what you want. They are being represented well enough in this case.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Nobody with more than three functioning neurons thinks Obama is making a specific commitment there. He is just putting out a vision for a better America. It's a pity all you hate-filled, tiny-minded partisans can't accept it for what it is.

It's a pity that blind partisans like you think that a vision sans commitment is anything more than campaign tripe.

How about 'Compassionate conservatism' or 'uniter not a divider' or 'no new taxes'?

All campaigns talk of visions to give hope to their supporters and show which direction they will head towards. Does not mean that they are making a commitment, just their goal. Whether they are able to actually achieve that goal depends upon too many factors for anyone to give a firm commitment at the campaign stage.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
Jeeez man, who are you? Didn't mean to offend you with my "whining"

What I was trying to point out was that various sectors made quite a bit of money off the last administration, and It'll be nice to (hopefully) be in one of those sectors in the future.

And no, you were not right.

A lot of the larger contracts that I've seen have been to retire aging systems. The largest being the Humvee, which the military still hasn't decided who will win the JLTV (was supposed to be announced the other day). All of my military friends tell me that they're glad it'll be replaced (but not in their service time, of course) as it could really use it. The one remarked to me, "Hopefully this one will have a working air conditioner" as he told me they added one to the Humvee a couple years ago as a tack-on, but it didn't work so well.

Originally posted by: T2T III
C'mon now, Red. John Murtha is quite confident of his constituents in western Pennsylvania. Maybe, with their ability to hunt, they could be employed as food providers to the U.S. Venison, anyone?

I would be a happy man if I could buy venison in the meat section of my local grocer. Venison over egg noodles is delicious with some good gravy!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Nobody with more than three functioning neurons thinks Obama is making a specific commitment there. He is just putting out a vision for a better America. It's a pity all you hate-filled, tiny-minded partisans can't accept it for what it is.

It's a pity that blind partisans like you think that a vision sans commitment is anything more than campaign tripe.

How about 'Compassionate conservatism' or 'uniter not a divider' or 'no new taxes'?

All campaigns talk of visions to give hope to their supporters and show which direction they will head towards. Does not mean that they are making a commitment, just their goal. Whether they are able to actually achieve that goal depends upon too many factors for anyone to give a firm commitment at the campaign stage.

Correct. Not only is it impossible to do so but it would be foolish to try. Why the hell would we ever want a president that makes firm commitments knowing very well how quickly things can change and how often we need to adjust our own original plans on a regular to make things work out for the best in our own lives? I don't want a president that makes a firm commitment. I want one that sets some reasonable and intelligent goals to help this country progress, and I want him/her to be smart enough to understand that following through with a commitment after realizing that it may not be the best way to go in light of new information and experience is utterly stupid. We saw a lot of that blind commitment with Bush and look where it got us.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
Title: Barack Obama will bring world class jobs

I don't believe I would do very well as Indian tech support.

There will always be Indian tech support - -they are cheap. People (globally and locally) buy the most inexpensive product when they can and if it provides a value.

Forcing American companies to use american tech support, introduces more cost compared to other global companies that use cheaper support.

Unless there is a value added, in a global economy the customers will pick the cheaper product. Hence, American jobs maybe lost. In the long run, it is better to find and create jobs that adds value instead of government mandating certain jobs to exist.

So eleison, do you support lowering our wages so that we obtain these world class jobs?

I guess I don't really understand this question. World class jobs are created when there is a demand for them. For instance, as the US started moving away from manufacturing, more service jobs are being created (remember when people buy products because they are "cheaper" due to reduced cost e.g., outsourcing, technology, etc, there is extra money left over helping create demands thus creating jobs for new "products").

IMHO, here are some jobs that currently exist and have in part replaced manufacturing jobs -- RN, QA testers (will always be need for local testers), technicians, etc. I'm sure there are more. Obviously, with unemployment around 7%, people do have jobs even though manufacturing is moving away. If no jobs were being created to replace these manufacturing jobs, then the unemployment would be higher. Manufacturing jobs starting moving away more than 10 years ago, but unemployment during this time has historically stayed somewhat stable.

Its like how people were complaining that when people "pirate" music, the music industry would be killed, jobs would be lost. How will musicians make money, etc? Well, with the money "saved" from buying CD's, fans were able to spend the "saved" money on concerts. Now a days, musicians make more money from their concerts then they do on cds. Also, every concert tour hires people -- like a tour promoter, the stage hand, etc. Money saved by buying a more efficient product (either though outsourcing or in this example, lower manufacturing cost -- which is zero when pirating), helps create demand in other areas -- creating or enhancing new products.

Lowering wages. I don't understand this. I do no believe we should artificially lower or raise our wages. If wages are too low, nobody will be able to survive (cannot buy food, shelter, etc). Raising them artificially, will introduce inefficiencies that doesn't help the economy. Maybe, if this question was stated in a different way, I may understand the question.,

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
I think it'd be awesome if Obama pumped some serious money into green-energy-tech jobs. I think its ridiculous that I've got classmates with gpa's lower than mine, making nearly $10 more an hour by working for military and government funded companies desigining weapons systems. I'd love it if my wage working at a green building design firm caught up to what the missile designers were making, or at least got a few more government contracts...

What I'm hearing is

"Waaa. I'm mad because my CHOICE isnt making me as much money as my classmates CHOICE, and this isnt FAIR!"

AmIright?

You know, rather then wait for the government to bring you your "deserved" pay rate maybe you should reconsider your career choices......Now THERES a thought. Some personal responsibility in your life..... Huh.......

Jeeez man, who are you? Didn't mean to offend you with my "whining"

What I was trying to point out was that various sectors made quite a bit of money off the last administration, and It'll be nice to (hopefully) be in one of those sectors in the future.

And no, you were not right.

And by last Administration you are referring to the one thats had a Democratic Congress for the past 2 years yes?
But somehow a Democratic President will suddenly change everything?

No, one president can't suddenly change everything, you're right about that.

However, the next president will hopefully focus more on sustainable energy, and less on expensive foreign wars. Building design is already heading in that direction, simply based on the energy costs that owners can save. The OP was stating that obama is going to bring a ridiculous amount of more "world class jobs," and some of them definitely come from the construction industry.

Also, you kinda came off as a dick, but I'm sure you're really not.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I can't say I disagree with you, but let us not forget that allowing our expectations to match up line by line with a presidential candidates promise (doesn't matter who) is just not realistic regardless of their intentions and commitment. The world just doesn't allow anyone to do it that way. I don't expect any future president to deliver exactly what they promised during a campaign. I expect them to be what I consider reasonably successful. When it comes to Obama specifically, I expect him to lay out most for the ground work for many of his proposed solutions and set us on a course to turn that ground work into a successful conclusion. I also expect some of his solutions to deliver a lot more much faster due to the nature of the specific problem. I would expect more from him than that, but I just don't believe that any single president should be expected to do more with the time allotted to them given the current severity and complexity of the primary problems at hand.

I agree wholeheartedly. When I say he better keep his promise, I don't mean it in the strictest of terms. When I hear "bring world class jobs to every town in America", I simply interpret that as nationwide job growth. In my mind, he has promised 3% - 5% unemployment, and I expect him to deliver on that.

Now, I don't believe a President has direct control over such things, but his policies have the potential to swing it one way or the other. Specifically, his tax plan and his health care will have an indirect affect on unemployment. Likewise, if he chooses to try to strong-arm the economy into keeping certain sectors alive and on US soil (such as automotive production), I believe it will blow up in his face. Jobs move overseas for a reason, and while a small number of individuals suffer temporarily, the net effect on the economy (and the general population's well-being) is positive, as this usually occurs when the economy naturally strives for perfect efficiency. In Econ 200 terms, if it was "best" for Detroit's automotive sector to say alive, it will. If it dies, it's because it needs to die. Artificial life support rarely produces a better outcome. There are few circumstances under which it's a wise move, but saving the jobs of a relatively small percentage of a population isn't one of them.

Industry protection can be disastrous, and I really hope we don't see it from Obama.

Allowing industry to go overseas too much without regulation can be equally as dangerous though...just in a different way. This is yet another difficult equation that requires a delicate balance that must constantly be analyzed so that proper small adjustments can be made on a regular basis. It is anything but easy, but as it stands I believe we have let far too many jobs go overseas.

It is mending itself very slowly on its own in some cases. For example, it is starting to cost a lot more money to purchase software development and tech support over in India and China because they have realized that many companies over here in America have developed business plans which rely heavily on the foreign labor. That transformed them from a cheap alternative into a necessary alternative. They are now in demand. So what is happening as a result? Well, they are asking for more money and a lot of it. They know what software developers and tech support employees over here in America make and they are starting to ask for similar wages.

Now, that is great and wonderful news but it is simply not the case in many other industries and it most certainly is not changing anywhere near as fast as we currently need it to change. I believe that the government should carefully develop progressive plans to bring results faster. I also believe that Obama has some good ideas to make this happen which I provided some details about in previous posts.

This is actually why I think the gov't shouldn't interfere. As overseas companies raise their prices, the jobs will naturally return to the US as the economy continues to strive for efficiency. No bureaucracy can react quickly and efficiently to everchanging market conditions. If they jobs go overseas naturally (meaning, don't provide actual incentives to move them overseas), let them. When China and India jack up prices, let them come back (and they are as we speak).

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Nobody with more than three functioning neurons thinks Obama is making a specific commitment there. He is just putting out a vision for a better America. It's a pity all you hate-filled, tiny-minded partisans can't accept it for what it is.

It's a pity that blind partisans like you think that a vision sans commitment is anything more than campaign tripe.

How about 'Compassionate conservatism' or 'uniter not a divider' or 'no new taxes'?

All campaigns talk of visions to give hope to their supporters and show which direction they will head towards. Does not mean that they are making a commitment, just their goal. Whether they are able to actually achieve that goal depends upon too many factors for anyone to give a firm commitment at the campaign stage.

The first two are, again, platitudes. The third, however, is a strong commitment that was broken; the price justifiably paid.