The REAL Effect of Obama's Policies Regarding Jobs

[Aramike]

http://www.jsonline.com/business/97225544.html

Up to 1,000 jobs at Bucyrus International Inc. and its suppliers could be in jeopardy as the result of a decision by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, funded by Congress, to deny several hundred million dollars in loan guarantees to a coal-fired power plant and mine in India.

The reason: the administration's insistance upon so-called green jobs runs afoul of US guarantees for high-carbon projects.

This, of all things, shows the absolute STUPIDITY of Obama's policies, and how they impact real people in the real world.

Does anyone truly believe that India will cease its projects to build coal-fired energy plants? Of course not! So what's the net result: US jobs move overseas, and ABSOLUTELY NO reduction whatsoever in eventual carbon emissions.

The administration's pipe dreams are dramatically hurting the private sector, the same one which they will raise taxes on dramatically. They are imposing policy for the sole purpose of sounding good to their ideologically-aligned talking heads without regard for considering the real impact such decisions make.

This is unbelievable!

I must note that the decision is being reconsidered. Furthermore, I must note that the leftist union representing Steelworkers, local Democrats and Republicans are all against this decision. However, I find it completely ironic that those on the left who are now protesting the results of Obama's policy, are wholly supportive when it is proposed. Governor Jim Doyle (D) and Mayor/Gubenatorial Candidate Tom Barrett (D) both support Wisconsin "Green Jobs" proposals, which are the same types of slippery slopes which are being slid down here.

[Aramike]

Just a note: not a year and a half ago this thread would have met stiff leftist resistance on here. It seems as though Obama-mania is waning.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Just a note: not a year and a half ago this thread would have met stiff leftist resistance on here. It seems as though Obama-mania is waning.

That's a typical trend, whether it be amongst the citizenry or the lobbyists or the press. You'd think that we'd learn sooner or later, but mark my words, it'll be the same crap in the next election. People honestly believe the impossible crap they are promised.

I really think that the true nature of Washington politics ought to be taught in public schools; it might save us from having to go through this nonsense every four years.

[SteamWake]

It would certainly appear that the man has set out to destroy not only the coal industry but the oil industry as well.

[NeonSamurai]

Just a note: not a year and a half ago this thread would have met stiff leftist resistance on here. It seems as though Obama-mania is waning.

Not many leftists here though, so I dunno what you mean by stiff resistance. IMHO the balance of this forum is mostly right leaning, with a reasonable number of moderates (such as myself).

Me I never supported Obama (or McCain for that matter). I though out of the options available Hillary might have been the best candidate. I certainly didn't believe Obama's platform of 'change', and thought he was far to inexperienced and relying too much on charisma to get elected. But then that is one of the major reasons why I don't support the general democratic system... most people seem to vote for the stupidest reasons (looks and charisma, over capability and policy).

[mookiemookie]

Just a note: not a year and a half ago this thread would have met stiff leftist resistance on here. It seems as though Obama-mania is waning.

Well, I am disappointed in him, but for far different reasons than yours, I'm sure.

But I personally have come to the conclusion that trying to argue with fanatics only frustrates you, and fuels the fanatics fires. You'll never change someone's mind here, as this forum seems to be the poster child for confirmation bias. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

Is it time for fantasy football season yet? :ping:

[nikimcbee]

Not to change subjects...
Is it time for fantasy football season yet? :ping:

So you've come back for more eh?:haha:

It's still a little early for me to think about FF, but I guess it is almost about that time.

[CaptainHaplo]

I'd love to get into a FF thing - but someone would have to explain to me how it works.

Go Panthers! *And yes - Matt Moore will be a FF steal, mark my words!*

[nikimcbee]

I'd love to get into a FF thing - but someone would have to explain to me how it works.

Go Panthers! *And yes - Matt Moore will be a FF steal, mark my words!*

oh brother, another panther fan.:haha:

anywhoo- before Mike's thread get's hijacked
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171661

[August]

I think this silence is because the left has always been better at attacking the ideas of others than coming up with workable ideas of their own.

[NeonSamurai]

I think this silence is because the left has always been better at attacking the ideas of others than coming up with workable ideas of their own.

I think that shoe fits on both sides of the isle myself

[Weiss Pinguin]

I think that shoe fits on both sides of the isle myself
Some just wear it better than others...

[Aramike]

Well, I am disappointed in him, but for far different reasons than yours, I'm sure.

But I personally have come to the conclusion that trying to argue with fanatics only frustrates you, and fuels the fanatics fires. You'll never change someone's mind here, as this forum seems to be the poster child for confirmation bias. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

Is it time for fantasy football season yet? :ping:I don't disagree with you on the last necessarily.

However, what I was trying to solicit is a response to the issue specifically. Personally, I believe the decisions this administration has had an indefensible effect on the economy. Indeed, I want to see someone defend this particular case in point - give me an ACTUAL benefit that we gain from these policies.

Ultimately, my wish is for people to take a moment, look back, and reflect upon whether or not the ideologies they've so invested in are actually helpful in attaining their goals. Surely the topic of this post helps nothing - not in growing/sustaining employment, and not in a reduction of carbon emmissions.

So we've screwed ourselves because it SOUNDS good to say that we won't guarantee financing for "non-green" projects.

You see what I'm saying?

Now, I have to divert this into a more broad generalization of the left (sorry, mookie) ... The Democrats claim to be a party of inclusion. Indeed, they are. They welcome all sorts of unlikely bedfellows - unions, gays, pro-abortion Catholics, athiests, Jews, blacks, whites, hispanics, rich, poor, socialist, corporate, big government, environmentalist etc.

The GOP, on the other hand, is fairly exclusionary in its viewpoint - generally, if you're conservative, you're a family-values Christian, anti-abortion, white, pro-business, free-market (not necessarily corporate but not anti-corporate), non-union, pro-gun, etc.

Here's the thing: the latter makes sense. Most of the right's values fits most of its members. On the other hand, the left has many groups who's values are in DIRECT opposition with other sub-groups within the party. For instance, in majority blacks are decidedly anti-gay. Atheists are decidedly anti-religion. Corporations are decidedly anti-union. Environmentalists have policies that are COMPLETELY anti-union.

How can a party be at such odds with one another and stay on message? And, as an extension of that, how can it actually be inclusive when so many of its viewpoints are mutually exclusive?

It's only yet another example of how what one says is more important than what one really stands for, when it comes to our nation's political environment.

This is why I consider myself independant, leaning conservative. The values of the GOP don't contradict my own in any meaningful way (okay, I'm an athiest who believes in environmentalism). However, Democratic viewpoints just don't add up. Okay, so we agree on environmentalism. But I believe in free-market economics. My viewpoint on the latter is directly impactful. And, while I agree with preserving the environment, steps the Democrats are taking have little promise of impacting THAT particular subject, but certainly have negative impacts on us economically. Unions believe in keeping American jobs here, but environmentalist promote policies that force jobs overseas (and have no real impact on the environment).

It's a long ramble, I know. But I think it's an important point to make. No one in their right minds would have promoted such a policy as is the subject of this thread, if their interest was American jobs. But the REAL impact was overlooked for the "feel good, we're doing something for the environment" impact.

This is disgraceful, and I think it stands as a prime, pragmatic example of what happens when high theoretical ideologies meet reality.

[Aramike]

Oh yes, and I can't wait for the next FF season... :ping::salute:

[Aramike]

I think that shoe fits on both sides of the isle myselfI just don't see that.

Just think: Obama's entire campaign was based upon the vagueries of "hope" and "change". There was little detail. Take healthcare - the specifics that ultimately came out were so revolting to the American people that, even with a supermajority, Congress could only pass a severly watered down version of what was originally proposed.

Why is that? Why could a Democrat EVERYTHING, elected with a mandate, not be able to pass something that is so integral to their ideals?

That's because they have been extremely vague and shrouded, else taking office in the first place may have proven impossible.

A great case-in-point is Social Security Reform. The Democrats won't touch the issue. They however were excellent at destroying Bush's reform plan which, quite frankly, would likely have flat-out prevented (if not substantially reduce the impact of) our recent recession. The continuous influx of BILLIONS of dollars into the PRIVATE sector would have been an enormous lift to our markets - creating tax-paying private jobs that sustain the government.

But no, nothing from the Democrats as a meaningful alternative. "Lock box"? Really??? The SS Trust Fund is nothing more than an IOU to taxpayers. And how is that payed back? That's right, taxes.

Again, no workable alternative.

How about another one: illegal immigration. The Democrats are excellent at shooting down any ideas regarding the situation (ala Arizona). What's their alternative? Well, we don't want ILLEGALS to be CRIMINALS, but we're not sure what we want, right?

Here's something from the other side: healthcare reform. Indeed, the Republicans shot down the most extreme of Democrat plans. But what did THEY want to do as an alternative?

Oh yeah, open insurance sales to competition across state lines. And that's only one of their alternative, real world ideas.

I'm not saying that Republicans are NEVER guilty of the same thing, but as WP said, some just wear the shoe better than others.

[mookiemookie]

I just don't see that.

Well, not quite - You don't WANT to see that. Politics is played by negatively bashing the other side's proposals, regardless of what it is. If the Republicans discovered a money tree, the Dem's would call it irresponsible and a fake, just so the other side wouldn't score a political point. It's suicide to admit the other side has a good idea - even if you don't have a better one, you need to down the other side's idea so they can't one up you.

This is the kind of thing that makes politics so futile to argue - one side will never see that their team is just as guilty as the other team for any criticism levelled. They're all politicians, they all play by the same rules. They ALL WILL POO POO THE OTHER'S IDEAS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN!

They however were excellent at destroying Bush's reform plan which, quite frankly, would likely have flat-out prevented (if not substantially reduce the impact of) our recent recession. Bush's plan would not have restricted investment banks from leveraging 40 to 1, it would not have prevented the Fed from lowering interest rates too far for too long, it wouldn't have checked the unmitigated growth of financial derivatives and it would not have prevented credit rating agencies from rating junk paper as AAA, so it would have done nothing for mitigating the recession. :ping:

[Aramike]

Well, not quite - You don't WANT to see that. Politics is played by negatively bashing the other side's proposals, regardless of what it is. If the Republicans discovered a money tree, the Dem's would call it irresponsible and a fake, just so the other side wouldn't score a political point. It's suicide to admit the other side has a good idea - even if you don't have a better one, you need to down the other side's idea so they can't one up you.What do you mean I don't want to see it? I'm an extremely independent person who dislikes political maneuvering as a whole, and looks for it ... from any side. And, I was VERY specific in my examples as to the difference I see.

If you have as pointed of examples contradicting my own, please share. But as far as I can tell, my point stands.This is the kind of thing that makes politics so futile to argue - one side will never see that their team is just as guilty as the other team for any criticism levelled. They're all politicians, they all play by the same rules. They ALL WILL POO POO THE OTHER'S IDEAS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN!
I don't disagree necessarily with your conclusion but I DO disagree with the premise you're implying: either side is neither right nor wrong. In fact, my whole point is specifically the opposite. One side seems to trend towards policy that SOUNDS good, and the other trends towards that which actually works.

Indeed, there is a balance to be struck, but do you really think that such policies such as the thread's topic is a "balance"? Does it even make sense to you?

And, if not, then can you justify the incessent liberal pursuit of such a economically crippling agenda?Bush's plan would not have restricted investment banks from leveraging 40 to 1, it would not have prevented the Fed from lowering interest rates too far for too long, it wouldn't have checked the unmitigated growth of financial derivatives and it would not have prevented credit rating agencies from rating junk paper as AAA, so it would have done nothing for mitigating the recession.Really?

So you honestly think that, BILLIONS of constant private investment dollars would have done NOTHING to mitigate what ultimately causes every recession in history???

Sure, lending was out of control (by the way, that was also spurned on by liberal policies). Bad paper has existed since the beginning of borrowing ... consumer confidence and the profitability to overcome - indeed, make risky loans - has always overcome such risks. Ultimately what caused our recession was THE most over-inflated real estate bubble in history, spurned on the the over eagerness of everyone with investment capital trying to get a piece of the action. As that speculative bubble burst and capital was lost, so went international trade, consumer confidence, and commodity prices.

Now, inject billions into the private economy. An early bust of the real estate bubble would likely occur, as private lending ability would outstrip practical real estate pricing. Consumer market confidence would have grown than stabilized knowing that the next heavy market injection is less than 30 days away. Tax burdens would be lowered and as a result, unemployment would be decreased. Federal interest rates would increase, placing more immediately burdens upon lenders, discouraging high-risk loans. "Bad paper" would be filtered into the system more slowly allowing for a more stabilized market offset.

The markets themselves would have retained and increased value, increasing dividends and other capital gains. As such, higher employment would result along with tax revenue.

Our economy is based upon confidence in the aforementioned economy. Inject SS money, everyone wins.