Does President Obama Care About High Unemployment?

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

they are purposely letting certain industries dies off, 

which industries are they letting die off?

k-12 education. What they could pay the teachers and the school districts to fix the problems there are mere pennies compared to what gets spent on everything else.I thought the k-12 system is controlled by local and state governments....not federal. Also, state government were given stimulus money during the bailout right? Wouldn't it be state governments fault for not investing more in their educational system?

I would even say some cities as industries are led to die off too. But this is all a step in some sort of reform or gentrification.Gentrification is a natural process that is fueled by inequalities. You would have to name the specific inequalities that the administration: has control of and hasn't made an effort to address and how it has affected the cities you are speaking of.

I think we could have done without the auto bail out. I would have rather seen that money go to other new companies with new technologies that make sure the US stays technologically adept in the long term rather than just adding another prop to what we been riding in for the past 80 yrs. The auto industry was less of a gamble (i believe) than investing in new technology. The auto industry already has millions of jobs relyting on it, and I don't think you can just invest in new companies and expect to employ the same numbers.

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now. Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power. What policies specifically?

We just have to settle for having military super power while the military research and development get's the best of everything and the public consumer is left playing with the toys of yesterday..The government doesn't push most of technology, private companies do. Intel, boeing, apple, microsoft, ibm etc. Flying cars are not practical and I don't think we are "playing with toys of yesterday. I think the only problem with US technological competitiveness is our broadband infrastructure and that has more to do with the private telecom companies than it does with the federal government. 

Just look at everything they are spending and not spending money on. post sources     

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

they are purposely letting certain industries dies off, 

which industries are they letting die off?

k-12 education. What they could pay the teachers and the school districts to fix the problems there are mere pennies compared to what gets spent on everything else.I thought the k-12 system is controlled by local and state governments....not federal. Also, state government were given stimulus money during the bailout right? Wouldn't it be state governments fault for not investing more in their educational system?

I would even say some cities as industries are led to die off too. But this is all a step in some sort of reform or gentrification.Gentrification is a natural process that is fueled by inequalities. You would have to name the specific inequalities that the administration: has control of and hasn't made an effort to address and how it has affected the cities you are speaking of.

I think we could have done without the auto bail out. I would have rather seen that money go to other new companies with new technologies that make sure the US stays technologically adept in the long term rather than just adding another prop to what we been riding in for the past 80 yrs. The auto industry was less of a gamble (i believe) than investing in new technology. The auto industry already has millions of jobs relyting on it, and I don't think you can just invest in new companies and expect to employ the same numbers.

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now. Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power. What policies specifically?

We just have to settle for having military super power while the military research and development get's the best of everything and the public consumer is left playing with the toys of yesterday..The government doesn't push most of technology, private companies do. Intel, boeing, apple, microsoft, ibm etc. Flying cars are not practical and I don't think we are "playing with toys of yesterday. I think the only problem with US technological competitiveness is our broadband infrastructure and that has more to do with the private telecom companies than it does with the federal government. 

Just look at everything they are spending and not spending money on. post sources     

 

[wr]

we need new industries. If the country were to be united by a new kind of high speed railway system for example and the caveat for construction was that US labor be used to complete the work how many millions of people across an entire nation, not just an industrial centered city, would that help?

that's like saying, I won't leave my abusive spouse because we've lived together for 5 years and I depend on them for financial stability. These bailouts are like forced marriages between the public for economic stability and corporate livelihood.

We need more diverse industry sectors in america to create jobs, specialized skills, national commerce and especially to get us off our butts and out of these service jobs and get back to being a country that actually builds stuff. Where we worry about the quality of the things we make, not the quality of some branded name to a potential customer.

 

[wr]

we need new industries. If the country were to be united by a new kind of high speed railway system for example and the caveat for construction was that US labor be used to complete the work how many millions of people across an entire nation, not just an industrial centered city, would that help?

that's like saying, I won't leave my abusive spouse because we've lived together for 5 years and I depend on them for financial stability. These bailouts are like forced marriages between the public for economic stability and corporate livelihood.

We need more diverse industry sectors in america to create jobs, specialized skills, national commerce and especially to get us off our butts and out of these service jobs and get back to being a country that actually builds stuff. Where we worry about the quality of the things we make, not the quality of some branded name to a potential customer.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

what other major industry do you think deserved a bailout?

No industry deserves a bailout. I'm just saying what made the Auto Industry so special that they got one instead of millions of other people? The U.S. auto industry is terrible, bad investments in technology, inflated inventory, ect.

millions of jobs rely on that industry....
Therefore giving money to the industry is the same as saying "your company is going bankrupt.... you should get laid off...but I'm going to give your company enough money to keep going and you won't be laid off"

It's easier to give money directly to an industry that millions rely on... rather than cutting a million small checks to each individual person. An individual check wouldn't perpetuate income indefinitely like a bailout would either (depending on how investment savvy/lucky the recipient is)

Chrysler already paid back it's bailout amount (6 years ahead of schedule) and  GM is halfway through.

I think the auto industry bailout was acceptable and saved a lot of people from devastation. The CEO/executives/board members have millions in the bank...and a collapse of an industry would just mean less profit for them. The collapse of an industry to a middle/low income worker = poverty.

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. The people on these assembly lines are expendable, and their skills aren't scarce. Most have High School diplomas or went to some training to be certified, there is no reason why these workers had such high wages nd really good pensions.


They weren't paid on their production, just look at auto sales for these companies the past 30-40 years. Compensation of labor is based on production, they weren't producing. The people on the lines now are no where near as skilled as the one that built the Ford Model-T, everything now is plastic and a click a way from being set on the frame of the car. Since their wages are set by these Unions by coercion, they bypass the natural market occurences.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

what other major industry do you think deserved a bailout?

No industry deserves a bailout. I'm just saying what made the Auto Industry so special that they got one instead of millions of other people? The U.S. auto industry is terrible, bad investments in technology, inflated inventory, ect.

millions of jobs rely on that industry....
Therefore giving money to the industry is the same as saying "your company is going bankrupt.... you should get laid off...but I'm going to give your company enough money to keep going and you won't be laid off"

It's easier to give money directly to an industry that millions rely on... rather than cutting a million small checks to each individual person. An individual check wouldn't perpetuate income indefinitely like a bailout would either (depending on how investment savvy/lucky the recipient is)

Chrysler already paid back it's bailout amount (6 years ahead of schedule) and  GM is halfway through.

I think the auto industry bailout was acceptable and saved a lot of people from devastation. The CEO/executives/board members have millions in the bank...and a collapse of an industry would just mean less profit for them. The collapse of an industry to a middle/low income worker = poverty.

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. The people on these assembly lines are expendable, and their skills aren't scarce. Most have High School diplomas or went to some training to be certified, there is no reason why these workers had such high wages nd really good pensions.


They weren't paid on their production, just look at auto sales for these companies the past 30-40 years. Compensation of labor is based on production, they weren't producing. The people on the lines now are no where near as skilled as the one that built the Ford Model-T, everything now is plastic and a click a way from being set on the frame of the car. Since their wages are set by these Unions by coercion, they bypass the natural market occurences.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by rashi



No industry deserves a bailout. I'm just saying what made the Auto Industry so special that they got one instead of millions of other people? The U.S. auto industry is terrible, bad investments in technology, inflated inventory, ect.

millions of jobs rely on that industry....
Therefore giving money to the industry is the same as saying "your company is going bankrupt.... you should get laid off...but I'm going to give your company enough money to keep going and you won't be laid off"

It's easier to give money directly to an industry that millions rely on... rather than cutting a million small checks to each individual person. An individual check wouldn't perpetuate income indefinitely like a bailout would either (depending on how investment savvy/lucky the recipient is)

Chrysler already paid back it's bailout amount (6 years ahead of schedule) and  GM is halfway through.

I think the auto industry bailout was acceptable and saved a lot of people from devastation. The CEO/executives/board members have millions in the bank...and a collapse of an industry would just mean less profit for them. The collapse of an industry to a middle/low income worker = poverty.

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

 The people on these assembly lines are expendable, and their skills aren't scarce. Most have High School diplomas or went to some training to be certified, there is no reason why these workers had such high wages nd really good pensions. So the workers are not skilled laborers? ok... so you are arguing against unions rather than the bailout decision? The auto industry has almost recovered completely....and they still maintain the same union structure. 


They weren't paid on their production, just look at auto sales for these companies the past 30-40 years. Compensation of labor is based on production, they weren't producing. Exactly. Sales =/= production. Therefore, just because your company doesn't sell the car doesn't mean you should not get paid for building the car. This has nothing to do with the bailout.

The people on the lines now are no where near as skilled as the one that built the Ford Model-T, everything now is plastic and a click a way from being set on the frame of the car. Since their wages are set by these Unions by coercion, they bypass the natural market occurences. This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by rashi



No industry deserves a bailout. I'm just saying what made the Auto Industry so special that they got one instead of millions of other people? The U.S. auto industry is terrible, bad investments in technology, inflated inventory, ect.

millions of jobs rely on that industry....
Therefore giving money to the industry is the same as saying "your company is going bankrupt.... you should get laid off...but I'm going to give your company enough money to keep going and you won't be laid off"

It's easier to give money directly to an industry that millions rely on... rather than cutting a million small checks to each individual person. An individual check wouldn't perpetuate income indefinitely like a bailout would either (depending on how investment savvy/lucky the recipient is)

Chrysler already paid back it's bailout amount (6 years ahead of schedule) and  GM is halfway through.

I think the auto industry bailout was acceptable and saved a lot of people from devastation. The CEO/executives/board members have millions in the bank...and a collapse of an industry would just mean less profit for them. The collapse of an industry to a middle/low income worker = poverty.

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

 The people on these assembly lines are expendable, and their skills aren't scarce. Most have High School diplomas or went to some training to be certified, there is no reason why these workers had such high wages nd really good pensions. So the workers are not skilled laborers? ok... so you are arguing against unions rather than the bailout decision? The auto industry has almost recovered completely....and they still maintain the same union structure. 


They weren't paid on their production, just look at auto sales for these companies the past 30-40 years. Compensation of labor is based on production, they weren't producing. Exactly. Sales =/= production. Therefore, just because your company doesn't sell the car doesn't mean you should not get paid for building the car. This has nothing to do with the bailout.

The people on the lines now are no where near as skilled as the one that built the Ford Model-T, everything now is plastic and a click a way from being set on the frame of the car. Since their wages are set by these Unions by coercion, they bypass the natural market occurences. This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


which industries are they letting die off?

k-12 education. What they could pay the teachers and the school districts to fix the problems there are mere pennies compared to what gets spent on everything else.I thought the k-12 system is controlled by local and state governments....not federal. Also, state government were given stimulus money during the bailout right? Wouldn't it be state governments fault for not investing more in their educational system? They get money through the state and get fed money via programs

I would even say some cities as industries are led to die off too. But this is all a step in some sort of reform or gentrification.Gentrification is a natural process that is fueled by inequalities. You would have to name the specific inequalities that the administration: has control of and hasn't made an effort to address and how it has affected the cities you are speaking of. Gentrification is not a natural process. Gentrification and urban gentrification refer to the changes that result when wealthier people ("gentry") acquire property in low income and working class communities.[sup][1][/sup] Consequent to gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases in the community, which sometimes results in the eviction of lower-income residents because of increased rents, house prices, and property taxes. Taxes paid to the city go up, and the cost of police, fire and welfare services go down. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. In addition, new businesses, catering to a more affluent base of consumers, move in, further increasing the appeal to more affluent migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor.

Urban gentrification occasionally changes the culturally heterogeneous character of a community to a more economically homogeneous community that some describe as having a suburban character.[sup][2][/sup] This process is sometimes made feasible by government-sponsored private real estate investment repairing the local infrastructure, via deferred taxes, mortgages for poor and for first-time house buyers, and financial incentives for the owners of decayed rental housing.[sup][3][/sup] Once in place, these economic development actions tend to reduce local property crime, increase property values and prices and increase tax revenues.

Political action, to either promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction[sup][4][/sup] caused by rising rents that make continued residence in their dwellings unfeasible.[sup][5][/sup] The rise in property values causes property taxes based on property values to increase; resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their dwellings and move to a cheaper community.[sup][6][/sup]

I think we could have done without the auto bail out. I would have rather seen that money go to other new companies with new technologies that make sure the US stays technologically adept in the long term rather than just adding another prop to what we been riding in for the past 80 yrs. The auto industry was less of a gamble (i believe) than investing in new technology. The auto industry already has millions of jobs relyting on it, and I don't think you can just invest in new companies and expect to employ the same numbers. The problem is that the new technology is not a gamble. It has been proven to work, but they may work a little to good, or the corporate powers have not gained rights to whatever new resource the commodity will be based from. If we took energy from water or solar like we do from oil, how would we meter something that appears to be in abundance ( supply and demand models won't work because supply appears to be infinite). I personally think giving them billions because they employ millions is a poor excuse and effort at trying to heal the ENTIRE economy. that is only a regional localized fix.

And you wouldn't necessarily need to invest all in new companies. A lot of the companies probably all have patents, rights, and r&d departments that already have the infrastructure and know how to be able to adapt to change. The problem is that they have all of this and are unwilling to make the step forward so I say give it to new companies who would enter the world market without a preconceived sense of superiority. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now. Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power. What policies specifically?  Healthcare, Secondary Education, ...

We just have to settle for having military super power while the military research and development get's the best of everything and the public consumer is left playing with the toys of yesterday..The government doesn't push most of technology, private companies do. Intel, boeing, apple, microsoft, ibm etc. Flying cars are not practical and I don't think we are "playing with toys of yesterday. I think the only problem with US technological competitiveness is our broadband infrastructure and that has more to do with the private telecom companies than it does with the federal government. The government has a lot to do with technology. This very internet you are on right now was designed by the government as a military application. 

Just look at everything they are spending and not spending money on. post sources    All my sources would come to you via google and I don't think you would believe me.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


which industries are they letting die off?

k-12 education. What they could pay the teachers and the school districts to fix the problems there are mere pennies compared to what gets spent on everything else.I thought the k-12 system is controlled by local and state governments....not federal. Also, state government were given stimulus money during the bailout right? Wouldn't it be state governments fault for not investing more in their educational system? They get money through the state and get fed money via programs

I would even say some cities as industries are led to die off too. But this is all a step in some sort of reform or gentrification.Gentrification is a natural process that is fueled by inequalities. You would have to name the specific inequalities that the administration: has control of and hasn't made an effort to address and how it has affected the cities you are speaking of. Gentrification is not a natural process. Gentrification and urban gentrification refer to the changes that result when wealthier people ("gentry") acquire property in low income and working class communities.[sup][1][/sup] Consequent to gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases in the community, which sometimes results in the eviction of lower-income residents because of increased rents, house prices, and property taxes. Taxes paid to the city go up, and the cost of police, fire and welfare services go down. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. In addition, new businesses, catering to a more affluent base of consumers, move in, further increasing the appeal to more affluent migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor.

Urban gentrification occasionally changes the culturally heterogeneous character of a community to a more economically homogeneous community that some describe as having a suburban character.[sup][2][/sup] This process is sometimes made feasible by government-sponsored private real estate investment repairing the local infrastructure, via deferred taxes, mortgages for poor and for first-time house buyers, and financial incentives for the owners of decayed rental housing.[sup][3][/sup] Once in place, these economic development actions tend to reduce local property crime, increase property values and prices and increase tax revenues.

Political action, to either promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction[sup][4][/sup] caused by rising rents that make continued residence in their dwellings unfeasible.[sup][5][/sup] The rise in property values causes property taxes based on property values to increase; resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their dwellings and move to a cheaper community.[sup][6][/sup]

I think we could have done without the auto bail out. I would have rather seen that money go to other new companies with new technologies that make sure the US stays technologically adept in the long term rather than just adding another prop to what we been riding in for the past 80 yrs. The auto industry was less of a gamble (i believe) than investing in new technology. The auto industry already has millions of jobs relyting on it, and I don't think you can just invest in new companies and expect to employ the same numbers. The problem is that the new technology is not a gamble. It has been proven to work, but they may work a little to good, or the corporate powers have not gained rights to whatever new resource the commodity will be based from. If we took energy from water or solar like we do from oil, how would we meter something that appears to be in abundance ( supply and demand models won't work because supply appears to be infinite). I personally think giving them billions because they employ millions is a poor excuse and effort at trying to heal the ENTIRE economy. that is only a regional localized fix.

And you wouldn't necessarily need to invest all in new companies. A lot of the companies probably all have patents, rights, and r&d departments that already have the infrastructure and know how to be able to adapt to change. The problem is that they have all of this and are unwilling to make the step forward so I say give it to new companies who would enter the world market without a preconceived sense of superiority. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now. Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power. What policies specifically?  Healthcare, Secondary Education, ...

We just have to settle for having military super power while the military research and development get's the best of everything and the public consumer is left playing with the toys of yesterday..The government doesn't push most of technology, private companies do. Intel, boeing, apple, microsoft, ibm etc. Flying cars are not practical and I don't think we are "playing with toys of yesterday. I think the only problem with US technological competitiveness is our broadband infrastructure and that has more to do with the private telecom companies than it does with the federal government. The government has a lot to do with technology. This very internet you are on right now was designed by the government as a military application. 

Just look at everything they are spending and not spending money on. post sources    All my sources would come to you via google and I don't think you would believe me.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

we need new industries. If the country were to be united by a new kind of high speed railway system for example and the caveat for construction was that US labor be used to complete the work how many millions of people across an entire nation, not just an industrial centered city, would that help? The auto industry is a much safer bet than highspeed rail. Due to the fact that there will be more production, maintenance, and upgrades in the automotive industry than in a rail system. Each one of those aspects = more jobs.... 

that's like saying, I won't leave my abusive spouse because we've lived together for 5 years and I depend on them for financial stability. These bailouts are like forced marriages between the public for economic stability and corporate livelihood. The bailouts are not the marriage. Reliance on the highway system = the marriage. The bailout is like using your credit card to pay bills until your husband finds a new job. Then your husband paying off the card ahead of time once he starts making money. 

We need more diverse industry sectors in america to create jobs, specialized skills, national commerce and especially to get us off our butts and out of these service jobs and get back to being a country that actually builds stuff. Where we worry about the quality of the things we make, not the quality of some branded name to a potential customer. The only way to do this right now is to raise import taxes. In order to create a financial incentive to pay american workers $8hr to make what a chinese worker gets paid 60cents an hr to make. Or maybe we should should lower the amount we pay american workers. So american companies can compete with companies that exploit their workers? 

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

we need new industries. If the country were to be united by a new kind of high speed railway system for example and the caveat for construction was that US labor be used to complete the work how many millions of people across an entire nation, not just an industrial centered city, would that help? The auto industry is a much safer bet than highspeed rail. Due to the fact that there will be more production, maintenance, and upgrades in the automotive industry than in a rail system. Each one of those aspects = more jobs.... 

that's like saying, I won't leave my abusive spouse because we've lived together for 5 years and I depend on them for financial stability. These bailouts are like forced marriages between the public for economic stability and corporate livelihood. The bailouts are not the marriage. Reliance on the highway system = the marriage. The bailout is like using your credit card to pay bills until your husband finds a new job. Then your husband paying off the card ahead of time once he starts making money. 

We need more diverse industry sectors in america to create jobs, specialized skills, national commerce and especially to get us off our butts and out of these service jobs and get back to being a country that actually builds stuff. Where we worry about the quality of the things we make, not the quality of some branded name to a potential customer. The only way to do this right now is to raise import taxes. In order to create a financial incentive to pay american workers $8hr to make what a chinese worker gets paid 60cents an hr to make. Or maybe we should should lower the amount we pay american workers. So american companies can compete with companies that exploit their workers? 

 

[160jordansdeep]

all i know obama sent me $730.00 last December

and for what i dont know

but it helped me out that's for damn sure

so its a good chance off that hes getting my vote in 2012 when i was to busy getting high on election day back in 2008 to go and vote that day

 

[160jordansdeep]

all i know obama sent me $730.00 last December

and for what i dont know

but it helped me out that's for damn sure

so its a good chance off that hes getting my vote in 2012 when i was to busy getting high on election day back in 2008 to go and vote that day

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr


k-12 education. What they could pay the teachers and the school districts to fix the problems there are mere pennies compared to what gets spent on everything else.I thought the k-12 system is controlled by local and state governments....not federal. Also, state government were given stimulus money during the bailout right? Wouldn't it be state governments fault for not investing more in their educational system? They get money through the state and get fed money via programs So you agree that the federal government plays a small role, It is essentially the domain state government.

I would even say some cities as industries are led to die off too. But this is all a step in some sort of reform or gentrification.Gentrification is a natural process that is fueled by inequalities. You would have to name the specific inequalities that the administration: has control of and hasn't made an effort to address and how it has affected the cities you are speaking of. Gentrification is not a natural process. Gentrification and urban gentrification refer to the changes that result when wealthier people ("gentry") acquire property in low income and working class communities.[sup][1][/sup] Consequent to gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases in the community, which sometimes results in the eviction of lower-income residents because of increased rents, house prices, and property taxes. Taxes paid to the city go up, and the cost of police, fire and welfare services go down. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. In addition, new businesses, catering to a more affluent base of consumers, move in, further increasing the appeal to more affluent migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor.

Urban gentrification occasionally changes the culturally heterogeneous character of a community to a more economically homogeneous community that some describe as having a suburban character.[sup][2][/sup] This process is sometimes made feasible by government-sponsored private real estate investment repairing the local infrastructure, via deferred taxes, mortgages for poor and for first-time house buyers, and financial incentives for the owners of decayed rental housing.[sup][3][/sup] Once in place, these economic development actions tend to reduce local property crime, increase property values and prices and increase tax revenues.

Political action, to either promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction[sup][4][/sup] caused by rising rents that make continued residence in their dwellings unfeasible.[sup][5][/sup] The rise in property values causes property taxes based on property values to increase; resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their dwellings and move to a cheaper community.[sup][6][/sup][sup]  OK, I understand what gentrification is, but I guess the definition should help those reading our posts. You still haven't shown how this process is relative to Obama's economic and social policies. I used "natural process" incorrectly. I should have said it is a common and well recorded process that has occurred throughout history and the world. So bringing up gentrification in a conversation about the current administration is only necessary if it is a direct result of action or inaction of the administration. You've given no evidence to either. What does gentrification have to do with the bailout?   [/sup]

I think we could have done without the auto bail out. I would have rather seen that money go to other new companies with new technologies that make sure the US stays technologically adept in the long term rather than just adding another prop to what we been riding in for the past 80 yrs. The auto industry was less of a gamble (i believe) than investing in new technology. The auto industry already has millions of jobs relyting on it, and I don't think you can just invest in new companies and expect to employ the same numbers. The problem is that the new technology is not a gamble. It has been proven to work, SOURCE?




but they may work a little to good, or the corporate powers have not gained rights to whatever new resource the commodity will be based from. If we took energy from water or solar like we do from oil, how would we meter something that appears to be in abundance ( supply and demand models won't work because supply appears to be infinite). I personally think giving them billions because they employ millions is a poor excuse and effort at trying to heal the ENTIRE economy. that is only a regional localized fix. The bailout was intended to help shield the economy from the coming recession. It was not a time of investing in new energies that may or may not take off. And make take years to actually yield usefulness. Hmm... Leave millions without jobs due to a complete failure of an industry..just to spend years investing in NEW technology R&D?...

And you wouldn't necessarily need to invest all in new companies. A lot of the companies probably all have patents, rights, and r&d departments that already have the infrastructure and know how to be able to adapt to change. The problem is that they have all of this and are unwilling to make the step forward so I say give it to new companies who would enter the world market without a preconceived sense of superiority.

We are talking about people having money to live in the present. The job has been to slow the recession, and help in the recession. You are talking about things a country should do when it is stable. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now. Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power. What policies specifically?  Healthcare, Secondary Education, ...What about them?.... Like actual things that occur because of these policies? like actual information from the policies or examples of the policy in action. What is the "secondary education" policy? Are you talking about the universal healthcare initiative or the previous administrations policies? You can't be this vague. You are talking about a space of time from 1950-2011....and complaining about progress. Name the things that have impeded progress specifically.

We just have to settle for having military super power while the military research and development get's the best of everything and the public consumer is left playing with the toys of yesterday..The government doesn't push most of technology, private companies do. Intel, boeing, apple, microsoft, ibm etc. Flying cars are not practical and I don't think we are "playing with toys of yesterday. I think the only problem with US technological competitiveness is our broadband infrastructure and that has more to do with the private telecom companies than it does with the federal government. The government has a lot to do with technology. This very internet you are on right now was designed by the government as a military application. So......... how does that contradict what I've said?

Just look at everything they are spending and not spending money on. post sources    All my sources would come to you via google and I don't think you would believe me. Well, we spend a lot of money on defense. And since you point to the internet as an example of the government pushing forward technology. And since the internet started off as a military project, you must not have a problem with our defense spending. What part of our spending do you have a problem with?

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr


k-12 education. What they could pay the teachers and the school districts to fix the problems there are mere pennies compared to what gets spent on everything else.I thought the k-12 system is controlled by local and state governments....not federal. Also, state government were given stimulus money during the bailout right? Wouldn't it be state governments fault for not investing more in their educational system? They get money through the state and get fed money via programs So you agree that the federal government plays a small role, It is essentially the domain state government.

I would even say some cities as industries are led to die off too. But this is all a step in some sort of reform or gentrification.Gentrification is a natural process that is fueled by inequalities. You would have to name the specific inequalities that the administration: has control of and hasn't made an effort to address and how it has affected the cities you are speaking of. Gentrification is not a natural process. Gentrification and urban gentrification refer to the changes that result when wealthier people ("gentry") acquire property in low income and working class communities.[sup][1][/sup] Consequent to gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases in the community, which sometimes results in the eviction of lower-income residents because of increased rents, house prices, and property taxes. Taxes paid to the city go up, and the cost of police, fire and welfare services go down. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. In addition, new businesses, catering to a more affluent base of consumers, move in, further increasing the appeal to more affluent migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor.

Urban gentrification occasionally changes the culturally heterogeneous character of a community to a more economically homogeneous community that some describe as having a suburban character.[sup][2][/sup] This process is sometimes made feasible by government-sponsored private real estate investment repairing the local infrastructure, via deferred taxes, mortgages for poor and for first-time house buyers, and financial incentives for the owners of decayed rental housing.[sup][3][/sup] Once in place, these economic development actions tend to reduce local property crime, increase property values and prices and increase tax revenues.

Political action, to either promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction[sup][4][/sup] caused by rising rents that make continued residence in their dwellings unfeasible.[sup][5][/sup] The rise in property values causes property taxes based on property values to increase; resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their dwellings and move to a cheaper community.[sup][6][/sup][sup]  OK, I understand what gentrification is, but I guess the definition should help those reading our posts. You still haven't shown how this process is relative to Obama's economic and social policies. I used "natural process" incorrectly. I should have said it is a common and well recorded process that has occurred throughout history and the world. So bringing up gentrification in a conversation about the current administration is only necessary if it is a direct result of action or inaction of the administration. You've given no evidence to either. What does gentrification have to do with the bailout?   [/sup]

I think we could have done without the auto bail out. I would have rather seen that money go to other new companies with new technologies that make sure the US stays technologically adept in the long term rather than just adding another prop to what we been riding in for the past 80 yrs. The auto industry was less of a gamble (i believe) than investing in new technology. The auto industry already has millions of jobs relyting on it, and I don't think you can just invest in new companies and expect to employ the same numbers. The problem is that the new technology is not a gamble. It has been proven to work, SOURCE?




but they may work a little to good, or the corporate powers have not gained rights to whatever new resource the commodity will be based from. If we took energy from water or solar like we do from oil, how would we meter something that appears to be in abundance ( supply and demand models won't work because supply appears to be infinite). I personally think giving them billions because they employ millions is a poor excuse and effort at trying to heal the ENTIRE economy. that is only a regional localized fix. The bailout was intended to help shield the economy from the coming recession. It was not a time of investing in new energies that may or may not take off. And make take years to actually yield usefulness. Hmm... Leave millions without jobs due to a complete failure of an industry..just to spend years investing in NEW technology R&D?...

And you wouldn't necessarily need to invest all in new companies. A lot of the companies probably all have patents, rights, and r&d departments that already have the infrastructure and know how to be able to adapt to change. The problem is that they have all of this and are unwilling to make the step forward so I say give it to new companies who would enter the world market without a preconceived sense of superiority.

We are talking about people having money to live in the present. The job has been to slow the recession, and help in the recession. You are talking about things a country should do when it is stable. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now. Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power. What policies specifically?  Healthcare, Secondary Education, ...What about them?.... Like actual things that occur because of these policies? like actual information from the policies or examples of the policy in action. What is the "secondary education" policy? Are you talking about the universal healthcare initiative or the previous administrations policies? You can't be this vague. You are talking about a space of time from 1950-2011....and complaining about progress. Name the things that have impeded progress specifically.

We just have to settle for having military super power while the military research and development get's the best of everything and the public consumer is left playing with the toys of yesterday..The government doesn't push most of technology, private companies do. Intel, boeing, apple, microsoft, ibm etc. Flying cars are not practical and I don't think we are "playing with toys of yesterday. I think the only problem with US technological competitiveness is our broadband infrastructure and that has more to do with the private telecom companies than it does with the federal government. The government has a lot to do with technology. This very internet you are on right now was designed by the government as a military application. So......... how does that contradict what I've said?

Just look at everything they are spending and not spending money on. post sources    All my sources would come to you via google and I don't think you would believe me. Well, we spend a lot of money on defense. And since you point to the internet as an example of the government pushing forward technology. And since the internet started off as a military project, you must not have a problem with our defense spending. What part of our spending do you have a problem with?

 

[deuce king]

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 
  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.
Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 

 

[deuce king]

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 
  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.
Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.
Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 
we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.
Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 
we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Deuce King

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.

Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 
we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?


lol..... you must be trolling now.
A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?

Flight as a mans of local transportation is not feasible due to: current city structure, the speed necessary for lift, the technology associated with VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing), and the Aerospace industry.

You are blaming the automotive industry for not producing flying technology (however crazy it sounds) when the AEROSPACE industry should be the one you're mad at.

I guess you should get mad at the clothing industry next, for not making edible clothes that you can eat once they become out of style?

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Deuce King

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.

Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 
we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?


lol..... you must be trolling now.
A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?

Flight as a mans of local transportation is not feasible due to: current city structure, the speed necessary for lift, the technology associated with VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing), and the Aerospace industry.

You are blaming the automotive industry for not producing flying technology (however crazy it sounds) when the AEROSPACE industry should be the one you're mad at.

I guess you should get mad at the clothing industry next, for not making edible clothes that you can eat once they become out of style?

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Deuce King

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.

Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 
we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

Proof that car engines have become less reliable?  My car now has 160K miles on it without any problems whatsoever and my previous truck had 180K on it before I had a transmission problem and then it ran another 40K before I sold it.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Deuce King

You guys believe that Obama purposely kept unemployment high in order to offer extended benefits then use the republican opposition to the extension as a strategy to bolster his support. That's not logical thinking; it's partisan paranoia. 

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

When people in the 50's wrote about and made movies about 2011, they thought for sure we would have been in flying cars or something along the lines of that magnitude by now.   Our economic policies have enslaved us all to dealing with remixes of the same ole same ole instead letting the US be a technological super power.

Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 
we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

Proof that car engines have become less reliable?  My car now has 160K miles on it without any problems whatsoever and my previous truck had 180K on it before I had a transmission problem and then it ran another 40K before I sold it.

 

[shoedinidc]

Obama is the face in front of much bigger things that are going on, he most likely will serve a 2nd term but only because the powers that be allow it. Change lies within the people not the pres, if folks would get off their butts and take that job at mcdonalds too support the family the numbers wouldn't be so high. We've become to good for our own good and this will continue to be our downfall.