Your economy sucks, run by liberals and you vote Obama. Why (Philadelphia: middle-class, appointed)

[Sonrise]

I posted the same thing in the Ohio forum.

This isn't a flame, I just need to understand the logic. You're economy is terrible, liberals run the state and you chose a guy that's going to raise payroll tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax (death tax) raise taxes on people that make over $200k, these people employee you, yet now when their taxes are going to get raised they'll either layoff employees or raise prices or both which will hurt the economy. He will also not renew Bushes tax cuts which will in effect be a tax hike because everyone will be in a higher bracket. He said that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut, but we all know that 40% of Americans don't pay taxes, so they'll get a welfare check out of your pocket.

So my question is, if the people running your state have taken it where it is now, how will a president who will do the same if not worse make it better? Thanks

[BirdistheWord]

The economy is terrible, which is obviously the fault of Obama and not the guy who ran the country for 8 years.

[Sonrise]

Originally Posted by BirdistheWord

The economy is terrible, which is obviously the fault of Obama and not the guy who ran the country for 8 years.

I think you're being sarcastic, but I'm trying to have a civil discussion. I'm specifically talking about the state and the irony that you elected a guy that shares the same philosophy as the people that got you in the mess that it is. It makes no sense to me.

[kpoeppel]

Sonrise,

A lot of people in PA are clueless when it come to basic economics, unfortunately. Politicians get elected here by promising to "create jobs" even if it means raising taxes and paying people to do things that the public wouldn't pay for voluntarily. Based on editorials I read in the local newspaper, I really wonder if a politician could get elected here by promising to burn down one of our major cities, on the basis that it would "create jobs" for firefighters and construction workers. Dig a hole, fill it up (using tax dollars). It's the PA model for prosperity.

PA was dominant in manufacturing until 20 or 30 years ago. Between the late 19th century and the mid 20th century, the state went from one extreme, i.e. the robber barons hiring armed thugs to beat up their employees, to the other extreme, where unions had a monopoly and employees could demand whatever salary and benefits they wanted. Many people in PA got used to making professional salaries for doing low-skill jobs that almost anyone could be trained to do. One 50-something native of the Pittsburgh region once told me, in a frustrated and embittered tone, "you could graduate from high school, get a job at the steel mill, and be set for life...you didn't have to go to college or technical school or any of that stuff..." He went on about the country being ruined and going to hell in a hand basket, etc.

The fact is, many Pennsylvanians were enjoying the benefits of a de-facto labor cartel, but without realizing their prosperity was due to just that: a cartel. In fact, I'll probably catch hell on this forum just for stating this. I wonder how many of these same people complain about paying more for gasoline due to OPEC.

After WWII, other countries like Germany and Japan started to rebuild their industrial capacity that the U.S. had to destroy in order to win the war. At the same time, domestic steel companies knew they could save tons of money on labor by opening new plants in "right-to-work" states. Thus, starting in the 70's, a lot of new steel came onto the market, at a lower price. Unfortunately, all consumers (including unionized steel-workers) want the best quality of goods for the lowest price, including goods that contain steel. Thus, by the time of the early 80's, much of PA's heavy industry, including steel, had collapsed.

Needless to say, a lot of formerly-middle-class people suddenly found themselves out on the street. A lot of these people, having grown up in a labor union culture, always believed that "management" or "the boss" was out to skrew them. After seeing their livelihood destroyed in the late 70s and early 80s, those beliefs were validated in a big way!

I do think some of the bitterness is justified, however. Listen to Bruce Springsteen's ballad "Youngstown." Particularly poignant are the following lines: "Well my daddy came on the Ohio works when he came home from WWII, now the yard's just scrap and rubble, he said those big boys did what Hitler couldn't do. These mills they built the tanks and bombs that won this country's wars; we sent our sons to Korea and Vietnam, now we wonder what they were dying for."

Much of the blue-collar working class was proudly patriotic and willing to risk life and limb for American survival, supremacy, and might. Many fought in wars and sacrificed greatly for America. During WWII they worked overtime in the mills to out-produce Japan and Germany. But starting in the 70's, our elites no longer put America first. Those elites saw an opportunity to make lots of money using cheap foreign labor, so they changed the rules: there would now be "free trade" with the rest of the world, rather than "America first". So what did the pro-America working class get for their sacrifice for the nation? A pink slip and a crappy job at Wal-Mart.

Another important thing happened in the late 60's and early 70's: The 60's radicals took over the Democrat party. Starting in 1968, the Democrat party was no longer the party of the average blue-collar worker, but the party of the anti-war radicals, the feminists, the radical environmentalists, etc. There's almost no similarity between a typical Catholic, socially conservative, blue collar Democrat and a God-is-Dead, pro-abortion, environmentalist Democrat. Starting in '68, the Democrat party began to abandon the interests of blue collar workers. The Democrat base shifted from Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Chicago to places like Berkley, Ann Arbor MI, Boulder CO, and Madison WI. Hence, Reagan won two landslides because he appealed to blue-collar Democrats with traditional values (i.e. the "Reagan Democrats")

For blue collar workers, it's been a double-whammy: loss of economic prosperity and loss of political influence. It's no wonder they are bitter.

The sad fact is, neither party represents blue-collar Pennsylvanians. They won't be voting for Republicans like they did in the 80's, since they are keenly aware that U.S. manufacturing continued to go overseas under Bush.

Unfortunately, many of these blue-collar workers, in desperation, want to believe that today's Democrats still represent their interests. In their minds, if they just elect Obama, he will repeal free trade, build a tariff wall around the country, and resurrect the glory days of Big Steel and Big Labor. They're going to be mighty disappointed when all they get is a bankrupt coal industry, restrictions on domestic oil production, new gasoline taxes, increased gun regulation, fewer restrictions on abortion, legalized gay marriage, contempt for American preeminence in the world, contempt for Christianity, etc.

[sirron]

The above post by kpoeppel is the most truth one will ever read about the state of things in this state. Reps to you!!

[toobusytoday]

I am not a blue collar worker, and have no illusions about any President building up the economy in this state to how it used to be. The economy was not the number one reason I even voted for Obama.

Our election was between two men - one who graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, left his first wife after she was almost killed in a car accident, and picked a Vice President who took six years to graduate from five colleges and finally got a degree in JOURNALISM. Most of the people that I know have more education then both of these people. Neither of these people are known as deep thinkers. Palin's background would not be nearly so important except for the fact that McCain has had melanoma cancer and is 72 years old. I disagree with the strong anti-abortion stance and the red neck attitude towards people that are not WASPY enough during the campaign.

Our second candidate has lived and traveled around the world, graduated at the top of his class from Columbia University and Harvard University where he got his Law Degree. His Vice President graduated from Delaware (in four years) with double majors in history and Political Science. His Law degree is from Syracuse. Generally, I agree with most of their policies and I loved the inclusiveness of the campaign.

NO ONE knows what's going to happen in the next four years but I want someone in office that immediately understands what is going on, and will thoughtfully act on it. I went to sleep last night with a smile on my face.

[Ohiogirl81]

Hey hey hey. I've got a degree in journalism. But it only took me four years.

Other than that , what toobusytoday said. McCain may have a wealth of experience in national politics, but his choice of vice president and a few other choices have led me to believe that he has very little respect for the welfare of his fellow Americans.

kpoeppel, I'd rep you, but I've got to spread a little bit around first. Well-written, well-thought out post.

[W-B proud]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

I posted the same thing in the Ohio forum.

This isn't a flame, I just need to understand the logic. You're economy is terrible, liberals run the state and you chose a guy that's going to raise payroll tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax (death tax) raise taxes on people that make over $200k, these people employee you, yet now when their taxes are going to get raised they'll either layoff employees or raise prices or both which will hurt the economy. He will also not renew Bushes tax cuts which will in effect be a tax hike because everyone will be in a higher bracket. He said that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut, but we all know that 40% of Americans don't pay taxes, so they'll get a welfare check out of your pocket.

So my question is, if the people running your state have taken it where it is now, how will a president who will do the same if not worse make it better? Thanks

Um, Maybe eight years of George Bush had something to do with it? Just a tad maybe?

[JHG722]

Originally Posted by toobusytoday

I am not a blue collar worker, and have no illusions about any President building up the economy in this state to how it used to be. The economy was not the number one reason I even voted for Obama.

Our election was between two men - one who graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, left his first wife after she was almost killed in a car accident, and picked a Vice President who took six years to graduate from five colleges and finally got a degree in JOURNALISM. Most of the people that I know have more education then both of these people. Neither of these people are known as deep thinkers. Palin's background would not be nearly so important except for the fact that McCain has had melanoma cancer and is 72 years old. I disagree with the strong anti-abortion stance and the red neck attitude towards people that are not WASPY enough during the campaign.

Our second candidate has lived and traveled around the world, graduated at the top of his class from Columbia University and Harvard University where he got his Law Degree. His Vice President graduated from Delaware (in four years) with double majors in history and Political Science. His Law degree is from Syracuse. Generally, I agree with most of their policies and I loved the inclusiveness of the campaign.

NO ONE knows what's going to happen in the next four years but I want someone in office that immediately understands what is going on, and will thoughtfully act on it. I went to sleep last night with a smile on my face.

Obama was a self-proclaimed slacker in high school...

[danwxman]

The Philadelphia suburbs, the largest swing region in the state, went overwhelmingly for Obama. Did he win on economic issues in some parts of the state? Yes, but he won on social issues in the Philly suburbs...the economy is fine there.