|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 12107911)
See, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Not just fix a bridge here and there, but actually bring the infrastructure of the US out of the 1970s and into the modern world. A massive civil engineering project that will create jobs in a multitude of fields.
That's the goddamn American Dream right there. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12107933)
Opponents of the Keystone pipeline noted (accurately) that the employment claims were overblown because the jobs were temporary -- once the thing is built, the need for labor shrinks dramatically. The same thing is true of other infrastructure.
Many of these infrastructure needs are outside of the Rust Belt. (If anything, we should be diverting funds away from most of the worst corners of the Rust Belt to places where the money would be better spent.) The unemployment rate is already below 5%. These people will have to move in order to get these jobs. DC Koop has devoted a great deal of energy telling you that white people should not be inconvenienced by such things. So are we supposed to build bridges to Nowhere, Ohio in order to give them jobs within commuting distance? Since these guys apparently want to earn $30 per hour without going anywhere, that's the only option for serving that group. Better investment than the useless and overpriced F35' and the joke Litoral navy ships that breakdown every time they set to sea. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 12107932)
The only downside is that probably 75% of infrastructure work needed is supposed to be the responsibility of individual states or, gas pipelines for example, private enterprise. So the Federal government picking up the tab rewards states and companies that did not live up to their responsibilities. But that has to be ignored and the work done for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
(Post 12107934)
I'll just get some Irish laborers to put down some tarmac. Job done.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 12107939)
Keystone pipeline is a poor example. Face facts...with the massive infrastructure needs, work would go on for 20 or 30 years. Workers would go from one completed project to another. The massive influx of wages in the economy would create vast numbers of spin off jobs. Your argument seems to be to ignore the problem. A very Republican attitude.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
(Post 12107934)
I'll just get some Irish laborers to put down some tarmac. Job done.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12107942)
It's now Republican to point out that adding a lane to an interstate isn't going to provide a job for ten years or that the job may not be located anywhere near your house? Really?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 12107946)
It is very Republican to ignore a problem in favor of tax cuts for the rich and then make feeble excuses to justify it.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Anian
(Post 12107901)
Which makes it stranger that the Republicans hate the type-2 people and yet still get them to vote for the GOP in droves by promising to make it how it used to be. Except it will never happen because no company is going to open a new facility in a place where half the population have already moved out and no one else wants to move there because there is literally nothing left.
... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12107919)
If the AVERAGE was $75k, and a lot of his supporters were out of work, that suggests a lot of his supporters were much higher - $150k. That would suggest senior management roles. Then again, from my old statistics classes, I recall that 'average' can be very misleading - a few millionaires or billionaires can really skew things. We need mean and standard deviation :)
Not really but kind of. It was a news piece about the mythology of the Trump voter being poor, unemployed, disenfranchised and white. The $75,000 figure was thrown around and I honestly don't know how accurate that can possibly be. However, we do know that a lot of college educated white voters went for Trump. These people are not unemployed factory workers by any stretch of the imagination. What I don't get, is why they found him appealing. I guess that's why I could persuade myself that he would lose --- I didn't think he would appeal to people that were doing okay. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 12107794)
One thing I kept hearing about throughout the election campaigns, mostly from Sanders, but I think Trump touched on it as well, is infrastructure. It's no secret that a great deal of roads, bridges and other structures all over the country are in need of repair. Surely if someone is willing to invest in improving this infrastructure and putting measures in place to keep it properly maintained, that kind of a program would generate plenty of local jobs all over the country.
Or am I talking out of my arse again? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12107997)
However, we do know that a lot of college educated white voters went for Trump. These people are not unemployed factory workers by any stretch of the imagination. What I don't get, is why they found him appealing. I guess that's why I could persuade myself that he would lose --- I didn't think he would appeal to people that were doing okay.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Garbatellamike
(Post 12108008)
I tend to think the appeal was relative to the other option available rather than absolute appeal. An Obama 2008 type change candidate for the Dems would have destroyed Trump but the selection of a tired, tainted career politician gave Trump a chance and he got lucky.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12107997)
There is a distinct possibility that I pulled that figure out of my ass. :eek:
Not really but kind of. It was a news piece about the mythology of the Trump voter being poor, unemployed, disenfranchised and white. The $75,000 figure was thrown around and I honestly don't know how accurate that can possibly be. However, we do know that a lot of college educated white voters went for Trump. These people are not unemployed factory workers by any stretch of the imagination. What I don't get, is why they found him appealing. I guess that's why I could persuade myself that he would lose --- I didn't think he would appeal to people that were doing okay. They're probably among those who have the higher incomes. It can be presumed that a lot of them switched at the last minute, including those who had told pollsters before the election that they were undecided or were voting for Gary Johnson. 7% of registered Republicans voted for Clinton, which is a typical defection rate; in other words, having Trump as the nominee did not encourage an above-average amount of party switching. A majority of voters who claimed to "strongly support" a particular candidate voted for Clinton. A majority of voters who claimed to be motivated to vote against an opposing candidate opted for Trump. The voters who made up their minds earlier preferred Clinton. Those who decided at the last minute broke toward Trump. 63% of voters said that Trump "does not have the temperament to be president". Oddly enough, 20% of those who responded in the negative voted for him. In contrast, 43% of voters said that Clinton "does not have the temperament to be president" and only 5% of those who responded in the negative voted for her. We don't know from these numbers how many voters on each side simply didn't bother to vote because they didn't like either choice. However, reviewing the data about those who did vote would suggest that unhappy Republicans were more likely to vote for Trump as a lesser of two evils.* http://edition.cnn.com/election/resu...onal/president *Obviously, our views on lesser evils differ. |
Re: 2016 Election
On the subject of Keystone XL, the Govt. of Alberta is no longer keen on the idea, primarily because they don't want to agree with Trump, who everyone reckons will now approve it. TransCanada is currently suing under NAFTA over Keystone XL which Trump wants to change or abolish.
If ever there was evidence of something being a purely political football, Keystone XL is it, the actual pros and cons of it have been long since forgotten. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 12107917)
It is sorely needed and the best investment that could be made. Problem is Republicans prefer tax cuts. Bush gave 3 trillion in tax cuts....which could have been spent on infrastructure
But then I am not in a tax bracket that seems much if any benefit from tax cuts so my perspective might be different. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:34 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.