Barack Obama, our next President

There are 20 comments on the Nov 5, 2008, Hampton Roads Daily Press story titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

So NotSurpriZed

Pompano Beach, FL

#853437 Feb 4, 2013
Not Surprized wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It is me. And yes, I am the official clown of topix. And proud to admit it. Want some judgits?? ROFLMAO!!!!
Not Surprized! ROTFLMAO!
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#853438 Feb 4, 2013
Long-Term Unemployment, Job Polarization and the Disappearance of Middle-Skill Jobs

Neoliberalism intensifies a labor-market trend under way since the beginning of the postwar period, during which the short-term unemployed have been a shrinking percentage of all unemployed. Since the late 1960s long-term unemployment has been steadily rising. Looking at the business cycle over the last forty years, an ominous trend is evident: in each business-cyclical expansion, the long-term unemployment rate remains either at or above the level of the previous expansion. In a word, for the last forty years the short-term unemployed have been a declining, and the long-term unemployed an increasing, percentage of all unemployed. Most importantly for the purposes of this article, the persistence of unemployment is closely related to the disappearance of middle-pay jobs. The result has been that low paying jobs comprise an increasingly large percentage of all jobs.

Is there a structural (1) explanation of the disproportionate proliferation of low skill, low paying jobs? A key to an illuminating explanation is the remark, in the New York Times last summer that “The disappearance of midwage, midskill jobs is part of a longer-term trend that some refer to as a hollowing out of the work force…”(“Majority of Jobs Pay Low Wages”, Catherine Rampell, Aug. 30, 2012) A “hollowing out” implies a polarization, an emerging structure of inequality within the labor market. The job market is bifurcating into high skill, high paying, advanced-education jobs at one extreme, and low skill, low paying, low education jobs at the other. Disappearing are occupations in the middle of the skill and pay distribution. Much research in recent years (2) throws light on this phenomenon and implicitly calls into question common explanations, that this job shedding is due largely to offshoring and outsourcing, that it is concentrated in manufacturing and that is the result of a mismatch between skills required by employers and the skill-level of job seekers. The citation from Keynes at the head of this article is closer to the truth.

In both the natural and the social sciences new insights are often the fruit of perspicuous categorization. It’s a certain type of job that is disappearing but the categories low skill, high skill, manual , cognitive, high paying, low paying fail to uncover the systemic mechanisms generating increasing labor market polarization. What is important is that it is routine jobs that are vanishing. These are jobs involving tasks consisting of a specific set of activities accomplished by workers following well defined instructions and procedures. These are not merely manual or “blue collar” jobs in production and maintenance like mechanics, machinery diagnostics, machine operators and tenders, meat processors, cement masons, dress makers, fabricators and assemblers. Routine occupations also involve “cognitive activities” in sales and “office and administrative support” such as secretaries, retail salespersons, some workers in law offices, bank tellers, travel agents, mail clerks and data entry keyers.

United States

#853439 Feb 4, 2013
LOL!!! Winning!!!
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#853440 Feb 4, 2013
Vanishing Jobs, Automation, Robotization and Computerization

It is in these types of routine occupation that automation, robotics and the use of computers facilitate the replacement of human labor with machines. In some cases labor is entirely eliminated and all the work is done by machines or computers, but in the typical case technology reduces the demand for a portion of mid-skilled labor. Most of us are familiar with the replacement of bank tellers by ATMs, secretarial work replaced by personal computers and/or SIRI, Apple’s “intelligent personal assistant” integrated with the iPhone, self checkouts in grocery stores, self-service terminals in airports, video stores replaced by web-ordered DVD shipping and cable access and telephone customer service replaced by voice menus and web-based FAQs. An office in the 1980s employing 40 people working without computers may require, in the early 1990s, only 4 workers using 4 computers. The productivity -output per unit of labor input- of the office can be further enhanced not by adding skilled workers nor by replacing less productive workers with more productive computers, but by replacing less powerful computers and software with more powerful ones. In the initial case, actual workers were replaced by computers. In the latter case potential workers were kept out of the workplace by better computers. Thus the notable reduction in the demand for office workers.

Automation and robotics have had similar effects. The aggregate effects of all kinds of mechanization is felt across the entire labor market. In manufacturing the demand for machinists and machine operators is trending downward. Routine work in transportation and warehousing is also disappearing. All this is a portent of the broad range of jobs that are liable to permanent loss due to increasingly labor-saving advances in the development of the means of production. Right now this is most evident in the computer electronics industry. Robots do nearly all the work in making the most valuable part of computers, the motherboard, housing microprocessors and memory. Workers slip in the batteries and snap on the screen. A long-time analyst of the industry predicts that “[Robots} will replace most of the workers, though you will need a few people to manage the robots.”(Catherine Rampell,“When Cheap Foreign Labor Gets Less Cheap”, The New York Times, Dec. 7, 2012.)

Welding is virtually ubiquitous in widget production. Job loss in this occupation is rampant, due exclusively to the widening use of robotic arc welding to replace manual welding. Robots do the work in half the time it takes workers. The loading and unloading of machines has been made much more efficient by robots. A machine that is manually loaded “waits”, i.e., is unproductive, longer than one that is robotically loaded. A robot is faster than a human operator because it does not have to wait for a cutter or a part to stop moving, or for a door to open. Instead, the robot accesses parts through the top of a machine and unloads them immediately upon their completion. In one study, robotically loaded machines turned out 545,000 parts annually, while operators produced only 445,000. And robots don’t take lunch or other breaks, so the employer gets 8 hours of work out of them daily, not the 7.5 demanded by workers. And not a single robot has gone on strike.

Until very recently, most commentators have concurred that since human beings are not machines, there is a limit, set by factors such as pattern recognition and complex human communication, to how much human labor can be automated. There is surely such a limit, but it is not as insurmountable as many of us have thought. Producers of capital goods seek ever greater possibilities of reducing the human contribution to productivity, and successful experiments in the last two years reveal the spectacular potential of digital technologies and the rapidity with which advances are achieved.
So NotSurpriZed

Pompano Beach, FL

#853441 Feb 4, 2013
Not Surprized wrote:
As one of my own sockpuppets, I know I'm acting like a child. I simply pointed out I had everything to do with the judgits you responded to. We space cadets always lack the ability to comprehend the context of things so don't feel bad. We are used to being off topic.
My second reply is even more lame than the first one.
Not Surprized! ROTFLMAO!
So NotSurpriZed

Pompano Beach, FL

#853442 Feb 4, 2013
Not Surprized wrote:
It looks like I have usupred (sorry about the spelling here) everyone possible, even with your my post. I do own the clown title here, like a true idiot.
Hahaha!!! Look what I did with the judgits!
I really am an Idiot.
Not Surprized! ROTFLMAO!

“Amor patriae.”

Level 5

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#853443 Feb 4, 2013
mdbuidler wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh... no, sweetie, the "Butcher's Bill" is an euphemism signifying the death toll in a conflict orchestrated by plutocrats. The "meat" in question is human. Surely you weren't advocating cannibalism?
Hang in there pal, chew on it a bit longer.

Many times we see people like you when they've failed to achieve ego identity during adolescence. Occasionally it persists into 'adulthood'.... that's a euphemism for mature.....which is a euphemism for pornographic. It all fits together nicely, don't you think
WhineyIndependen tMajority

London, KY

#853444 Feb 4, 2013
RE:Homer type memo via Baltimore wire;

To goober ghost.

Thx for playing--have a safe trip back-West coast surfer boi!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#853445 Feb 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
Let's review some issues from last week. We still have two unanswered questions:
Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment while the real-time video of the battle was being watched in the White House?
(We can discuss why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States later.)
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government.
Still, to this date, nobody on Earth has been able to answer these questions.
-Presumably in the White House

-The Treasury Dept.

United States

#853446 Feb 4, 2013
So NotSurpriZed wrote:
<quoted text> Not Surprized! ROTFLMAO!
I am having a battle with one of my own sockpuppets now!! See what happens when my shrink gives me a little freedom? My sockpuppets fight with each other!!!!
Yes, call me topix clown. For sure!!! ROFLMAO!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#853447 Feb 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see now....
The battle was 7 hours long, an embassy of the United States is under attack for 7 goddam hours, the real-time video of the battle is being watched in the White House,... and nobody wakes the f**k*ng president.
Meanwhile, orders with presidential authority go to the AC-130 and Force Recon Marine units to disregard their default orders of responding to specifically an attack on our embassy in Libya, while the White House watched real-time video of Al Qaeda killing Americans for 7-hours... and nobody woke the f**k*ng president.
So, what you're saying is, Clint Eastwood was right when he said we have an empty chair as president, and somebody else in the White House is actually acting as president and issuing orders with presidential authority.
Who is that person?
Who is the person who acts with the authority of the President of the United States and watched the real-time video of the Al Qaeda attack in Benghazi, and gave the orders for the AC-130 and Force Recon units specifically positioned to respond to an attack on the embassy in Libya to stand down and hung the Americans in Benghazi out to dry while they watched Al Qaeda kill them on the real-time video of the attack.
Since Obama was asleep during the 7-hour attack, why did he lie for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda attack on the US?
"Taxes" isn't a source of money. An answer like "people" is a source of money. Who is going to pay these taxes to pay for Obama's government? Still, the question remains unanswered:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
The Treasury Dept.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#853449 Feb 4, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have learned by now that we can't trust the mainstream media to tell the whole truth or this administration.
I had to convince Tenzing and a few others that the video came from a legitimate source even though the president commented on it.
You can see how shallow your criticisms.
At least I'm trying to keep an open mind, unlike yourself.
You convinced no one of the source of the video, you said you found it doing "research".
So NotSurpriZed

Pompano Beach, FL

#853450 Feb 4, 2013
Not Surprized wrote:
<quoted text>
I am having a battle with one of my own sockpuppets now!! See what happens when my shrink gives me a little freedom? My sockpuppets fight with each other!!!!
Yes, call me topix clown. For sure!!! ROFLMAO!
Not Surprized! ROTFLMAO!

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#853451 Feb 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was written to allow a mulatto fraud like Obama the ability to become President. It seems to me it worked. Under no other system would that have happened. You seem to be woefully ignorant of that fact.
Limited government seems to be something you are opposed to. Of course, that means you are rebelling against the government of the United States and the Constitution. Would Obama be part of your rebellion?
Given the actions of the Democrats, I don't see how a civil war to restore the Constitution can be averted. The Democrats are too full of themselves and their ability to indoctrinate the population with lies to not do it, and they are too ignorant to avoid doing it.
After the smoke clears, it is a certainty the winners will hang the losers. If it's your neck the noose is being put around, don't whine. You asked for it. Take it like a man.
By the way, all these things like electricity every day and fresh produce in the grocery store and gasonline and everything else that requires capital investment to deliver to you will become significantly less reliable and scarce. Since you cannot provide for yourself, and everything in your neighborhood will already have been stolen, you will have to expand the territory you forage in to include places where there is still something there to steal.
We know you'll be coming to see us. You know you'll be coming to see us. We can discuss the issue of equality then.
You won't need to bring your copy of Roberts Rules of Order with you.
I really hope you're right about the inevitable civil war. Modern medicine has hindered natural selection to the point that a teabagger mutation has infested the population.


Level 8

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#853453 Feb 4, 2013
Chicago police department has decided they will not respond to B&E's if they determine that the suspects have left. There's your 'serve and protect' for you.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#853454 Feb 4, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have learned by now that we can't trust the mainstream media to tell the whole truth or this administration.
I had to convince Tenzing and a few others that the video came from a legitimate source even though the president commented on it.
You can see how shallow your criticisms.
At least I'm trying to keep an open mind, unlike yourself.
if you want to see media bias, just look at the contrast between 60 Minutes interviews with Obama vs Bush.
“Steve Kroft's Softball Obama Interviews Diminish '60 Minutes'
On 60 Minutes, the news-magazine show that prides itself on "hard-hitting" investigations and interviews, correspondent Steve Kroft, who has won most of the highest awards in his industry, has just broadcast another softball interview with the most powerful man in the world, a performance that ought to earn him a rebuke from his peers in the news business but almost certainly won't. His CBS bio page proudly touts his unparalleled access to President Obama: He scored the first post-election sit down after Election 2008, another exclusive following the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a third sit-down as the president kicked off his reelection campaign.
Little wonder that Obama keeps going back. The 60 Minutes brand is associated with probing interviews, and Kroft is adept at using his tone and manner to create the impression of tough questions without actually asking any. For Sunday's interview, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who sat beside him, benefited from 60 Minutes gravitas while answering questions better suited to Ellen. It hardly matters whether Kroft is deliberately pulling his punches to secure ongoing access or is simply disinclined to fulfill the core journalistic duty of holding powerful people accountable for their actions; his Obama interviews ought to diminish his standing and the reputation of his employer….continued….”
Lest you think I am being too hard on Kroft, here are all of the questions broadcast from his Obama-Clinton interview:
• "This is very improbable. This is not an interview I ever expected to be doing. But I understand, Mr. President, this was your idea. Why did you want to do this together, a joint interview?"
• "There's no political tea leaves to be read here?"
• "It's no secret that your aides cautioned you against -- actually were against you offering Secretary Clinton this job. And you were just as determined not to take it. And you avoided taking her phone calls for awhile because you were afraid she was going to say no. Why were you so insistent about wanting her to be secretary of state?"

These are the two most influential foreign-policy officials in the United States. In the last four years they've presided over hugely consequential policies all over the planet, much of it cloaked in secrecy. How much influence has she had? Are you kidding me? I love that he subsequently asks not "What's the reality of your relationship?" but "How would you characterize your relationship?" And the reflexive deference is embarrassing. Do journalists now go out of their way to "spare" their subjects the discomfort of confronting seeming contradictions in their rhetoric? Must even inane questions about spousal feelings be softened with apologetic ticks like, "Is that an impertinent question?" No, Kroft, it's just an irrelevant question in a world where we know that Bill Clinton has already campaigned hard for Obama's reelection.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#853455 Feb 4, 2013
All easy questions for Obama vs:

'But I did find a 60 Minutes interview with George W. Bush. Here are the questions Scott Pelley asked him:
• "The war on terror, in a sense, began in this room, began in this cabin where your Cabinet meeting was held. Back then the whole country was with you. And now you seem to have lost them. Why do you think so?"
• "Most Americans at this point in time don't believe in this war in Iraq. They want you to get us out of there."
• "But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?"
• "It's much more unstable now, Mr. President."
• "You mention mistakes having been made in your speech. What mistakes are you talking about?"
• "Fair to say there are not enough American troops on the ground to provide security for Iraq?"
• "Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?"
• "You are gambling a lot, Mr. President, on the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Why do you think that's a gamble worth making?"
• "I was on the battlefield in Najaf when al-Sadr's people killed your United States Marines."
• "Do you believe that the House has the constitutional authority to prevent you from the troop build-up? Can they stop you?"
• "Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?"
• "You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what? Like the weapons of mass destruction? No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq."
• "The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400."
• "When was it that you first found out or it dawned on you that, indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction? And I wonder, did you think,'What have I done?'"
• "What should the American people look for in this war plan? When will they know whether it's working or not?"
• "What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?"
• "I wonder if you feel like you've been ill-served by your Cabinet members, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps even Vice-President Dick Cheney. Wrong on WMD. Wrong on the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. And now you're in a fix. And I wonder if you look back and wonder who let you down."
• "The vice president suggested there was a connection, not necessarily 9/11, but certainly to al-Qaeda."
• "Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?"

A stunning contrast, isn't it? I won't speculate about personal ideological bias. It's possible that Pelley is just a much better journalist than Kroft. I will say that there is a glaring double standard in the coverage that 60 Minutes has afforded the two presidents…

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#853456 Feb 4, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have missed the president telling the American people Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 rather than a "spontaneous mob" because of a video right before an election.
Either that or you missed him lying and covering it up to win an election.
One of us is in the dark.
Since there's no confusion about the president standing in front of the UN two weeks later still denying it was a planned terrorist attack, it's probably you.
That's funny, here's some of Obama's statement on the morning after the attack:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Sure sounds to me like he's calling it a terrorist attack. Who told you he lied about it being an act of terror?

United States

#853457 Feb 4, 2013
Hysteria 101 wrote:
I am so depressed today, even more than yesterday. I wish daddy were here for some cuddle time. He used to croon, "there, there little carolann, as his calloused hand drifted inch by inch to my little bald honey pot. I felt all the tension drain out of me. Anybody who says innocent sex with your daddy is an abomination just doesn't know what love is all about.
Well, later folks. Sometimes politics just has to go on the back burner, or take a back seat to one's personal demons. I know Jesus will pull me through this one too. It's a practical example of learning through history thing that I've preached on here from day one. Maybe some day somebody, ANYBODY will actually validate me besides my Savior and meat daddy in heaven.
Later. Oh God, I'm sooooooo tired. Must forge on, must forge on ...
Thank you my loved one! I want to say that this post is awesome, great written and come with almost all important infos. I'd like some more like this!!!!
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#853458 Feb 4, 2013
Jobless Recoveries And The Disappearance Of Routine Jobs
We have in recent years been introduced to the cynical notion of the “jobless recovery.” For most of US economic history this term would have been dismissed as self-contradictory. That it is now part of common economic discourse is testimony to a major conceptual revision in the discourse of propaganda: that the economy is recovering is no reason to expect unemployed workers to find work. Economic recovery is now treated as consistent with declining standards of living. Lowered expectations and acquiescence in long term working-class hardship are now built into what we are told to regard as recovery. This political-economic innovation demands closer scrutiny. We want to know why recoveries since 1990 have been jobless, and what it is that makes them jobless. This will give us a clear picture of exactly what is happening in the “jobless recovery” that distinguishes it from the normal postwar cyclical recovery.
The key lies in the greatly heightened importance of a particular kind of unemployment, referred to by Keynes in the citation above as “technological unemployment”, and correlative to the advance of mechanization described above. This is not the kind of unemployment that attends a garden-variety recession, which disappears as the economy recovers. Peter S. Goodman correctly projected in The New York Times that the recovery following the 2009 recession would not bring sufficient jobs to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.(“The New Poor: Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs”, February 21, 2010) He describes the new poor as “people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives – potentially for years to come.” What is distinctive about the jobless recovery?
Let’s look at the last 6 recoveries -after the recessions of 1970, 1975, 1982, 1991, 2001 and 2009- and compare the jobs lost during the downturns with those restored in the subsequent recovery. After the recessions of 1970, 1975 and 1982 both production and employment recovered. The jobs lost during the recession, including routine jobs, were regained in the recovery. Routine jobs were the largest single category of work in this period. It is the disappearance of precisely these jobs that distinguish the recessions of 1991, 2001 and 2009 from previous recessions. By the time of these recessions, routine jobs were more than 50 percent of all jobs and accounted for virtually all the job loss. Most importantly, this type of employment never recovers beyond its trough peak, nor does it approach its pre-recession peak. The permanent decline of middle-skill employment as a proportion of all employment has occurred nearly every year since 1984. The 1991, 2001 and 2009 recessions were the first to exhibit jobless recovery. The jobless recovery, then, is due to the disappearance of routine work, or, alternatively, to the polarization of the job market during these years.
What has accounted for the loss of these jobs? There seems to be an erroneous consensus on the Left that offshoring/outsourcing explains this phenomenon. About a third of all manufacturing work, some 6 million jobs, has been lost since 2000. But the exporting of jobs fails to explain most of this.“[W]hile many of these jobs were lost to competition with low-wage countries, even more vanished because of computer-driven machinery that can do the work of 10, or in some cases, 100 workers.”(Adam Davidson,“Skills Don’t Pay the Bills”, The New York Times, Nov. 20, 2012) This is permanent job loss, and contributes to the inequality endemic to labor-market polarization:“Those jobs are not coming back, but many believe that the industry’s future (and, to some extent, the future of the American economy) lies in training a new generation for highly skilled manufacturing jobs –

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 4 min ANGHARAD 496,388
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 13 min OzRitz 52,890
News Florida Republicans Want Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio ... 1 hr Tazo 1
The Law is What Hillary Clinton Says it Is 1 hr Tazo 25
last post wins! (Jul '11) 1 hr Princess Hey 5,620
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 1 hr Princess Hey 9,277
One Word (Jul '10) 1 hr Princess Hey 2,095
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 10 hr A duck 18,095
More from around the web

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]