Obama to tackle ghetto warming

Climate-bagging falls somewhere on the continuum from carpertbagging to cynicism.

Obama administration agencies today agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding by which they will:

… identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations, including, but not limited to, as appropriate for its mission, in the following areas: … (3) impacts from climate change;…

But a more effective way to help minority and low-income populations, however, would be for President Obama to stop his administration’s war against economic growth and otherwise get out of the way of our society’s job- and wealth creators.

The first step to ending poverty, after all, is a job; not the junk science-fueled lip service known as “environmental justice.”

6 thoughts on “Obama to tackle ghetto warming”

  1. If you are attempting to criticize President Obama and his response to issues in the low income areas of our urban centers means you are white, rich and a racist. If you are black and are criticizing President Obama then you are an uncle tom and a racist to boot.

    Please allow me to define racist in this context. If you are opposed to any policies supported by President Obama, then by definition you are a racist. Thank you.

  2. I love (read: sarcasm) when people say “create jobs” without an Rx to do so. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and corporate hiring did not increase…he tried putting more money into the science/tech (“green”) sector for job creation and got knocked for reckless spending…he tried bailing out big companies and that money lined the pockets of higher-ups. And here we are in Aug 2011 and unemployment is still high.

    What should be done exactly? (Keeping in mind that the President is a glorified puppet of the Congress if he hopes to get re-elected). I’d like to see some real answers not just knocking the president to wave his wand and “create jobs”.

    I think that the problem resides in American business ethics, for one, outsourcing stemming from greed. I do not believe that big corporations in America left to their own devices (de-regulation/laissez-faire government) would benefit us (“us” being the average citizen). Big corps do not care about the average American more than profits…which inherently makes sense since they put their bottom line first.

    Nations lacking governmental oversight (i.e. Somalia) experience a swing in adherence to radical groups and value systems because the people are suffering (no food, education, healthcare). If we really follow these tea party mantras for Obama to get out of the way, specifically, and the government to get out of the way generally, who is to say that our country would not fall into the same pattern? Do we really think we’re that much more advanced?

    And first-world culpability with regard to climate change is a real issue…I urge you to read about Kiribati instead of writing EJ off as “junk science-fueled lip service”.

  3. Honestly? You truly believe that government and it’s bureaucrats, elected officials, etc. care about the people more than corporations? Government (especially in the last number of decades) has become the one true perpetual motion machine. The only thing required to keep the machine moving is money – in fact, your money. A corporation survives or fails (mostly, the bailouts being the exception) on the nature of it’s business. Does it make a marketable and reliable product with true value, that people want and can be priced in such a way as that the consumer can afford it. If not, the company fails. The government exists in a truly different sphere, producing nothing, worrying less and less about the costs of the services it provides and whether it is a good deal or affordable to their “consumers” (again, you). Instead, it justifies the consumption of wealth from it’s consumers, wealth that could be spent elsewhere (I.e. Corporations that create jobs when their product is more in demand), in a never ending cycle of dissipating return on investment that no other entity in a free market could survive. An example? Education is one of the greatest examples of the government taking your money to provide a service that is at best a horrible return on investment. And when other entities attempt to come in to provide the same service with better results at a lower price, the government just legislates them out of existence. Sorry, but I trust my money, earned through my sweat and labor to be spent by me on products I choose with the promise of a better return. Unlike those in Washington, and their apologists, I am fully capable of making such decisions without the help of those who think they are my betters. And more importantly, if I’m not satisfied with the results, I am free to purchase elsewhere. Government takes away that possibility, mostly for one reason, because it knows it cannot compete with those who offer similar services.

    If you truly believe that government does not suffer from the same conditions you claim that corporations do (I.e. Greed, ethics, or caring about their consumers less than their profits – taxes, again your money taken from you without choice) then you are seriously suffering from a worldview that is truly upside down.

  4. In agreement with your observation:
    Stupid is as stupid does! I know, someone else already said it, but it fits so well today.

  5. In no way was I arguing for a country devoid of corporations, similarly, I am not convinced that a country devoid of government will be the utopia many ascribe to. I am thankful for governmental organizations like the FDA, EPA, et al that place value on regulating chemical inputs to our food and outputs to the environment from these very corporations I am skeptical of. We’re seeing this in the Marcellus Shale drilling right now…the only reason corporations are disclosing fracking fluids and exercising heightened security measures is because the PA government is mandating them to. Do you think they would really disclose “proprietary information” such as their chemical output if I as a consumer asked them to (they’ve been barraged by citizens for years to do so and they have not). Do you think I can sway their decision with my (measly) income? Unfortunately if they have the monopoly on energy production I could not boycott their product as I am dependent on energy inputs for my car, home, etc.

    I am fully in agreement that government mismanagement has occurred (is occurring?) and that a system overhaul is necessary. I do not see how the privatization of regulatory agencies would really benefit anyone although I am open to alternative solutions. My main concern, which may have not come across in my post, is that no coherent solutions have been proposed. Our elections focus on the person more than what they have to say and subsequently I cannot find anyone running that has described in detail how we are going to fix the messes that supposedly the government has gotten us into. Instead we’re stuck with the “get off our backs!” mantra of Palin and the other clowns she pals around with.

    The part that is discomforting about corporations surpassing the role of government in any system is that theoretically, my voice is heard in a democracy whereas in a corporation I do not have a say (unless you’re in support of labor unions which I doubt you are). Additionally, your whole system of corporate accountability rests on the fact that everyone has money to spend and will thus be able to influence corporate moves. What about those who have no money? How does their voice count? What about those with marginal income versus billionaires? I think that corporations would obviously pander to the rich…it would be in their best interest as a company.

    Finally I would like to point out, that it is because of government funds and state subsidies I was able to attain undergraduate and graduate degrees. I’m in whole-hearted agreement of following suit of European governments and making college free….wait are you pointing out a potential benefit to government intervention now?

Comments are closed.