Is the problem the decline of Massachusetts business?

[FarCenter]

It seems like Massachusetts has lost its vigor in the high-technology business sector. The Route 128 corridor seems to have lost its luster as various companies were either acquired by companies headquartered elsewhere (e.g. Digital Equipment, Apollo, MassComp, Wellfleet) or they faded away (e.g. Wang and others).

The only large tech companies that come to mind are EMC and Raytheon. Others in Massachusetts seem to either be small ones with limeted markets or fairly new startups with uncertain futures. There are some R&D operations of companies headquartered elsewhere, but they always have an uncertain future and continue at the sufferance of headquarters.

I'd think that the belt of suburbs 20 miles either side of 495 would be feeling pretty negative about the economy.

[Tailormyst]

1. Our tech jobs are leaving, our population is declining

manufacturing has all been shipped over seas. The economy sucks. Our local politicians suck. Yeah, people here are angry and that is the only reason Brown is ahead.

[JDPriestly]

2. That is true everywhere. People are angry because we all thought

that Obama would at least acknowledge that outsourcing and importing are problems. But, it's business (and big bucks changing hands) as usual.

[FarCenter]

5. I don't see anything on either candidate's web site opposing unfair trade

Or anything about making strategic investments to recover United States competitiveness.

Brown makes the usual "lower taxes" appeal.

Coakley advocates making the R&D tax credit permanent. But what's all that about cranberry farmers and fishermen?

[JDPriestly]

9. The anger is at the status quo. People want real change.

Obama promised it and then forgot about it.

Still, I'll be surprised if the anger is great enough to elect Brown.

People are very, very angry about the fact that the banks were bailed out and average citizens were allowed to lose their homes and that so many people are out of jobs.

The Obama administration has been so focused on trying to bring the country together down the third way that it has not really responded to that anger. Frankly, when greedy people get as much as the banks got, there is fraud somewhere. Look what happened in the S&L crisis. People went to jail and got sued. Thanks to the bail-out, the crimes of the great were covered up. The crimes of the weak get punished. This is not the first time that imbalance has occurred to such a degree that people begin to feel a seething disgust at the injustice. How is it possible that we punish little kids for graffiti and then don't punish people who torture prisoners? The Obama administration should be fighting for justice, and they are not doing it at any level. They are just trying to get a health care insurance industry bail-out bill passed now. People backed the bill when it had a public option in it, but very few back it now.

What is on the candidates websites has nothing to do with it. The candidates are both horrible.

[AllieB]

3. Biotech is booming, We're second only to Silicon Valley in receiving VC money.

[FarCenter]

7. A lot of Boston biotech is medical biotech - is that threatened by "lower health care costs" in HCR?

While the argument can be made that biotech actually reduces health care costs through better drugs, they are often very expensive.

Boston seems to have less emphasis on other biotech areas like crop sciences and bio-fuels.

[xchrom]

4. That seems like a summary of america

These days.

But having deep roots in Peoria -- I certainly
understand the specifics cited here.

[Romulox]

6. The late Senator Kennedy was something of a "free trader", IIRC...

A supporter of NAFTA, GATT/WTO, MFN China, ever increasing H1B visas, etc. Is the argument that these positions didn't represent the position of his constituents?

Otherwise, it's basic cause and effect is in play here somewhere, surely? :shrug:

[FarCenter]

8. Democrats have to decide whether they are supporting workers or cosumers

Is protecting jobs and good wages more important than increasing the flow of cheap consumer goods from abroad?

Is supporting business in the United States more important than supporting investments by US businesses in foreign countries?

If we want to protect the environment, do we want to protect it unilaterally in the United States at the expense of business and workers?