Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: I love it

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4373035]The OP's point was that he was rooting for higher gas prices because he believes many Americans would blame that on the current President.

    I replied with a "President's don't control gas prices" type of response and then Dean chimed in with "Liberals blamed Bush for gas prices!" as if the main problem liberals/bush detractors had with GWB was that we were paying more at the pump, instead of say - his invasion/occupation of Iraq for no reason, dropping the ball on Afghanistan/finding OBL and cutting taxes on the wealthy for the first time in American history during a war (two wars at the same time actually).

    Nothing Mr Obama has done even comes close to that. Libya does not compare in cost/length/controversy in the slightest to Iraq/Afghanistan.

    And the deficit now is as large as it is because a. the financial crises response (stimulus) and b. the unpaid for spending by the last guy. You can't fight two wars for eight years and cut taxes, borrowing for all of it, and then blame the next guy when the sh*t hits the fan. The second stimulus (as the first was under Mr Bush) would have been large regardless of who was elected.

    I can't help but respond when someone says Obama is worse than Bush, because it is so blindingly partisan and inaccurate that I feel like sitting by and letting it go is worse than just simply replying "No, it's not even close".



    I think Obama is doing a good job considering the circumstances he was handed and the complete lack of compromise from the other side. They won't even say compromise, that's how bad it is.

    You know I forget where I read/heard it, but it's been said that the US government functions at it's best with a (D) President and Republican majority in Congress - the argument being the (D) President will push a progressive agenda and the Republican congress will keep the spending of that agenda in check. Now I can't say for sure if this maxim is true, but the key part of it is an understanding that compromise is a given. At some point, compromise will be reached, because that's how a democracy works.

    But we haven't gotten anything like that recently. The debt ceiling crises was artificial and ridiculous. The complete unwillingness to appoint cabinet members and administrative positions is a scorched earth policy by the Republicans in Congress. They've carved out a position that they are unwilling to do anything until Obama gets voted out. It's quite frustrating.[/QUOTE]

    I see things a bit different. The economy under bush was solid for most of the two terms. The housing debacle was largely caused by government mandates on banks that forced them to lend to sub prime borrowers as part of a plan by government for social engineering. The deficit was under control prior to the housing bubble. Bush was a big government republican and as a result many fiscal conservatives like myself were disenfranchised by him and did not vote in 2006.

    You are giving Obama credit for the current anemic recovery. That's fine. But when you spend 5 trillion on stimulus over 3 years you should and could have expected more. Obama has given us two signature legislative accomplishments. Obamacare which is a disaster that is hated by over 60% of Americans and Stimulus one. Another debacle marred with crony capitalism and waste. Now he just put forth a budget that while raising taxes significantly does nothing to reduce spending or our current off the cliff trajectiory. It is a scandalous and spineless budget that has us sitting at 26trillion in debt within 10 years. Thats AFTER significant tax hikes. We are headed for a debacle that will make 2009 look like the good old days. Our President and most Liberals don't seem to care or even acknowledge that it is coming.

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with the OP. All out war with Iran, that will surely keep gasoline prices low and stable! :D

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4373168]I see things a bit different. The economy under bush was solid for most of the two terms. The housing debacle was largely caused by government mandates on banks that forced them to lend to sub prime borrowers as part of a plan by government for social engineering. The deficit was under control prior to the housing bubble. Bush was a big government republican and as a result many fiscal conservatives like myself were disenfranchised by him and did not vote in 2006. [/QUOTE]

    Clearly Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were poor programs and setup the market for correction. But lets not forget that the crises also took the recklessness and incompetence of many banks and the poor regulatory mechanism the government. Banks, the regulatory system and fannie/freddie all contributed to this. There is plenty of blame to go around and I'm always frustrated a bit when I see many of your point of view leave out the other two big components of the meltdown and simply blame the housing programs. Many banks hedged everything on the assumption housing was always going to go up and so many people in positions of authority at those banking institutions did not even have the expertise/understanding of how badly they were leveraged until it all came crashing down. That's incompetence. For most businesses, that's that, and you go bankrupt and your employees lose their jobs. But for Wall Street to be so wrong and have so little regulation that they can all position themselves on one side of a colossal bet and tank hundreds of millions of people's savings with a huge market correction is too 'laissez faire' for me and, I believe, many other Americans.

    As for the economy being good under Bush, well, that really is quite debatable. Some would argue that it was quite good for those were already well off, and while there was much growth in that class, inflation and a rising costs gave the middle class less purchasing power over time over the course of his administration. I think when you consider that the gap between the rich and everyone else grew faster under him than any other President in a long time and consider his tax cuts that weren't paid for, one could make the argument that his economy was at best, really good for a small percentage of Americans and at worst, a mirage that got shattered '08.

    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4373168]You are giving Obama credit for the current anemic recovery. That's fine. But when you spend 5 trillion on stimulus over 3 years you should and could have expected more. Obama has given us two signature legislative accomplishments. Obamacare which is a disaster that is hated by over 60% of Americans and Stimulus one. Another debacle marred with crony capitalism and waste. Now he just put forth a budget that while raising taxes significantly does nothing to reduce spending or our current off the cliff trajectiory. It is a scandalous and spineless budget that has us sitting at 26trillion in debt within 10 years. Thats AFTER significant tax hikes. We are headed for a debacle that will make 2009 look like the good old days. Our President and most Liberals don't seem to care or even acknowledge that it is coming.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not really giving Obama credit for this economic 'recovery'. The economy is still far from being good. It has improved, and I believe the stimulus was not really a job creation program as much as a 'stop the bleeding measure'. It wasn't meant to climb us back up right away, but rather stop us from sinking anymore. And it accomplished that. And that 26 trillion number, is that a projection of what the deficit would be with the same rate of growth we have right now projected 10 years out? I'm just curious about the numbers.

    Clearly we need to cut spending, but I also think we need to raise revenue and still do targeted investments. Repealing the Bush tax cuts and cutting defense spending is a good start, but I'm also fully on board with cutting social programs as well. Compromise needs to happen. I disagree with you on the inevitability of the "make 2009 look like the good old days" economic future, but I'll definitely agree with the severity of the problem. We need growth and that's not all going to come from austerity measures. We'll also need to invest.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4373467]Clearly Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were poor programs and setup the market for correction. But lets not forget that the crises also took the recklessness and incompetence of many banks and the poor regulatory mechanism the government. Banks, the regulatory system and fannie/freddie all contributed to this. There is plenty of blame to go around and I'm always frustrated a bit when I see many of your point of view leave out the other two big components of the meltdown and simply blame the housing programs. Many banks hedged everything on the assumption housing was always going to go up and so many people in positions of authority at those banking institutions did not even have the expertise/understanding of how badly they were leveraged until it all came crashing down. That's incompetence. For most businesses, that's that, and you go bankrupt and your employees lose their jobs. But for Wall Street to be so wrong and have so little regulation that they can all position themselves on one side of a colossal bet and tank hundreds of millions of people's savings with a huge market correction is too 'laissez faire' for me and, I believe, many other Americans.

    As for the economy being good under Bush, well, that really is quite debatable. Some would argue that it was quite good for those were already well off, and while there was much growth in that class, inflation and a rising costs gave the middle class less purchasing power over time over the course of his administration. I think when you consider that the gap between the rich and everyone else grew faster under him than any other President in a long time and consider his tax cuts that weren't paid for, one could make the argument that his economy was at best, really good for a small percentage of Americans and at worst, a mirage that got shattered '08.



    I'm not really giving Obama credit for this economic 'recovery'. The economy is still far from being good. It has improved, and I believe the stimulus was not really a job creation program as much as a 'stop the bleeding measure'. It wasn't meant to climb us back up right away, but rather stop us from sinking anymore. And it accomplished that. And that 26 trillion number, is that a projection of what the deficit would be with the same rate of growth we have right now projected 10 years out? I'm just curious about the numbers.

    Clearly we need to cut spending, but I also think we need to raise revenue and still do targeted investments. Repealing the Bush tax cuts and cutting defense spending is a good start, but I'm also fully on board with cutting social programs as well. Compromise needs to happen. I disagree with you on the inevitability of the "make 2009 look like the good old days" economic future, but I'll definitely agree with the severity of the problem. [B]We need growth and that's not all going to come from austerity measures. We'll also need to invest.[/B][/QUOTE]

    No we need the government to get out of the way and let the free market do its job. Keep good regulations that are for safety and otherwise GTFO. As can be seen with the Volt, Solyndra, Fannie and Freddie and many others the government is not good at picking winners and losers in business. It seems like when they meddle it is a guarantee for wasted money and failure. Economies can not be planned they can just be supported or they break.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Chu to Congress: We’re not interested in lowering gas prices


    posted at 11:00 am on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    Hey, at least Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer. When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that they’re not focusing on that — and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push:


    “We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

    Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.

    He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.

    High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.

    “But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

    “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”

    The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chu’s comments:


    As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn’t come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. “What I’m doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.”

    One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren’t working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn’t bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren’t selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What’s the president’s next plan? Harvesting “a bunch of algae” as a replacement for oil.

    Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country’s oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president’s decision to say “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.

    And while Chu gave an honest answer that actually matches the actions taken by this administration, Heritage notes that Obama has offered nothing but double-talk on gas prices:


    Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritage’s Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said “yes” to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the president’s push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.

    [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/29/chu-to-congress-were-not-interested-in-lowering-gas-prices/[/url]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us