jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (181 posts)

Obama can keep the change!

  1. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 4 years ago

    For those of you who still believe Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, can lower the level of the oceans, is for the little guy, let's look at a few facts and not what NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and 81% of the newspapers in the country are trying to convince us of. If you can read you can easily find these simple truths for yourself. No need to take my word. I'll make it easy.  Here are my sources:

    U.S. Department of Energy, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau,  USDA,  U.S. Department of Labor,  Standard and Poor's, Wall Street Journal, FDIC, The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury.
    The following figures are a comparison between January of 2009 (Obama's Inauguration) and January 2012.

    2009 Average price of gas: $1.83
    2012 Average price of gas: $3.44     84% increase

    2009 Average barrel crude oil foriegn: $43.48
    2012 Average barrel crude oil foreign: $99.02     127% increase

    2009 Average barrel crude oil domestic: $38.74
    2012 Average barrel crude oil domestic: $91.38     140% increase

    2009 Average price corn per weight: $3.56
    2012 Average price corn per weight: $6.33     78% increase

    2009 Average price soybeans per weight: $9.66
    2012 Average price soybeans per weight: $13.75     42% increase

    2009 Actual Unemployment rate: 7.6%
    2012 Actual Unemployment rate: 9.4%         24% increase

    2009 Actual Unemployment rate blacks: 12.6%
    2012 Actual Unemployment rate blacks: 15.8%         25% increase

    2009 Number of unemployed: 11,616,000
    2012 Number of unemployed: 14,485,000     25% increase

    2009 Number of Federal employees: 2,779,000
    2012 Number of Federal employees: 2,840,000         3% increase

    2009 Food Stamp recipients: 31,983,000
    2012 Food Stamp recipients: 43,300,000     35% increase

    2009 Population below poverty level: 39,800,000
    2012 Population below poverty level: 43,600,000     9.5% increase

    2009 World economic freedom ranking: 5
    2012 World economic freedom ranking: 9

    2009 Real National debt: $10,627,000,000
    2012 Real National debt: $14,520,000,000     32% increase

    So there's your change.  How’s it working out for you?

    1. tom hellert profile image60
      tom hellertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      tob,
      REAL Numbers dont liea lthough you will get people who will claim "the reporting is skewed".in that case- i think the way the unemployment is now calculated the "obama way" cuts allot of the unemployed out....to make the numbers look better.
      TH

    2. prettynice profile image61
      prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Information like this cannot be taken at face value.

      Let me address the last item, National Debt, the last item, which states the U.S. National debt increased 32.2% during Obama’s presidential term. 

      This is what I learned:

      Comparing national debt over time is meaningless.  This comparison is similar to saying I made $3.00 an hour when I was 16, and now I make $25 an hour.   Or, my electric bill in 1980 was 50% less than it is now.  Meaningless, on it’s own.

      An indication of the health of the economy is the debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio, shown as a percentage.  A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts.

      In other words, it would be comparing my income in 1980 with my electric bill in 1980.  Or my income today with my electric bill today. 

      Debt to GDP is comparing apples to apples.  Comparing debt to debt over time is comparing apples to oranges.

      Below are the increase debt/GDP, in percentage points.  This data is from government sources. 

      YEARS            PRESIDENT                            INCREASE DEBT/GDP IN PERCENTAGE POINTS

      1989-1993    George Bush (REP)                          +13.0%
      1993-1997    Bill Clinton  (DEM)                              -0.7%
      1997-2001    Bill Clinton  (DEM)                              -9.0%
      2001-2005    George W. Bush   (REP)                     +7.1%
      2005-2009    George W. Bush    (REP)                    +20.7%
      2009-2011    Barack Obama   (DEM)                         +15.4%

      In effect, President Obama has improved the debt/GDP ratio.

      I have the data going back to 1941 and the ratio has INCREASED during every Republican administration.

      Remember – a lower percentage (ratio) indicates a healthier economy.

      1. prettynice profile image61
        prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb FOB increased a whopping 164% after 29 months of Obama.  This information is simply stunning!

        The world’s largest producer of sugar, from sugar cane, is Brazil at 719,157,000 tons in 2010.  The U.S. produced 27,000,000 tons.  The U.S. didn’t even make the list of top 10 producers. 

        What does President Obama have to do with the price of Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb FOB???

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good analysis.

          1. prettynice profile image61
            prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for your comments Ralph.

      2. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Debt to GDP is a typical false number that does not gauge anything. Now national debt growing has big value. It can only grow if you overspend more than you take in. If you do not overspend the debt does not grow no matter what the GDP is.

        1. prettynice profile image61
          prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the indicators of the health of an economy. It is the amount of national debt of a country as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts.

    3. prettynice profile image61
      prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      STATS:
      2009 Average price of gas: $1.83
      2012 Average price of gas: $3.44     84% increase
      * * * * *
      June 2008 (G. Bush term) avg price of gas was $4.115 (source:  BLS)

      However, it is simply not accurate to say a President is responsible for the price of gas.  This "FACT" is misleading, on its' own.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        HEY PN,

        I wonder why you do not show the real facts behind the gas price under Bush?? Why, because it will reveal the President can do something about fuel prices and it will expose Obama as the failure he is. Gas was only over $4 per gallon for only a few months under Bush. He made a policy change and in six months the price fell to $ 1.73 per gallon. FACT from the same BLS report you cited. Why not tell ALL of the story ?????

        1. prettynice profile image61
          prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          2008, by month:
          3.096 3.0833.307 3.491 3.813 4.115  4.142 3.838 3.749 3.225 2.208 1.742

          AV - do you honestly believe that the "laundry list" posted is relevant on it's own?

      2. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Unless of course its a Republican President then its all his fault. roll

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But, it's Romney saying it's Obama's fault....
          Isn't he a Republican, and isn't Obama a Democratic president?

          Your logic fails.

          RMoney, the flim-flam man. And his merry band of snaggletooths.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Romney is prevaricating if he tries to blame Obama for the price of gasoline. He knows better.

    4. prettynice profile image61
      prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Price of Corn, No. 2 yellow, Central IL,
      Jan 2009 - 3.56
      Today- 6.33
      78% increase after 29 months of Obama.
      - - - - - -
      Interesting factoid:  Price was over $7.00 per bushel in May 2008 during the Bush admin.

      Similar stats re soybeans.  Price of corn / soybeans is dependent on many factors, including supply and demand, weather, etc.  The mild winter of 2012 will affect future prices as well.

      The price of corn / soybeans irrelevant in this respect.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        WOW Good thing we have PN to show us how bad the prices were under Bush, how Bush policies had those prices go down until Obama took office and notice how the went up again under Obama only Obama policies are contributing to it.

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You must believe that President Obama's magical ability exceeds that of Moses parting the Red Sea in order to attribute the above changes to him.

      1. prettynice profile image61
        prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly!  They give President Obama far too much credit!

    6. Paul Wingert profile image81
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To tobey100 - Obama will still get my vote. Your useless laundry list of figures do not pertain. For instance, the president has no control over the price of gasm crude, corn. Any 9th grader can tell you that oil is a commodity and price is dictated by supply and demand and the stock market. You did pass 8th grade, right?. Yes more people are on food stamps because we were in a major resession when Obama too office if you remember. We always ranked below Sweden and Holand in personal freedoms.

      1. prettynice profile image61
        prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said Paul.  It's amazing how many people actually believe this garbage.  Hopefully they are too stupid to vote!

    7. MichaelGallinger profile image60
      MichaelGallingerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama = One of the worst things that happened to the US

    8. Wayne Brown profile image87
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would suggest that "prettynice" go back and look at the out-control-spending efforts of a domcrat dominated Congress that was in place for the last two years of the Bush Administration before declaring that Obama has improved the debt/GDP ratio.  Those two years are simply and extension of what has been in place since 2008 with Obama but really reaches back to into the two prior years before his election.  The relevance of the debt is "what it is now"...it is not what you owed but what you owe and we owe more than we ever have. We are on the edge of the debt exceeding the GDP and reaching beyond.  There are no other mechanisms to halt to direction except to gain control of spending at the federal level. WB

      1. prettynice profile image61
        prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I did my research. 

        Tobey's "scorecard" required no research.  How easy to pick and choose numbers from government sources.  Sugarcane?  Really???

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You researched nothing, if you did you would not be citing reports that make you guy look bad

          1. prettynice profile image61
            prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My data does not show President Obama in a bad light.  Perhaps you should go back to school for reading and comprehension.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              PN,

              You are new here and well time to school the new boy, or lady since I do not know who you are(wink wink). Since you do not know me, I will be gentle at first. I yield to you. Pick something, anything, show me how great by legitimate numbers how great Obama is. No bloggers, no opinions, show me numbers and actual reports.

              1. prettynice profile image61
                prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am not defending President Obama.  Or the facts on the laundry list, But, please answer one question:  What did the President do to cause a 164% increase in the price of Cane sugar?

                1. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Through the Presidents green energy initiative and started under Bush, Bio fuels are an important move in green energy along with solar and wind. But like solar and wind, the technologies were not ready. Many years of research was needed to make . Everyone knows that Corn and pure cane sugar are the biggest part of the formulas. So the US bought much of the corn, which lead to a shortage of corn and rising prices. Since Brazil is the worlds biggest Sugar cane grower, the US put a trade deal in place to purchase the majority of the sugar. Of course that put sugar supplies down, which in turn drove up sugar prices over 164%. Instead of jumping into production and destroying the world supply of the food supply, perhaps we should have bought much less, developed a solid performing BIO Fuel first, one that would meet the demand, gear up a stronger world supply of sugar before we did the trade deal so as to ensure no disruption in the food supply and therefore no shortages that create higher prices.

                  Now do you see what was done wrong and how it could have been prevented form happening in the first place. Presidents actions carry a huge weight, regulations will drive prices up, taxes drive things up, drilling would drop the oil prices. Do not underestimate the actions of any President.

                  1. prettynice profile image61
                    prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

                    Quill???

    9. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He doesn’t want the change, he wants the folding kind…all of it…well not all,

      just yours.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Riiiight, that's why lil ole me got a tax cut....didn't you?

    10. William R. Wilson profile image59
      William R. Wilsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Go back to 2008 and look at the price of gas.

      Not sure about unemployment in 2008, but I do know that we stopped losing jobs as fast once Obama got into office.

      1. tom hellert profile image60
        tom hellertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        AR/Tobey those numbers are too complicated for many of the idiomamalogs on HP- the pablum that flows from barrys mouth is all part of the "magic Baracko" gravy train. where skin in the game means dems grease your palm.  All you need to give him is your vote and soul- NO ID NO BRAINS REQUIRED . those with freewill and cogent thoughts need not apply... The same suckers uninformed voters will get suckered again by his messiah like reverb big stage presence and non-stop socialist lies  put on your hipwaders becuse its gonna get deep-fast once the Gop picks a taret for barry...
        TH

        1. tom hellert profile image60
          tom hellertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Obamanomics fantasy continues... The president’s budget budget numbers are based upon typical liberal vodoo economic (lies I mean) assumptions that the economy will grow under policies that are in no way business freindly AKA "RAISE THEM TAXES". In the blue label fantasy land of the left the economy will grow in real terms, 3.6 percent in 2012 and 4.4 percent in 2013.BUT that does not account for the tax rate growth that lil barry is going to raise The above referennced rate/growth rate alone is at a much faster incline than CBO or private economists forecast, and nearly a quarter point faster than the economy has grown coming out of the last five recessions. The president also projects a dramatic decline in unemployment (not actually impossible based on the way Obama is now calculating the unemployment). Even though people are not working they get dropped of the UE numbers. Cook the books like Barry you to can have the numbers wherever you want
          Whis jerrymandered jobless rate dropping to 6.3 percent in 2014 and then falling to just 5.3 percent in 2017 and beyond and PIGS START FLYING. Maybe, but not likely, especially given the impact of the administration’s proposed MASSIVE tax increases and the looming implementation of Obamacare -Fat chance ON ANY GROWTH. Speaking of "the jammed down or throats reconcilliation style"  Obamacare, the administration continues to insist that the new health-care law will reduce the deficit (ecause thats what massive democrat-govt policies always do by nearly $200 billion, when an accurate accounting suggests that it will actually INCREASE the deficit by as much as $823 billion. Savings my buttocks....

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wow, Tom sure does seem angry. That's probably because reality isn't matching his narrative and it's making him nervous. Nothing he said above--nothing--is true in reality, and his conclusions re based on the (false) assumption that lower taxes always result in growth and higher taxes always result in a downturn. Look at tax rates and growth rates over the course of the past 100 years and you'll see that everything in Tom's post above is at best a faulty conclusion and at worst really really dumb.

    11. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's beyond ridiculous to blame Obama for gas prices, just like it was with Bush.  However, Obama is continuing the imperial wars.  He also has not pushed heavily enough for progressive taxation and emissions to regulate CO2.  His endorsement of the Simpson/Bowles plan is indefensible. 

      There has also not been fundamental education reform to get America away from standardized testing.  He is better on gay rights, and doesn't openly endorse torture.  He also pushed for SOMETHING to change the health care system in the United States, which is better than what we previously had.  It wasn't universal health care though.

    12. prettynice profile image61
      prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      factcheck.org did the research for a "scorecard" very similar to the one posted at this site.  Here is the link:

      http://factcheck.org/2011/02/sorry-statistics/

      In part:

      Major Omissions

      The e-mail author omits other economic statistics that would put Obama’s tenure in a more favorable light. For example, he or she makes no mention of the following:
      ■Obama inherited the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It began in December 2007 and ended a few months after Obama took office, in June 2009, according to economists who make up the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
      ■The stock market has roared back since Obama took office. The S&P 500 Index increased nearly 59 percent — rising from 805.22 on Jan. 20, 2009, to 1,280.26 two years later. (The American Thinker article mentioned big increases in the S&P 500 and in other stock-market indicators as well, but the author of the viral e-mail omitted them.)
      ■A total of 4.4 million jobs had been lost before Obama took office, including 820,000 the month he was sworn in. And although employment continued to slide after the economy bottomed out, and has been agonizingly slow to recover, more than 1 million jobs have been added since payrolls hit their low point early last year.

  2. EmpressFelicity profile image85
    EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago

    I think you need to add another three zeros to the national debt figures.

    I'm not an Obama-phile (I think *all* politicians are basically the same, and those who don't fit into a particular mould don't tend to get into the "top" positions). But I do think a lot of the things you've given here are beyond the control of any individual country's president/PM.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, 3 more on both figures

    2. 68
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He takes credit when things get better, so I'm guessing he'd better take the blame when things go bad.  Bush was blamed for everything when he was in office, and actually there are many that still blame him for everything. So it's only "fair" that Obama gets blamed for the bad things that happen while he's in office don't you think?

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry..but Bush was handed a cadillac, Obama was handed a clunker.

        It's apples and oranges, as pizza-man says.

        1. tobey100 profile image61
          tobey100posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The point of what Obama was handed is a joke.  He made it ten times worse.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol There are plenty of things to complain about that Obama is actually to blame for. I don't know why his opponents don't focus on those instead of pretending that anything that is going well in the world is doing so in spite of  Obama's policies, and everything that's going wrong is because of them. roll

          2. prettynice profile image61
            prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Tobey,

            Clinton inherited a Fed deficit of 290.3 billion.  He left office with a surplus of 236.2 billion.

            After two terms, Bush left a 1.2 Trillion deficit.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Clinton did not leave with a surplus, that is a bogus number even exposed by the CBO and the GOA

              1. prettynice profile image61
                prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LMAO

              2. 0
                Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                AV, do you ever get the feeling you'd be better off talking to a wall than to try to reason with some people here on HP?

                1. prettynice profile image61
                  prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

                  A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


                  FULL ANSWER

                  This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

                  The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

                  Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You can have all the facts in the world, NP, but when you're this far in the tank for the Dems, it's all completely lost in your presentation.

                    Also, you're conveniently forgetting the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP. That's what kept Clinton in check.

                  2. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    NP,

                    You are only part of the way there and I want you to know you are the first and only person on the left that admits Clinton added SS as income which of course we all know it is not. It has been brought up here time and again and the left always denies that fact.  But you left out the Federal Pension Plans. See Clinton added what the government paid into all the benefits funds as income, not as an expenditure. That with the SS is how he showed a phony surplus. Ask yourself this, If Clinton ran the surpluses he claims he ran, then why would the national debt go up? See if the budget is balanced, the debt does not rise. But if there is a budget shortfall, the national debt grows. I know if you research further you will find the National debt grew every year under Clinton. Some years very little, but it grew just the same

                2. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Long,

                  I wonder why people think they can fool us. Like being suspended under their real name then showing up back in forums with another name

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "I wonder why people think they can fool us."

                    People think they can fool you because you have been fooled. You love to trumpet the fact that you've been fooled all over the place. You seem to be proud of having been fooled.

                    But the funny part is, you weren't fooled by the people you think are trying to fool you.

              3. prettynice profile image61
                prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                AV you wrote:  Clinton did not leave with a surplus, that is a bogus number even exposed by the CBO and the GOA


                Show me, cite it.  No opinions, no editorials, just show me where the CBO and GOA deny the surplus.  Show me.

                1. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  From the USA Today, a report on the audit showing the deficit

                  "Surplus or deficit?

                  Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.

                  The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion."

                  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … usat_x.htm

                  1. prettynice profile image61
                    prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Otay AV, I read the opinion article by Dennis Cauchon, Aug 4, 2006, in USA Today.  It explains the dual accounting methods (accrual vs cash) used by government and businesses.  Does this mean that that Cash accounting is used by Democrats and Accrual accounting is used by Republicans?

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this


                    Howdy AV. I hope you are doing well. It is nice to chat with you again.

                    Now if I were the referee, AV, I would have to call a foul! The 2006 article in USA Today hardly proves Clinton’s budget performance numbers are invalid. I am sorry to say it is not the CBO and the GOA reports you said would expose these numbers as “bogus.”

                    This article is nothing but meaningless babble about accounting methodology. It offers a useless argument for throwing away the yardstick everybody has been using. Actually, the so-called “audited” numbers weren’t audited numbers at all. Combining the budget performance amounts with other projections and estimates not used for compiling the operating budget results in another perspective, not one to be confused with the actual operating surplus. Besides, Social Security and Medicare do not belong in the operating budget because they are not Government expenditures. Repaying loans borrowed from the very solvent Social Security trust fund is not an operating budget expense item; it is the reduction of a liability and part of the Capital Budget as any bookkeeper familiar with accrual accounting methods will tell you. At this time, the only obligation the Federal Government owes toward the Social Security program is the repaying of money it borrowed. It is also a step toward reducing the total deficit.

                    Suppose, just suppose, we buy into this smoke and mirror argument the way you seem to. If Clinton’s $559 Billion surplus is really a $484 Billion deficit then that would make the $3.544 Trillion in deficits accumulated during the Bush reign equal to, what, $9 trillion? Should we now compare Clinton’s fictitious $484 billion to Bush’s imaginary $9 trillion deficit? As I see it, it doesn’t matter what measure is used when making the comparison so long as everyone uses the same one.

                    I’m looking forward, my friend, to reading the CBO and GOA data exposing Clinton’s surplus as “bogus.”

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image85
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think blaming either Bush or Obama for many of the figures in the OP would be like blaming my cats for changes in the weather.

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

    Ron Paul is REAL change that I can believe in.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry--looks like he's Romneys boy now.

      Geuss he'll have to equivocate on the NDAA.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ron Paul openly disagrees with Romney.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but it is odd how he makes an attack ad calling Santorum a fake, and let's Mitt slide on his fakeness.

          Just something that seemed odd. Becaue the first thing I thought was: how is Rick fake, and not Mitt?

          I just don't trust Ron Paul.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Who can you trust? He's been consistent for 30 years.

            Obama, your master, has been inconsistent for his whole career.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, consistantly anti-woman. Don't trust that type of dude. Ever.
              And that label goes for everyone who seeks to control a womans life.

              Gvt controlling religion?
              No--the problem is religion controlling gvt.

        2. Paul Wingert profile image81
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Ron Paul openly disagrees with Romney." And 90% of the country dissagress with Ron Paul.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LMAO

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Give it a rest.
    Our whole problem is 30 years of greedy policies, and the fact that the greedsters block every attempty to correct them.

    You're not fooling anyone.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's a bitch being POTUS. I always blame Congress not the president. He can veto but sometimes that doesn't change the Congress' vote in the long run. So the power greedy on both sides of the aisle are to blame.

      It's really ashame that the world lives in a constant state of fear over one thing or another, most of it propagated by the holy trinity of politics/media/legal.

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Our oil supply is NOT down. We have drilling going on everywhere. AND lower demand. The ONLY reason gas is rising is WALL ST speculators!"

  5. Shanna11 profile image90
    Shanna11posted 4 years ago

    First-- I'm confused as to how the price of foreign oil rising is Obama's fault... wouldn't that be most likely OPEC's doing?

    Secondly-- people attribute too much power to the President. He's limited in a lot of things he can do, and in reality, you'd be surprised by how little actual power the constitution gives to the President versus congress. Really it's not very fair to blame all the problems on one person.

    1. tom hellert profile image60
      tom hellertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      With the US "deciding" not to drill opec has no reason to lower their price-
      supply n demand-if US has only one supply----> Opec our demand grows only to OPEC- so does the price sincerises from OPEC, the US now has no other sources our own oil now off limits everywhere due to BO and he wont allow a pipeline to Canada...so if you arent solving the problem you are PART OF IT......
      TH

      1. Shanna11 profile image90
        Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the information/viewpoint.

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Domestic Oil Production Has Soared Under President Obama | The number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. hit a record last week, having quadrupled in number over the past three years. Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the U.S. now has more rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. The current oil boom has buoyed the projections of some leading oil industry analysts:


        “It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Be honest, the increase in drilling is because of the permits and leases approved by Bush and now are online.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I seem to remember back in the Bushco days, when the Dems in Congress held a big sheet, with the words "Release the Oil" on it....methinks that Obama released that oil, after ElBushbo wouldn't.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Strategic reserves does nothing for dropping the price of oil. I know you know better than that

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OPEC could just as easily cut production to keep the price up.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They tried that, but then one country was like "screw this, I can make billions if I stop increasing prices"

      4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The US has not decided "not to drill." Why would you say that?

        U.S. oil production:

        http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=88

        Correcting the misinformation in forum comments would be a full-time job for a bunch of people.

    2. Terri Meredith profile image92
      Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well some of that "limited" power has been circumnavigated by a little thing called "Executive Order".  There have certainly been a fair share of abuses by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

      1. Shanna11 profile image90
        Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh easily, I would definitely agree with that. No one side is guilty of all! And Executive Orders are a sticky thing-- they can easily go to Court, and if they're too radical for the American publicl, well.... the President just shot his hopes for getting re-elected.

  6. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "Let’s start here: In December 2011, impervious to dire consequences for the global economy, the U.S. Congress -- under all the usual pressures from the Israel lobby (not that it needs them) -- foisted a mandatory sanctions package on the Obama administration (100 to 0 in the Senate and with only 12 “no” votes in the House). Starting in June, the U.S. will have to sanction any third-country banks and companies dealing with Iran’s Central Bank, which is meant to cripple that country’s oil sales.  (Congress did allow for some “exemptions.”)"

    "Iran has halted oil shipments to Britain and France, as retaliatory measure against fresh EU sanctions levied against the Middle East nation."

    1. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama was the best choice in 2008 and without a doubt he is the best choice in 2012. I don't know why the best and the brightest in the republican party refused to run in 2008 and also 2012. Maybe it is because ovious true lies and hogwash had to be told and repeated by weaker candidates willing make fools of themselves. A change is gonna come and change so far has been good, inspite of the far right wingnuts .

  7. Xenonlit profile image61
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    Now that we know how Russia's Nashi Youth group has been playing dirty counter protest propaganda tricks,I'm wondering how may people are paid by the Koch Brothers, the corporations, and the Republicans to write pro right wing propaganda.

    Where are the jobs, Republicans?

    1. 68
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ask Obama, he and his party had control of both houses of congress and the presidency, at the start of his term.  All they could come up with is the socialistic program called Obamacare.

      1. junko profile image79
        junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, commonsense inspite of the blue and yellow dog democrats that were and are in the house and senate he got healthcare and financial established. I got to admit, it was by the hair of his chiny chin chin. He got A lot established but the far right pulled the emergency brakes on the economy. " Take the President credit card" I think he did many more positive things than you mentioned, but that's just me.

        1. junko profile image79
          junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Healthcare and Financial Reform was established)

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Man--you have a short memory!

        Do you recall the Filibuster?

        Used more than any time in history?

        Do you remember the goal of the GOP was to derail Obama in any way possible?

        Filibuster....Filibuster.....Filibuster. Then blame him for being a "do nothing".

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Filibuster is a liberal tool and you know it. When the Repubs started to use it against the Dems, the Dems came up with the nuclear option. Dems love to change the game and shut everyone else out

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Shut everyone else out" is Kasich banging the gavel--he made it official.....good thing ole LMC likes C-Span, and saw it.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Glad you saw it to. Of course you forgot to mention the Dems were already using that tactic and did not like when it got shoved in their face.  I wonder how you manage to see everything on CSPAN 1,2,3, Rush, all the MSNBC shows, ALL the Fox shows everyday. Every time something is said or heard you saw or heard it live as it happened.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Government/Politicians cannot create jobs, so asking where are the jobs is ridiculous. Government/Politicians can only create the environment where business feels confident enough to create jobs. So far democrats have proven they hate business.

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "Obamacare" is capitalist, run by private insurance companies for private profit. It is corporate socialist fascism when government by law forces
    the purchase privately owned insurance.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with having the forced bit....we do it with car insurance, and IF you can  afford Comp, it's worth it.

      But I also agree--we need to get profit OUT. Make it single payer. Universal. Medicare for all.

  9. 60
    Ahmari rutherfordposted 4 years ago

    Good

  10. JBBlack profile image60
    JBBlackposted 4 years ago

    The price of gas and crude oil has to do with the stock market and commodities trading.  I remember paying almost $5 a gallon in the summer of 2005.  Where was the market at in 2009?  I can't say exactly, but somewhere near the toilet.  Now that the market is up by 13,000, gas prices rise with the strength of the market.  That bit is invalid, along with all the other commodities in the list.  The unemployment data reflects the extensions of the unemployment benefits.  I don't exactly like the benefit extensions, but I probably would if I was one of the people in that situation.  The unemployment rate is on its way down so you won't be able to cling to that forever.  Besides, without the extensions, the numbers would be much smaller.  The federal government is still less than 1% of the population, doens't seem so awful considering the task at hand.  The bit about food stamps is troubling, but not as troubling as those people not having enough to eat.  I'm willing to buy these people lunch, because I don't see a charitible infrastructure in place to handle that.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice answer.

  11. 0
    Longhunterposted 4 years ago

    All these number are important and telling.

    Other important numbers will be the ones needed to control the House and Senate. Then we'll be able to control Obama if he's reelected.

    Then there's the next set of important numbers: how many will vote FOR articles of impeachment and throw this bum out before he does even more damage.

    As for oil and gas prices, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the OPECers and the problems going on with Iran. Obama could allow more drilling here but actually effecting the numbers at the pump would be little and slow in coming. Perhaps if we would aggressively go after our own oil, we could one day tell the OPECers where to stick theirs.

    Oh, wouldn't you love to see the look on the OPECers faces when they're selling their oil for $15 a barrel and the gold Mercedes for lunch money?

    1. tobey100 profile image61
      tobey100posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My greatest wish is for the Arab nations to apply for U.S. Foreign Aid!

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Apply, hell many are getting it

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "All these number are important and telling."
      The numbers are important and telling, but it's also true that they're not the only important and telling numbers. For example, this set of numbers makes no distinction between new policies of the Obama administration, and legacy obligations from the last guy.

      This blog post on the Washington Post's site paints rather a different picture.

      This video takes a long-view analysis and concludes that the Obama-era stimulus package seems to have actually managed to turn the economy back in the direction of sustainable growth.

      Like the old adage says, figures don't lie, but liars figure.

      "Then there's the next set of important numbers: how many will vote FOR articles of impeachment and throw this bum out before he does even more damage."
      Just out of curiosity, what charge would you impeach Obama on?
      Serious question, friendly voice.

      "As for oil and gas prices, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the OPECers and the problems going on with Iran."
      Indeed, but Iran's crankiness has its roots in early 20th Century European colonialism and more recent US interventionism. It's not terribly honest to dismiss Iran as a nation of belligerent cranks--there are reasons Iran is angry, and some of those reasons are, well, reasonable.

      "Obama could allow more drilling here but actually effecting the numbers at the pump would be little and slow in coming."
      True--oil company execs have said as much. Also, speculators have more effect on the prices of oil than domestic drilling would.

      "Perhaps if we would aggressively go after our own oil, we could one day tell the OPECers where to stick theirs."
      Or, if we'd gather the political will to finance a Manhattan-project level of research on sustainable/renewable energy (since energy is, after all, a national security issue) we'd be able to tell OPEC, sorry, guys, we don't need your oil anymore. You wanna buy some of our energy tech?

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well done, Jeff.  You extend a candle to so many who prefer the darkness.

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          roll

  12. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    http://townhall.com/video/comparison-ga … bush-obama

    Same thing happened under Bush.....it's the speculators to blame.

    NO new federal taxes have been added to gas under Obama.

    And who is causing the problem with Iran and why? Ask AIPAC.

    And Obama is drilling more here now than Buscho did..and going for nuclear, alternative, natural gas fracking even...

    Your facts are off by a mile.


    And we long ago gave Arab nations foreign aid. OPEC. Reagan.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just curious. How much are you paying for gas where you live, LMC? It's probably more than I'm paying here - $3.50.

      No motive. Just wondering.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Depends on the gas station. Yesterday, I paid $3.64.

        But....30 miles up, it was $3.53.

        I understand that down here, they don't get the volume, and must make up for it by charging more...I do understand that.

        What I don't get is how some stations charge more or less in the same area?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In my area it's been fluctuating between about $3.19 and about $3.60, again, depending on location.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The fluctuating may be due to the taxes in different counties.

            Gas is typically .25 more in the county my parents live than where I live due to a county tax on gas.

    2. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why is it suddenly LMC is using Bush as an ecuse."oh it happened under Bush so its OK for Obama too" What part of history do you not get??? I do not give a rats a** why the price of gas went up over $4 under Bush. All I cared about was once it there, he acted and in 6 months gas dropped to $1.73 per gallon. DROPPED !!!! What has Obama done................................. That's right , NOTHING!!!!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How did Bush "act" to reduce the price of gas? The truth is that he had nothing to do with the price going up or down. The price of oil is determined by world market forces. Bush (and Obama)can do little to affect the price of gasoline. The only thing Congress and the president could do to affect the price of gasoline would be to increase or decrease the gasoline tax.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph,

          I suggest you read my article on how a President can influence gas prices. From the article:

          "President Obama’s next move also raised gas process. Obama rescinded the Executive Order of President Bush allowing for more drilling and leases. Obama said that those leases and drillings would have no effect on future supplies. How wrong can he be, let me count the ways. During President Bush’s term, gas went up and down. There was several issue that drove prices up. Numerous natural disasters in the gulf, Florida coastline, wars in the Middle East. But overall it was stable, until 2007. Gas began to flirt with $ 3 per gallon, go above, come down, but it held there till late 2007, then the march to $4 began. June 2, 2008 we arrived at $ 4.02 per gallon, it fluctuated there and continued to climb. President Bush realized we needed to increase domestic resources in order to get away from the unstable world crude market. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted an executiveorder to allow for more drilling and approving of more leases. On August 4, 2008, gas dipped below $4 per gallon and continued to dive to the low price of $ 1.89 on the day Obama took office. One action by President Bush dropped gas prices $ 2.13 per gallon in six (6) months."

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As I pointed our earlier oil production has been increasing under President Obama. There are plenty of government oil drilling leases that aren't even being used.
            Moreover, please explain why it's to our advantage to use up our domestic oil reserves only to become dependent on oil from the Middle East? Why not save our oil and let Saudi Arabia drain its pool of low cost oil? Anyway the price of gasoline in the U.S. is dependent on the world price of oil and refining capacity in the United States, both of which are beyond the control of the President.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Here's a good piece on oil and coal and natural gas subsidies:

              "What possible reason is there for giving Exxon the odd billion in extra breaks? Year after year the company sets record for money-making—last year it managed to rake in a mere $41 billion in profit, just failing to break its own 2008 all-time mark of $45 billion."

              http://www.thenation.com/article/167228 … mailNation

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because the GOP is looking to bring Bush policies back....but worse. Doubled-Up, on steroids.

        Don't kid yourself. Supreme Court...2 members attend Koch summits. How is this in line with a Republic? more like a Republicorp.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LMC,

          Always bring back what works. Show me something Obama did that worked and you can bring him back, but nothing has and he has not answered the question what will he do different that will make things better. We already know all the wrong moves he will make if he gets reelected.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/425617_10150620453231275_177486166274_9597769_1068843922_n.jpg

          2. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Everything he's been allowed to do has worked. We just need more of it! Sayonara party of No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

            deep breathe.......

            No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no .......2012 yet? Not yet?? okay.......

            No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

            China is eating our lunch on renewable energy. And high-speed rail.

            And mr Oilman Koch has been in the courts for a decade to stop the wind farm off Nantucket Sound. See--the dude claims to hate American gvt, but he sure uses its court system to help him out! Meanwhile, people are dying of cancer near HIS operations! (Koch Bros Exposed)

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No really, who tabled 2700 bills in the last Congress. Why that would be Harry Ried. Please get off the obstruction kick, it is such old stale BS. Like i said, you could not show me one thing that worked. Wonder what twist she will come back with now

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I told you....EVERYTHING worked! Without the party of No, we would be so far better!!
                Because we could have gone all-out. But since this Cult determined to ruin a president, we got but a smidgeon of what we deserve.

                No worries. No matter what....it's all under control. I have faith!

                Talibangelists and greed-balls do not get to own America. Sorry. Try another planet wink

          3. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi again, AV. I have one more point if I may.

            It is funny to see you use almost the same words last July in a challenge to LMC. At that time, you said…
            As I recall you, you rejected the government reports offered to you then because they did not conform to your perception of reality.

            So, may I submit the following for your consideration?

            1. While job creation and real estate values continue to plague the economy, The United States is better off than most of the other industrialized nations. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from 8,000 on Jan. 30, 2009, following President Obama’s inauguration, to 13,074 on 04/04/2012. This tells me investors’ equity and big business have appreciated 63% during the last three and one half years. More significant, however, the economy has turned around for everyone except working class Americans who are still struggling with stagnant wages and no new job creation in the business sector.

            2. As for government policy under the current administration, please read Why TARP has been a success story by Robert J. Samuelson. It was published about a year ago by The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html
            You have to be open to looking beyond all the TARP shortcomings to see the successes. 

            As you know, I never claimed this President is the greatest thing since peanut butter and jelly in the same jar. But to say “show me something Obama did that worked” suggests the need to expand your news sources.

            So, I offer you just two examples in answer to your challenge to LMC, not to change your reality or to attack your perception of President Obama’s administration, but rather to demonstrate that a large segment of the American electorate totally disagrees with you.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Quill,

              Long time not to hear from you my friend. I hope all is well with you.

              Unfortunatly as you point out, the challenge to LMC is the same for one reason and one reason only, nothing has changed, nothing has worked.
              If you recall then I told you that unemployment would go down because the election was coming and they would find more ways to not count unemployed people. My prediction held true. Back then Obama was not counting about 400,000 people in the unemployment report, not that number is close to 3 million people. Nothing has changed, those people are still on and collecting unemployment, just Obama chooses to not count them to bring unemployment down. Also and not to be picky about BS numbers this administration likes to toss around, but how much did you buy into the “we have had job growth for over 25 months” story? Did you go hook line and sinker like all the other “large segment of the American electorate”? According to the BLS, in 2010, Jan, Feb, June, July, Aug, Sept were all months where we LOST jobs, had a negative job growth. Do I need to show 2011, not really, we are well within the time frame of the claim od growth. And why is it in June 2010 we lost 200,000 jobs and unemployment did not go up(remember my complaint to you back then as to why did the unemployment not rise)  and yet in January 2011 we add 19,000 new jobs and unemployment dropped 4 tenths of 1 percent. Ad you wonder why I find fault with the reports. I cannot take things at face value, I have no faith in them. See I have questions, and that really screws up the faith thing, so I do the research into the real numbers.
              As for the stock market, I can point out to you that it was highest under Bush at over 14,000 but what does that prove? Nothing. Of course Wall Street is a good investment, they cut to the core, made business leaner, doing the same productivity with tens of millions less employees, so profits are up as expenses are down, dividends and portfolios look well. Why should that surprise anyone, I mean other than the tens of millions who lost their jobs and cannot find anything, who lost their homes and more. Yea I am sure the economy has been a real joy for them and their portfolios.
              I have read the OPINION article as that is where it is placed because that is Mr. Samuelson’s opinion. Of course much has changed since then and the CBO has had several studies since then as the true cost of the Tarp Program and while I could not find it I will and present you the link to read. At last report, the CBO put the cost of TARP over the money allocated for TARP. In other words we lost more than we were even suppose to spend in the first place. All the publicized failures within TARP that were not know at the time of the article, happened after the article and continue to happen would I imagine have a different outlook on what Samuelson wrote. Just like the Auto bailout Obama loves to cling to. Well it turns out later of course it was not needed, GM was going to be bought out by Ford, you know, the company that did not take one penny of bailout money. GM was going to be saved anyway, net result, we lost taxpayer dollars.

              So indeed you offer two examples, but we are still at the same question, what has Obama done, answer is still nothing. This is not a perception, it is a fact. A perception is LMC response "everything" or maybe perception is not the right word, fantasy land might fit better

  13. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/544459_10150645461061275_406173233_n.jpg

    1. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Please cite the subsidy, show us the actual bill they all voted on

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's called the "depletion allowance." Look it up.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Show it, cite it.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Call it for what it is, depreciation, just like any other business can take. And do not sit there and say "oh only the oil companies do that" Please, you here about big companies taking depreciation charge offs all the time for hundreds of percents over the original investment. Sorry, you still have not shown a SUBSIDY yet. You do know the difference between a subsidy and a tax break? Depreciation is a tax break, funds given to Solyndra, now that is a subsidy.

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                AV, All I can find for a budgetary funding amount for FY 2013 for all fishery research is is $372,000

                http://appropriations.house.gov/Uploade … 120328.pdf

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Call it what you will. The oil companies don't need a depletion allowance or a tax break or loophole. Exxon-Mobil is probably the most profitable company in the history of the world. Coal mining companies or gold mining companies don't get a depletion allowance. The oil company depletion allowance is unique to the oil industry.

  14. Eric Newland profile image59
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    I guess that if Obama has that control over the problems listed here it doesn't really matter whether he's voted out or not, does it?

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Somehow, I don't think Tobey did it wink

    lots of e-mail BO bashing sites around.

    1. prettynice profile image61
      prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I know . . . I was talking in shorthand

    2. prettynice profile image61
      prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But he BELIEVES it!!!

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, he does, and they do.

        And they'll say you are a sheeple if you don't.

  16. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    I'll never forget the one I got....

    "My Fellow Ammuricans!!! Did you know that Obama is a racist who hates his own mother and grandparents?

    It's true! Professor Glenn Beck told us on his show!

    And, he cried.....Ohhhh, *sniffle* *sniffle*....such a Patriot!

    Now we told you once before that Obama would love to pour gasoline down your throats!

    Our sister Michelle Malkin now reveals the truth!

    Obama is pouring gasoline on the George Zimmerman self-defense shooting by  saying the hoodlum looks like him!

    Please pass it on quickly! The future of your country depends on it!!

    As we know--Obama is a socialist, a socialist, as Sarah Palin told you this morning on the Liberal NBC network!"

  17. pisean282311 profile image58
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    @ts obama is lousy...republicans would have doubled debt by now and inflation would have gone sky high....obama must be fired for being so slow...

  18. 0
    Longhunterposted 4 years ago

    When it comes to the price of gas, IMHO, it's ludicrous to blame Obama or Bush for high gas prices. The only way they could really effect the lowering of the price at the pump is to drill here now. But, even then, the change would only be seen over time. We might see a small dip but I think it would be short lived.

    Until we kick drilling for oil here into high gear, we're at the mercy of the OPECers. That won't happen until we have a person in the White House who either isn't Obama and will allow drilling here on a much larger scale or someone who will tell the environmental weinies are told to go hug a tree.

    In turn, the oil companies must be held accountable for making sure their facilities are safe for the environment so things like the BP mess doesn't happen again.

    Again, JMHO.

    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you about blame, LH and I respect your opinion about oil, but it's shortsighted because oil continues to pollute the planet—especially with better options like natural gas and incentives/rewards for higher efficiency in our cars and products.

      I recall your side kicking and screaming about making cars more fuel efficient just ten years ago and now Detroit has achieved those goals and is finally starting to compete with foreign auto makers.

      Even Bush agreed that "it was time to kick our dependence on oil."

      https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/552184_10150626562926275_177486166274_9622288_490196226_n.jpg

      https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/422006_10150619308141275_177486166274_9592635_1940642417_n.jpg

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't have a problem with the search for alternative energy, Wizard. Lets just be realistic about it and stop throwing millions of dollars at companies that soon go belly up. Lets get the oil we have here while at the same time search for REAL alternatives.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          An exaggeration, LH. Solyndra was just ONE company and it went belly up because the Chinese poured millions into their program to undercut the opposition here in the US—which says a lot about the future of the industry.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That "exaggeration" cost us over half a billion dollars. All I want is some sort of oversight if we're going to throw that much cash at a company. Surely, you can agree that's not unreasonable.

  19. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Really LH?  And what about the oversight of  waste in Defense? Moneys totally wasted and thrown down the $hithole!

    "The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an increase in the Pentagon’s budget, have led to an increase in total military contracts to over $400 billion, their highest levels since World War II. Private contracting has grown to such a level that, in 2003, there were more private contract employees involved in the war in Iraq than uniformed military personnel. These contracts have been highly concentrated in the hands of just five contractors- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics- accounting for over one-third of all Pentagon  contracts."

    http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing2 … report.pdf

    http://costsofwar.org/article/growth-co … ofiteering

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, really, Wizard! Just like we need oversight on what the defense contractors are spending the money on. It's OUR money and I have a tendency to want to know what the hell is being done with my money.

      I have a feeling you do to. Am I right?

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course, LH but let's have a sense of proportion here—a half a billion is a far cry from 400 billion.

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, there's a huge difference, Wizard, but waste is waste.

          Why should we sit back and allow any of it in our government when we try to eliminate from our own budgets?

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The point being LH, you are very quick to point out what you termed "waste" which was primarily a failed investment that might have worked—as opposed to a giveaway of corporate welfare where  the size is also an important distinction . . . that you conveniently ignore.

            https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540315_382791325076907_113544412001601_1209235_42136097_n.jpg

    2. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      While no one will disagree there is waste in the DOD budget, there is 1,3 trillion in unapproved spending that occurred last year because there was no budget. How about 200 billion in Salmon research.

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah how about it, AV?  I couldn't find anything on the web when I did a search for "$200 billion+salmon research."

        That sounds like a really exaggerated number—a link please.

      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "While no one will disagree there is waste in the DOD budget, there is 1,3 trillion in unapproved spending that occurred last year because there was no budget. How about 200 billion in Salmon research."

        Yeah how about it, AV?  I couldn't find anything on the web when I did a search for "$200 billion+salmon research."

        AV, All I can find for a budgetary funding amount for FY 2013 for all fishery research is is $372,000

        http://appropriations.house.gov/Uploade … 120328.pdf

        That sounds like a really exaggerated number—where did you get it?

        1. prettynice profile image61
          prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There's nothing about "200 billion dollars in salmon research" in that article.  That's bilion with a "b."

            1. prettynice profile image61
              prettyniceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're right.  My bad.  But I would bet that he pulled his information from a similar (read skewed) article.

              The fact remains, AV has yet to provide a source for that factoid.

  20. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    He's already got your change. Missing a wallet? Some jewelry? The good silver? Chances are....he's got htat too. Better check on the dog.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama wouldn't do anything to my dog. She has no job and lays around all day and night waiting for someone give her what she wants. She depends on me for her food and medical care. She was even in the welfare system at one point - the city pound.

      Yep, Obama wouldn't do a thing to my dog because obviously she's a Democrat.

  21. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Limbaugh: "It Is Obvious" That Obama's Campaign Is "Aimed At The Welfare State And ... The Stupid" http://bit.ly/Hfa415

    Bow to your Master, Obamanators!!

    El Rushbo, Russssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Talent on Loan from God...has deemed the rest of us Stupid.

    But, say Rush, are you talking about the Oil companies, or the Timber companies, the Uber Rich, or the big corporations when you mention welfare?

  22. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    HA!
    "The GOP can only lie through their tooth to stay competitive."

    Hence, the term snaggletooths. Good to see some of us Amigos are on the same page!~

  23. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/552327_381834818505891_113544412001601_1206318_787477018_n.jpg

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/524490_381747381847968_113544412001601_1205827_1725354606_n.jpg

  24. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Who'd a thunk?

    http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/04/nixon%20liberal.png

  25. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6429193_f520.jpg

 
working