Obama 2012-Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?

[Ms Tree]

I do not care if he read stories to homeless children at night. Being a nice guy is not a POTUS job requirement as far as I am concerned. I want someone who understands national and international history. Someone who has a grasp of economics. Someone who is centrist. Someone who will surround them selves with people of differing beliefs so that he will he well rounded opinions when he asked.

Yep, both of them were 'nice' guys. Both of them got up to the American people and lied. One about a BJ and the other about selling arms to Iran. So much for 'nice' guys. I am leaning toward wanting a out spoken prick who does not want the job but will do it because he has to.

 

[dapoes]

Hope and Change 2.0: Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll

 

[dapoes]

WH in full panic mode: W.H. to Release 30 Million Barrels of Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

 

[dapoes]

Hope and change.....

 

[SparrowHawk]

Well somebody put together a nice piece that details exactly how Barack Obama is no friend to the worker.

ou ask what precedent the administration is setting by tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for only the third time in our nation's history? I'll tell you. They are setting a precedent as easily the most blatantly political administration ever in American history.

I'll offer just a few examples of the evidence:

1. This is the administration with a publicly stated objective to "boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

2. This is the administration that cancelled existing leases on millions of acres of federal land and banned development in vast amounts of reserves both on and off-shore.

3. This is the administration that was ordered by a federal court to lift an ill-conceived moratorium on drilling in the gulf, and then was found in contempt with a "determined disregard" of the court's ruling to start issuing permits.

4. This is the administration that turned "a regulatory firehose" on US business and the energy industry in particular with 29 new major regulations and 172 major policy rules finalized or proposed in its first 22 months.

5. This is the administration who lied to congress in March, 2011 by claiming production in the gulf "remained at an all-time high, and we expect that it will continue." However the Government's own Energy Information Agency had already reported a decline of 300,000 bpd in the first year following the administration's gulf moratorium fiasco and projected a total decline in production of 35% by late summer, 2012.

6. This is the administration whose policies have caused revenues from onshore oil and gas leasing in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to plunge more than 80%, and total acreage leased to shrink to the lowest level ever.

7. This is the administration that Steve Forbes correctly labeled as having the "most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history."

8. This is the administration that promised that energy cost would "skyrocket" under their plan of onerous regulation.

And, now having waged war on the energy industry and American consumer's wallets for more than two years; that is exactly what has happened. Despite some recent relief, prices for gasoline are almost double what they were when Obama took office, and due to new regulations being imposed by the Obama Administration, analysts are warning that electricity rates could jump 40-60% over the next few years. Got to love that hope and change. Our very own President throwing the average Joe/Jane under the bus all the while playing the class warfare card at every opportunity. And people have the unmitigated gall to attack Michele Bachmann over a few hundred thousand in legal farm subsidies? Anyone care to hazard a guess at what the near doubling of gas prices have cost the average worker Obama purports to be the friend of? I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain it's more than $259,000.

The crisis that prompted Barack Obama to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve didn't come from a foreign enemy or a natural disaster, as was the case the only two other times that the SPR has been drained. This was entirely a crisis of Obama's own making. It even has a name – "Operation Re-Election."

I'll catch ya later, the Lady Baretta needs to be cleaned and I haven't read the bible yet. Plus after reading about Obama I feel like I need a shower to wash away the slime.

 

[Veritas]

The least you can do when you plagiarize is to credit the original source.

National Journal Energy & Environment Blog

 

[SparrowHawk]

The least you can do when you plagiarize is to credit the original source.

National Journal Energy & Environment Blog

So that makes the information wrong? BTW I got it from a different source. Also I wasn't aware I was in college and required to cite each sources since there are several in the post. Typical attack the poster when the facts don't support your point of view.

Source #1 - http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/07/02/oil_shortage_obamas_man-caused_disaster

Sourced #2 - http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/06/tapping-oil-reserves-what-prec.php#2020052

Source #3 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904040307499791.html

Source #4 - http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=134670

Source #5 - http://alineofsight.com/blogs/editor/2011/02/05/judge-finds-obama-salazar-drilling-ban-contemptible

Source #6 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704658204575610924168519824.html

Source #7 - http://alineofsight.com/policy/telescope-four-horsemen-energy-apocalypse-obamas-war-your-wallet

Would you like the other five or will seven suffice?

 

[dapoes]

So that makes the information wrong? BTW I got it from a different source. Also I wasn't aware I was in college and required to cite each sources since there are several in the post. Typical attack the poster when the facts don't support your point of view.

It's typical of the left. It doesn't matter if you cite the source or not. If or doesn't fit within their ideologue they will choose to ignore/discredit it anyways. When have you ever seen a liberal say "you know what? You are correct!" when faced with facts that don't fit into their ideologue? Answer: Never!

 

[SparrowHawk]

It's typical of the left. It doesn't matter if you cite the source or not. If or doesn't fit within their ideologue they will choose to ignore/discredit it anyways. When have you ever seen a liberal say "you know what? You are correct!" when faced with facts that don't fit into their ideologue? Answer: Never!

LOL! No it's usually "Well look at the mess Bush left us".

 

[Ms Tree]

Are you suggesting that Bush has nothing to do with whats going on now? I distinctly recall that Clinton was accused of being responsible for 9/11 along with a litany of other problems that Bush faced.

The US was not puppies and rose petals on Jan 19, 2008. The reality of it is that Congress as well as past presidents are all part of the problems that we face today including the current president.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Are you suggesting that Bush has nothing to do with whats going on now? I distinctly recall that Clinton was accused of being responsible for 9/11 along with a litany of other problems that Bush faced.

The US was not puppies and rose petals on Jan 19, 2008. The reality of it is that Congress as well as past presidents are all part of the problems that we face today including the current president.

If you say so! I seem to recall a campaign that led voters to believe a certain candidate was going to deliver "Hope & Change" and he was going to cure the ills of the past administration. He had a democratic majority for 2 full years with which to deliver on his hope and change pledge. So you'll pardon me it I ask in the words of Clara Pellar "Where's The Beef" In fairness he has delivered change, for example

Gas prices have nearly doubled that's a change.
National debt rose from 9+ Trillion to 14.3 Trillion in 30 months.
He has driven our credit rating to within a hairs breath of junk bond status
We are perilously close to losing our status as the reserve currency of the world
We are now involved in 4 wars instead of two.
We now sell guns to drug cartels

So I'm seeing a lot of "Change" and I "hope" to not see very much more of it. Oh and one more thing, didn't Mr Obama state "The Buck Stops With Me"? Apparently he meant "The buck stops with me right up until it starts to look like I might not get re-elected" BTW where is he playing golf this weekend?

 

[Ms Tree]

So you are saying that the actions of Congress and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened during the Bush administration. And the actions of Congress and Bush had nothing to do with what happened in the Obama administration?

There are only troops on the ground in Afghan and Iraq. We sold guns to cartels before. Two of the four wars were inherited. Fuel cost is actually lower than the high in 2008. And the country is still going to hell in a hand basket ... but what else is new.

 

[SparrowHawk]

So you are saying that the actions of Congress and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened during the Bush administration. And the actions of Congress and Bush had nothing to do with what happened in the Obama administration?

There are only troops on the ground in Afghan and Iraq. We sold guns to cartels before. Two of the four wars were inherited. Fuel cost is actually lower than the high in 2008. And the country is still going to hell in a hand basket ... but what else is new.

Keep dancing the Empty Suit is a FAILURE. No amount of blaming Bush will change the fact that he's had 30+ months for the economy to show an upward trend and it really hasn't. He's the HMFIC and it's his fault. Just like the AIG/bank bailout was Bush's doing. & the decisions to go into to Iraq and Afghanistan were Bush's. On 1-20-2009 Barack Obama had both houses of Congress and a half way decent mandate and yet here we are 4 wars instead of two, Gas prices nearly double what they were when he took office coupled with deficit spend in 30 months that exceeded 8 years of Record deficits under Bush. He can run but he can't hide as the economic numbers speak for themselves and they spell ABJECT FAILURE by any measurable standard.

What boy genius doesn't grasp is the way out is two pronged. One is to aggressively cut spending The second is to clear the way and promote economic growth. IMO the only reason Reagan was successful is during the first 2 years our economy grew at almost 7.5% a year versus the 1,9% under the empty suit. Taxes were cut and despite that nearly 800 Billion in additional revenue flowed into the Treasury as a result of the staggering growth rate. How much additional revenue did the stimulus bills create? NONE. There's the difference frankly.

 

[Ms Tree]

Actually Regan increased taxes 11 times if I recall reading it correctly and he nearly doubled the deficit. Cutting spending alone will not solve the problem. Taxes need to increase a bit and the tax structure needs to be overhauled. Anyone who thinks it was only going to take two years to fix this mess is delusional. I am guessing another 5-10 at least. If taxes are not adjusted, even longer.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Dup Post