Democrats & Liberals Archives

The GOP Applies The Brakes On an Uphill Climb

This new chart by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Gives new meaning to the term “Red State.” Virtually every state has decided to take more out of the local economy, and put out less. Regardless of what certain political dogmas allege, this is in hard fact a withdrawal of capital from markets and economies already hard hit by the recent recession. Or, put another term, while the recession has ended in the general economy, the Government sector, by its ill-timed cuts and revenue hikes, is creating a drag on growth itself.

Oh, but isn't the Obama administration just a horrible drag on the economy?

Not quite.

I know, I know, there are going to be a flood of Republican Fathers coming to claim this success as their son, even while the failure that has a family resemblance wails in the background. But here's the thing: Republicans haven't been around long enough, or passed enough significant legislation recently to explain the rise in jobs and the drop in unemployment. Ten weeks is not enough to steer as huge of an economy as ours around the corner of an economic disaster like we just experienced. I keep on reminding Republicans that the "After this, therefore because of this" argument is a fallacy. No, just because jobs go up in the first weeks of a presidency doesn't mean that President is responsible for the policy that brought it along,

Citing psychological effects doesn't wash either, not unless you advance the theory, in tandem, that businessfolk are such morons that they'd understaff and underpay people just when the chance for real profit is coming about.

Just think, with so many jobs being lost, with such heavy cuts in the government sector of the economy, what would have turned the economy around, if it hadn't been for Obama's policies?

Not those with the most money. They mainly stayed on the sidelines.

The Republicans have put forward the idea that now is the time to tighten the national belt, and make big cuts everywhere. But why now? I'd say, the 2012 elections. I'd say they're trying to make up for a decades worth of fiscal irresponsibility immediately, so they don't pay the price with their base.

But their political desperation does not excuse the stupidity of working counter-cyclically. Fiscal balance relies on a steady, robust flow of tax dollars, revenue that pays for things, rather than debt that borrows with interest for them.

You have to fix the economy. You have to get us back into a state of excess growth, of growth above and beyond that which is necessary to absorb the hit. Why? Because austerity creates financial pain, every time. If the economy is strong enough to fill in for the benefits lost, if people make enough that that a rise in taxes hurts them less, then the economic pain will be less severe.

But if the dollar you take or don't give is from a nation that's already hurting economically, it adds fiscal insult to fiscal injury.

Hundreds of billions of dollars of our deficit comes from the fact that we don't get the revenue we once got before 2008. There is no means by which you can cut your way to reducing that burden.

Austerity will have to come someday, probably within the next five or six years. The question will be whether it works, whether Americans will stand for those policies to continue in the long term. Republicans might be able to control budgets out there, but they don't control what people think, and the economy will follow the natural stream of consequences from their decision, not their expectations.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 9:12 AM
Comments
Comment #320533
But why now? I’d say, the 2012 elections. I’d say they’re trying to make up for a decades worth of fiscal irresponsibility immediately, so they don’t pay the price with their base.

No. That’s not why. The reality is far more sinister. Their Think tanks have concluded the obvious: They simply cannot have a strengthening economy heading into the next election. It must be reversed. Big spending cuts that directly put people out of work are the way to do this. It will fall on Obama.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 23, 2011 12:21 PM
Comment #320534

Schwamp-
Well, they can’t have it strengthening with Obama’s policies at work. I don’t think they mind if things get better while they’re in control of Congress, it just has to happen without big government being involved.

Of course, if this means neglecting to mention the effects of liberal policy, well, why not?

I don’t think most Republicans out there really want this country to fail. Trouble is, they might only be willing to let policies to help things come out if they meet increasingly stringent political standards, or if they don’t run afoul of some current opposition they have. Just look at what they call “Obamacare.” It’s not that much different from “Romneycare” in Massachussetts. But the combination of the unwillingness to admit common ground, and the level of partisan venom that was poured into it makes that connection difficult to make, difficult to admit if made.

Increasingly, the Republicans run government by a form of political correctness. I’m speaking more along the lines of the meaning of that term under Mao. Whatever the reality is, what the party wants to be true takes precedence over what really might be true.

Republicans are discouraged from putting their assumptions to the test, not only even after the disasters we’ve seen in our nation’s fortunes, but especially after it, as the leadership seeks to cover its collective ass.

Republicans need, for the good of the country, to put aside their own form of political correctness, to allow people to admit when things are wrong, and figure it out for themselves. Only then can the leaders be held accountable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 2:47 PM
Comment #320535

The House of Representatives has proposed reducing federal spending by roughly 1.6 percent. Mr. Daugherty refers to this as; “…make[ing] big cuts everywhere

Liberal economists have reacted by predicting an economic cataclysm if the government goes ahead with these spending reductions. Economist Mark Zandi, who predicted that the 2009 stimulus would substantially boost the economy, predicts that the House budget would cost 700,000 jobs and cut GDP by 0.5 percent. Economists with the left-wing Center for American Progress contend that these budget reductions would cost the economy 1 million jobs and possibly send America back into recession.

These predictions lack credibility. They come from the same economists who predicted that the stimulus would spur hiring and economic growth. They are based on models programmed to show that increases in government spending have large “multiplier” effects on the economy. These same models predicted a current unemployment rate of 7 percent if Congress passed the stimulus and 8.5 percent if Congress did not increase government spending.

Mr. Daugherty often tells us of this “multiplier” effect. Why don’t we observe it?

Congress spent over $800 billion on the stimulus. Contrary to the predictions from these same models, however, the economy stagnated over the past two years, with unemployment well above 9 percent. The current recovery has occurred only after the stimulus spending has largely run out. Models programmed to show beneficial effects of government spending do not accurately project the unemployment rate.

Federal spending comes at the expense of the resources available for private-sector investment. Business owners know for certain that huge deficits today must be paid back at some point with higher taxes and most likely higher interest rates.

Reducing federal spending has a very small effect on overall employment and leads to increases in private investment.

Reducing federal spending by roughly 1.6 percent is a modest first step toward putting America’s fiscal house in order. It shows business owners that the government is serious about fixing its long-term problems and will help ease their concerns about future tax increases.

The real problem for dems and libs is the “Interest Group Liberalism” that has grown by leaps and bounds since the days of FDR and compounded by LBJ.

Not able to attract voters with sound fiscal policies, the party concentrated its growth by fostering and promoting interest groups with government largess targeted to those who would show their appreciation at the polls. The growth in unsustainable perks and benefits in our public sector unions is now recognized by most voters and these unions are having their wings clipped by reality.

In much the same way, voters now understand the folly of special benefits for special groups at the expense of the taxpayer. Taxpayers today are following the money and don’t much like what they see.

This nation will get back to fiscal sanity at some point either willingly or unwillingly. The practical method involves some pain for everyone. Substantial cuts to government spending combined with some upward adjustments in payroll taxes and yes, even slightly higher taxes for those in the upper income levels will go far to balancing our budget. We must first balance our budget before we can even begin to attack the deficit.

The unwilling way to fiscal sanity is to simply do nothing to rein in spending at this time and to kick that can further down the road. More deficit spending can only extend that road a few more miles before the nation is in the ditch. That, will truly…be painful.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #320539

Royal Flush-
1) Big cuts everywhere means at the state and local level, too. The linked article demonstrates the extent of the cuts, and their anti-stimulatory results.

2)Mark Zandi is not a Democrat. Neither are the people at Goldman Sachs, in large part. Is everybody wrong, but the folks who indulge in your party’s Maoist Political Correctness on the economy?

3) The 7%/8.5% numbers were based on preliminary economic numbers, numbers that were later revised to show that the collapse of the economy had been far more serious.

That’s important to recall, because those initial economic numbers constituted the baseline, the starting point for what the Stimulus would have to make up.

If the Stimulus remains equal, and the baseline gets worse, the Stimulus will do less good than predicted, not because it didn’t do the job, but simply because it had a deeper hole to dig out.

In order to be fair, to ask the question of whether the stimulus delivered as much punch as it was supposed to, you have to account for the change in the baseline. Otherwise, you essentially demand that the Stimulus perform better than anticipated, not just as good as it was supposed to. Obama didn’t move the goalposts on this one, the economy did, by being worse than anticipated in the final assessment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 5:02 PM
Comment #320540

I know, I know…moving goalposts and all that garbage. It is typical for the big spenders to always fall back on the old nonsense of, we just didn’t spend enough. When, OH WHEN will we ever hear them say…we spent too much?

How long have the dems been fighting the war on poverty…40-50 years perhaps. How many trillions spent? Have we made any progress? Didn’t we spend enough?

They were wrong with their calculations going into the stimulus and are wrong now with their calculations about cutting spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #320541

R.F. Democrats like Stephen don’t realize to fight the war on poverty we need jobs not handouts.

Posted by: KAP at March 23, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #320543

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Mark Zandi is not a Democrat. Neither are the people at Goldman Sachs, in large part. Is everybody wrong…”

I didn’t say Zandi was a democrat. And yes, he and others cited in my post were wrong.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2011 6:06 PM
Comment #320546

Royal Flush-
You sir, should go through the budget, and not stop at the Discretionary spending. Look at the defense budget, how that got increased on your watch, the Medicare budget, how that increased on your watch. Look at all the supplementals you passed, without one Goddamn oversight hearing on where all that money was going.

Your people increased spending, and not only didn’t increase taxes or cut spending elsewhere to compensate, but cut tax rates to the tune of trillions of dollars in lost revenues.

But suddenly, after eight years of Bush, you suddenly discover we’re running a huge deficit!

You can blame it on dip**** little discretionary measures like funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which you brought an emergency session of Congress for, but the reality is, it’s the huge increases in mandatory and military spending, coupled with tax cuts, which make up most of the deficit.

And you, and your party, won’t be touching that anytime soon. Your party is worse than hypocritical when it comes to budgeting, it’s obliviously incompetent.

How is it that we could make a trillion dollar healthcare plan better than deficit neutral, and your people couldn’t offset your way out of a paper bag on healthcare. Perhaps its just the belief that no matter how your people overspend and undercharge for government, the voters will believe Republicans are better at fiscal matters.

But they aren’t. All the Tea Party Republicans have is just another round of new excuses for why they can’t balance the budget.

As for progress on the war on poverty? I would call the halving of the number of people in poverty, across racial and ethnic lines progress. It’d be going a lot better if we got people back to work. The best deficit cutting instrument we have available to us is using government money to get people back to work, make them taxpayers again, rather than economic wards of the state.

Oh, ****, was it a Democrat who just said people should be got back to work, instead of staying on the dole?

Will the wonders never cease?

KAP-
Well, you heard what I said. I haven’t been advocating handouts alone. I’ve been advocating investments, infrastructure projects, with economic aid to keep people in decent economic shape long enough for them to get back to work.

It’s the hell of blogging with so many Republicans and right wing folks stuck in the same mode of thought. They read their own propaganda and accusations into what Democrats like me propose, rather than paying attention to what we’re actually proposing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #320548


During the decade of the 1960’s, poverty rates fell dramatically. In the 70’s, they held fairly steady. From 1980 through 1992, poverty rose. From 1993 till 2000 poverty levels fell again. Since 2000, poverty has steadily risen. This seems to suggest to me that there are two primary factors associated with poverty, government policy and the availability of jobs.

“RF Democrats like Stephen don’t realize to fight the war on poverty we need jobs not handouts.”

So Republicans are saying that jobs fight poverty while at the same time they say people are in poverty because they won’t work.

Reagan cut government subsidies for housing by 2/3 and eliminated incentives to developers for low income housing and created an epidemic of homelessness. Some people just choose to live in the streets according to Reagan.

Remember the Reagan enterprise zones. A failed Marxist policy according to Michele Bachmann. My, how times have changed, even Reagan is a commie by today’s right wing standards.

Posted by: jlw at March 23, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #320549

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “Look at all the supplementals you passed, without one Goddamn oversight hearing on where all that money was going.”

Wow…Mr. Daugherty must have had only one nerve left and I found it. Temper, Temper. Take a pill or drink a beer and lie down for an hour.

He writes; “As for progress on the war on poverty? I would call the halving of the number of people in poverty, across racial and ethnic lines progress.”

“The poverty level in America is the worst its been since the 1960’s, according to a new report released by the Census Bureau. At least one in every 7 Americans is living at or below the poverty level.

According to the report the poverty level is now at 43.6 million people. This is the highest number ever recorded since the census began in 1959.” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978530398

Mr. Daugherty’s nerves are worn thin defending more and even larger budget deficits on top of the $14+ trillion in debt already accumulated by both Reps and Dems.

He keeps living in the past hoping to change the future. He has blame for everyone but his beloved libs and other big spenders. He talks repeatedly about learning lessons from the past and then tosses that out advocating for even more failed spending plans from the past.

You see, in Mr. Daugherty’s world only democrat spending is good and valuable. It hasn’t worked for lowering the number or percentage of poor in our nation and it hasn’t worked to stimulate the economy as promised.

The Reps were wrong to follow the dem mantra of spend, spend, and spend some more. Both parties, with their lavish spending have awakened a sleeping public who now follows the money. They are not pleased and certainly are not amused by promises of more of the same.

Keep beating that dead old horse of “interest group liberalism” Mr. Daugherty and one can only hope that the fools leading your party keep wanting to write checks the nation can’t cash.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #320550

Good grief, I just got an email from “Joe” Biden touting the Affordable Care Act by singling out one family in Minnesota who may, or may not, have benefited. The email was paid for by “Organizing for America”, a project of the DNC.

The ACA is so riddled with problems and waivers that the administration is resorting to violins and heartstrings to keep it on life support.

As we say in Texas…that sucker is dead.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2011 8:01 PM
Comment #320553

“Liberal commentators blame the Bush tax cuts, not runaway spending, for the budget crisis.

They insist that slashing rates on income taxes, which means smaller percentages of private income going to government, would guarantee red ink even if Congress finds many billions in spending cuts.

The problem with this argument is that it’s clearly contradicted by recent history. Actually, the second round of Bush tax cuts in 2003 brought increased revenues – both in actual dollar terms and as a percentage of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) — not falling levels of government support. In 2007, six years after Bush began slashing tax rates, revenues rose above 18% of GDP –more than the 60 year post-war average. Revenue didn’t fall until 2009, when economic collapse meant people earned less money and more families joined the 40% of the population who pay no federal income taxes—leaving top earners carrying more, not less, of the overall tax burden. The Bush tax cuts never increased the federal taxes on the poor, the middle class or anyone else and, in fact, served to exempt millions of Americans from paying income taxes at all. The Bush experience wasn’t unique in demonstrating that lower tax rates don’t cause reduced levels of federal revenue.”

Here’s the link to the entire article…

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2011/03/23/dont_blame_tax_cuts_for_catastrophic_deficits

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2011 8:15 PM
Comment #320554


Mr. Daugherty writes:

“The Republicans have put forward the idea that now is the time to tighten the national belt, and make big cuts everywhere. But why now? I’d say, the 2012 elections. I’d say they’re trying to make up for a decades worth of fiscal irresponsibility immediately, so they don’t pay the price with their base.”

The national debt has increased almost $4 Trillion dollars since Obama took office; that is almost a 28% increase in 27 months, or almost 1% increase in the national debt per month.

Mr. Daugherty is unbelievable; he constantly refutes polls given by conservatives as biased. Recently he said Rasmussen was biased toward Republicans, and yet he has the audacity to quote http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_03/028575.php, as a credible source of information. The opening paragraphs are:

“WHEN THE STIMULUS MEETS THE ANTI-STIMULUS…. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) recently suggested the very idea of government stimulus has, to his mind, been discredited. “If government spending would stimulate the economy, we’d be in the middle of a boom,” he said.
The misguided comments came in the context of multiple, independent reports that showed proposed Republican cuts costing the nation hundreds of thousands of jobs. But the more important point was the value of the observation — when the economy stood on the brink of collapse, Democrats injected stimulus into the economy. It prevented a depression, but there was no “boom.”

I supposed this is Mr. Daugherty’s idea of unbiased facts. Now which direction do you suppose this site leans?

The states are going bankrupt, and Mr. Daugherty thinks they should continue to spend, because, if they cut spending and state employees get laid off, it will look bad on Obama. Does Mr. Daugherty know that the unemployment rate, in actual figures, is 17-18%. I just wonder how many of these people didn’t want to get laid off. I imagine none of them wanted to be unemployed, but you know what Stephen, their companies didn’t have the money to keep them working. Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could name us a company that practices spending money they don’t have in order to keep people working.

Steven Lerner said in his famous, treasonous speech last weekend, on how to destroy the American economy (see links in red column), that the unions and community organizing movement is dead in America. Hence the need to create economic chaos. The union dollars were the lifeblood of the Democratic Party. The democrats could care less about the union workers having jobs. Jobs are only a side benefit to the real goal of union dues being donated to democrats. Those funds are drying up and with states changing the laws and allowing employees to opt out of the unions; it must be throwing liberals into panic mode.

From your article Stephen:

“All of this is preventable, by the way. Congress could, in theory, decide that to help the economy, it will redirect resources to states so that they won’t have to scale back so severely.”

Yes, this was always the plan; to bail out the states with tax dollars. Obama did enough for private sector unions by bailing them out, but he didn’t have time to bail out the states. After he wasted a year shoving obamacare down our throats; just think of what he could have done for the states if he hadn’t wasted his time on obamacare. Then the shit hit the fan, it was November 2010 and the American voters said enough of this. So they sent the democrats packing; obama didn’t get the message, liberals didn’t get the message, politicians didn’t get the message, and some Republican politicians didn’t get the message. In fact the left is in complete denial, so they go about saying the same old liberal talking points that Mr. Daugherty brings up over and over: Republicans lied, democrats didn’t get their message out. In fact, the liberals think the Americans are a bunch of stupid people.

To Royal Flush I say, you present a great argument, but Stephen is one of those people who “have ears, but can’t hear”.

I believe he is a plant on WB. Nobody can continue to support a party and a leader who makes so many mistakes.

Where are the protestors of government spending on the military and funding 2 wars. Now, Obama needs the military, to fight another war. How do the libes feel about the messiah getting us into another war. Why are we in Libya? Are we there because of the oil? What say you gutless wonders on the left. Now is not a time to be silent. Gitmo is still operating, Bin Laden is still on the loose, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. I listened to your protests for 7 years, don’t you have anything to say now?

Posted by: 1776 at March 23, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #320555

Royal Flush,

Nonsense! liberal commentators have been consistently critical of the Bush spending and deficits. Two unfunded wars, a massive Medicare drug program and tax cuts add up to record deficits. A bubble economy built on an expansion of private sector debt approaching 350% of GDP spelled disaster.

The last year of the Bush budgets produced a record 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

Blaming liberals for a failed economy and record federal deficits is to avoid looking at who was in charge.

Posted by: Rich at March 23, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #320556

“The national debt has increased almost $4 Trillion dollars since Obama took office.”

1776,

The 2008-2009 fiscal year is on Bush. That was his last budget year. That year produced 1.4 trillion dollars in deficit. Obama inherited the record deficit of 2009 from Bush.

Posted by: Rich at March 23, 2011 8:46 PM
Comment #320558

Royal Flush-
Yes, you hit a nerve, it’s called the “Stephen knows the numbers on the Deficits Bush ran, the programs the Republican Congress Passed, and the Wars he fought on the credit card” nerve. Somewhere around the trigeminal nerve, I hear.

Your little cuts on discretionary spending are not a start, they’re your politically feasible window-dressing. I mean, Paul Ryan is supposed to be your pointman on budgets, and his budget takes fifty years to undo the deficit.

FIFTY YEARS. That might be beyond my lifetime, and I’m real sure it’s beyond yours. Ah, but in your plan, you get to privatize social security (which even Bush admitted won’t make social security more solvent), and privatize medicare, making it vouchers that won’t even keep pace with regular inflation, much less medical inflation.

Your politicians want credit for leadership they’re really not showing. And they want to exploit a problem they don’t really plan to solve, to get their way politically. But of course, they sell that on the premise that we’re broke and can no longer afford it. I’m sorry, but do the people who essentially are saying that we’re in good enough shape to run a deficit for the next fifty years want to talk about us being broke?

The implications of their claims just aren’t lining up. Your people don’t deserve credit for being serious about the deficits.

The implications of your claims don’t line up, either. You talk about people being in poverty, Well, you’re talking number. I’m talking percent. This graph illustrates the difference.

In 1959, over 22% of all Americans were in poverty. By comparison, even now, in the grips of an economic downturn, Americans are at 14.3 percent. In 2000, just under 12% were in poverty.

Why the greater absolute number? Well one cause could be the enormous number of people that the financial crisis put out of a job. But consider that the population in 1959 was about 58% of what it is now. We managed to halve the poverty rate, but almost doubled the population, and then shot that poverty rate up a significant amount during the declines of the Bush eyars.

And even your source acknowledges the main reason for the rise in poverty: people being kicked out of their homes, and being kicked out of their jobs.

What I’m saying, in part, is that we don’t need to be kicking more people out of jobs, if we want this crisis to end. But you’re focused on blaming Democrats for your own budget deficits, for ongoing programs and policies, you are neither willing to confront, nor end, nor modify in the case of taxes.

No, you’re just going to make symbolic cuts to the priorities of liberals, and wait half a century for the fiscal house to get in order.

Sorry if I don’t think Republican policies are good at reducing poverty. Just looking at the rates and numbers, it’s quite obvious that poverty increased under Bush and Reagan from where they were before. Apparently, while on poverty is a failure, having cut coverty from 22% to just under 12%, the Republican’s strategy on economic recovery and job creation is a success with the worse job creation performance on record in the relevant fifty year period.

Meanwhile, in this worst of recessions in that same period, Obama turns the economy around from losses of nearing 800,000 a month, to gains of 200-300,000 a month. Again, a failure in your eyes, whereas Bush’s utter incapability of avoiding stinking up the room on that count is hailed by you as a success.

We’re not just talking double standards here, we’re talking reversals of what the evidence shows us. The Stimulus may not have lived up to initial claims, but the evidence that had us thinking that 8.5% was a worst case scenario was replaced by evidence that indicated that things could get three points worse than that. A deeper recession was what made it difficult for Obama to hit the 7.5% mark, not a failure of design, in regards to the market as it was originally said to have behaved.

As for interest group liberalism. Well, ****. Yeah. Who is it who opened up the K-Street Project again, who invited all the lobbyists in to advise them on policy, who since the days of Gingrich basically wrote the bills for Republicans?

We have our share of corrupt people among the Democrats in Washington, but at the very leasts the Democrats I know aren’t oblivious to the fact, or worse, wholly supportive of the interest group politics. Again, you project what is worst about your party at us, hoping people won’t see through you.

As for the ACA? Let me see. You ask people what they really want to repeal, and it comes out to the mandate, basically. That’s the least popular of the measures. All the rest? Find me the people who are against banning restrictions on coverage based on pre-existing conditions, especially for children. Find me the people who are in favor of medical-bankruptcy and death inducing caps on coverage, which leave people impoverished, and on their last legs with their coverage run out.

See, your problem, when all is said and done is that a lot of what people wanted, we did, and a lot of disappoval of the bill comes from what’s not there, what people think we didn’t go far enough in reforming.

Worse yet, the Mandate is your party’s idea. It’s what you supported as alternative to Clinton’s plan, back when the Republicans could actually be bothered to offere alternatives as a minority party. It’s what Mitt Romney implemented in Massachussetts. It’ll be fun seeing him dance around his big achievement as governor.

See, when the logic of your politics is built around opposing somebody, the quickest way to get those people to tie themselves in knots is simply to agree with some bit of policy, and watch them flip-flop in order to not look like they’re on the same side. If you guys didn’t hate us so much, the irony is, you could have sustained power and intellectual integrity to boot for much longer.

Instead, your party has just become about scapegoating, badmouthing, and subjugating my party.

As for top earners carrying more of the tax burden, well, they’re also carrying more of the Wealth burden, so that balances things out.

I know you love to sling out your isolated statistics, but the problem is you’re faced with a Democrat who is very good at running things down on Google. I know the difference between population in poverty, and the poverty rate. I know why the measure of 20% of GDP can be real variable, and not necesssarily the world’s best means of measuring deficits.

I understand the math, the budget, and other aspects of your policy better than you do. You are confident because of what you believe you know. I don’t share your confidence, or emulate it for that matter. I depend on a lot of research, which is one reason those late-night posts come up. I hunt down things like what exactly the Tar Sands are made of, what the meaning of light sweet crude is. I don’t just accept what you say at face value. I find out for myself, often wading through a bunch of BS to get to it.

You ask more Americans whether the Deficit is a serious problem, and you’ll find that they agree it is. If you, however ask them whether it’s the most pressing, most serious problem, they’ll say, no, jobs and the economy are. Now, I’m one for thinking for myself, not letting the crowd alone tell me what’s right, but this is one case where people are actually correct.

They know that a weak economy does not support a strong fiscal recovery, and they come out, mostly, against spending cuts. They know that it’s not coming out of fat in our current economy. You solve problems in the order of their dependency, in the order of what makes the situation better. You repair the pipe before you troubleshoot the pump that will put water through it. You repair the economy before you pay down the debts, reduce the services, and increase the taxes.

And yes, we will have to increase taxes, and not simply to 20% of GDP. We need to peg it at a level that will take care of the deficit more in the near term.

But only when we can afford it. We do not need to lose several hundred thousand jobs at a time like this.

1776-
How much of that national debt increase comes from an economy he had no choice about inheriting, an unpaid for entitlement that he can’t exactly guillotine, Wars he cannot stop on dimes, and tax cuts which, unfortunately, despite their fiscal harm, can’t be undone now for fear of disrupting cashflow in the economy.

Tell me, how much of this spending was just his? I already gave a figure some time ago. The Stimulus represents 7% of the current deficit, and that just for a couple years or so. So, just 3% is actually his. The rest is the economy, the programs Bush started (and the wars,), and emergency measures Bush imposed as well, which are mostly one time charges.

The Tea Party, I think, is about denial. It’s about a party that doesn’t want to face how badly it’s screwed up, and therefore has sunk itself deep in a protective cocoon of dogmas. Can’t increase taxes, can’t suffer labor unions to exist, must smash liberal interest groups, must oppose Obama on breathing in if he’s inhaling, breathing out if he’s exhaling.

As for not getting the message, have you checked the polling on your folks lately? Kasich is in the 30s. So is Snyder. God, don’t get me started on Snyder. Walker is underwater, the guy in Pennsylvania isn’t making friends, and Christie has his own problems.

There’s a big difference between seducing the voters when they’re angry at you opponents, and actually getting their support for much more partisan ventures. You’re going to find that people have not completely forgiven the Republicans over what they booted folks out for in 2006 and 2008. They’re just to discover that however disappointing and nerveless many Democrats have been, the Republicans are a whole different, more active, category of lousy.

As for me being a plant? You just keep on throwing the Ad hominem arguments at me. That’s just you telling me that you don’t have argument on the substance, on the relevant details. I didn’t elect a Messiah, I elected a person I felt had good judgment, a good heart, and a brain to deal with problems that wouldn’t always expediently align themselves to his expectations or his politics. He’s disappointed me sometimes, but I don’t feel I made a bad choice.

You say, no one could support somebody who made so many mistakes, blah, blah, etc. That’s a laugh. That really is.

I know plenty of people who could and did do that, and who even still now defend the same policies. The supporters of George Bush have to look past a myriad of errors and downward trends to look at the improvements of the Obama Administration, and see a further slide towards ruin.

I have plenty to say now, even as you presume to think that you can tell me to shut up. I spoke up when Ari Fleischer was telling people to watch what they were saying, and the Congress was backing a wholesale assault on civil liberties. I wrote under my name to tell people I wasn’t scared to speak the truth without the shield of anonymity, to encourage others to be just as bold in finding out things for themselves, and standing up for what was right.

So, I have been posting for seven years now, and will continue to do so even more, especially since I’ve discovered that telling the truth annoys you and Royal Flush. ;-) Seriously, though, you should understand by now that I get more stubborn the more you try to beat me down. Somebody tries to bully me, I’m just going to dig my feet in.

Oh, and the people who protested the wars then? Go to Daily Kos, and read what they write. They’re not pleased he isn’t getting out faster. They don’t want Afghanistan to continue. And Bin Laden?

Well, I’m sorry but your people had the better part of two terms in office to catch him, especially at the beginning, and you didn’t. Hell, you lost Saddam Hussein for nine months.

Don’t blame us when your dumb policies don’t work out.

Oh- :-) - and about Gitmo. Many Democrats are disappointed in it, mad about the treatment of Bradley Manning. But I seem to remember a whole bunch of Republicans rallying opposition to the notion of trying any terrorist on American soil.

I know, we just show how resistant we are to their terrorism by demonstrating how scared we are to hold trials for these men.

Yep, Republicans know how to project confidence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 10:16 PM
Comment #320559

We’ve found someone to take over all the fiscal problems!! This woman is a frikkin’ genius!

http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/03/21/87396-ian-squires-conservative-pie-republicans-introduce-legislation-redefining-pi-as-exactly-3.htm

Boehner isn’t far out of step, since he condemned Dems for having an elitist attitude about even considering it…….. sigh!

Posted by: jane doe at March 23, 2011 10:17 PM
Comment #320561

I can keep this very simple Stephen: first, if obama was selling state secrets to our enemies, you would still defend him, and your 7 years of posts are nothing more than liberal talking points. If you would tune into Maddow, O’Donnell, or any of the other liberals, you will hear your exact points.

I see you cherry pick my statements: so why don’t you give us your take on Libya, or do we blame that one on Bush too? You guys can’t help yourselves; at what point does obama take credit for this mess?

Why do you talk about polls, you have stated many times that you don’t believe them?

As for your claims of obama created jobs; HOG WASH.

Posted by: 1776 at March 23, 2011 11:21 PM
Comment #320563

SD
I have a title for the book you wrote above:

How to Act Stupid for Dummies

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2011 12:20 AM
Comment #320564

Tom, how about “Hog Wash for Dummies”?

Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 12:26 AM
Comment #320566

1776-
Look mister, that’s not keeping a damn thing simple. I can make it simpler: look at facts, judge what I said on its merits, and argue your response against what I say on those merits, and not on a bunch of bull**** rhetoric that demonizes and diminishes people like me.

You say I cherry pick. Okay, what did I leave out that was important? Out of context? Put it in context, explain how that changes things.

RF bashed the War on Poverty. Did I say he was just a Repugnican who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground? No. Because I know that such a statement doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to somebody who doesn’t take the insult to heart.

I showed that the Democrats managed to drop the rate from 22% to under 12%. If winning a war on poverty is about reductions in poverty, than that’s better evidence than any insult I could provide that RF was wrong.

I don’t intend to be one part of your back and forth tennis match of claims. I intend to ace as many serves as I can, force you either to concede, or rationalize and even lie to the detriment of your own credibility.

On Libya? Bush actually handled that one pretty well, gave Qaddafi a face-saving way to justify getting rid of his WMDs. Unfortunately, that’s not how he conducted most of his diplomacy.

My take on Libya is this: What we’re there to do is to cripple Qaddafi’s ability to overpower his opposition with sheer firepower, to make the numerical advantage of the rebels the determining factor, once again.

What Obama did right is that he waited until people actually asked for help, until public opinion both in the Arab World and here in a America favored us intervening to even things up. Then he got the right people and the right organizations behind us. Folks are looking for a doctrine, they’re failing to see that Obama’s doctrine is adaptability. You do not have to solve every problem with same tools, or do dumb things for the sake of consistency.

As for who takes credit for the mess… well, interesting choice of words. What are we, four or five days into this? Me, I had my moments of disquiet and doubt, but it was actually a few months before I got ticked off by Bush about the Iraq War.

I can accept that Presidents and commanders make mistake, but I expect that they try and address their errors, not embrace them and rationalize them. What I saw was a failure to admit there was a problem early, which consequently lead to results and events that undermined the mission over time.

But four or five days? I gave Bush months to get his war together. Let’s let events unfold a little first.

As for Claims that Obama created jobs? Well, something had to change to get us going from 800,000 jobs going bye-bye in January 2009, to 200-300,000 jobs saying hello now. If you think the economy just fixed itself, then how?

You can badmouth my points as liberal talking points, but what you call them is irrelevant to what they are. If your people created more of the debt, that is a truth you have to deal with, or otherwise watch your party repeat its worst mistakes.

tom humes-
Not feeling up to making a real rebuttal?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2011 12:59 AM
Comment #320569

“why don’t you give us your take on Libya, or do we blame that one on Bush too?”

1776,

Certainly not. Bush reestablished diplomatic relations with Libya and terminated US sanctions against Gadaffi in 2004. His Secretary of State, Condi Rice, made a state visit to Libya in 2008 and said let “bygones be bygones.” Bush certainly wasn’t pushing regime change in Libya, much to the chagrin of the Lockerbie bombing victims.

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 6:39 AM
Comment #320572

SD
I like to rebut factual content not rhetorical grist.

You can have all the opinion your mind likes to have. You rarely use facts, but a ton of rhetorical pap in book form. If I wanted to read a book, there are sources to read books that have content that edifies and educates me. What you put out is, well, as was previously mentioned, HOGWASH. Your way is not the real way they do things in TEXAS.

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2011 10:23 AM
Comment #320573

“I like to rebut factual content not rhetorical grist.”

How pathetically weak of a comment is that Tom? You cannot answer with any type of fact. All you can do is criticize Stephens comments as “How to Act Stupid for Dummies” yet you cannot rebut anything he said with a fact! Sometimes it is better to not say anything and leave a little doubt in our minds. You instead chose to make such foolish comments and remove all doubt from our minds.

“Nobody can continue to support a party and a leader who makes so many mistakes.”

1776, yet you continue to support the failed conservative ideology that has put the country into such economic distress. You support the conservative drivel that attempts to distort anything the president does regardless of any actual facts to support this rabid propaganda you blindly follow. You attempt to rebut these statements with nonsense such as “your 7 years of posts are nothing more than liberal talking points” which is nothing but a conservative talking point. Instead of any quasi factual rebuttal to what Stephen has said all you can do is suggest “how about “Hog Wash for Dummies””! Shame on you, as you have removed all doubt as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #320575

tom humes-
There are plenty of fact and fact-based opinions in my work to mount your attack upon, if that is your inclination. Your problem is that it’s not under your control. You don’t want to even take the chance of losing, you want to win.

If I am factually incorrect, then every fact I’m wrong about undermines my point. But to fully take advantage of that, you have to submit to the facts yourself, and take the chance of being wrong.

I’m willing to take that chance, because I think even if it loses my arguments every now and then, when I win them, it’s a solid win, and regardless of the win or loss, I end up maintaining a better grasp on the situation. In fact, by doing my research, I help myself find facts and truths that I did not even know were available to aid in my defense, information I can recall later when an argument requires it.

The question is, do you have the courage to test what you believe, to risk the disappointment and disillusionment that come from potentially discovering the flaws in your deeply held beliefs? If you are, then you can give yourself a great gift: you can discover for yourself what you believe to be true, rather than rely on somebody else to feed it to you. You can verify what is right about an opponent’s argument, and not waste your time or energy opposing them on a matter where they’ll be vindicated.

You can pick your fights, instead of having to look forward to a perpetual ordeal of hateful, bitter, useless arguing.

You can do more than simply insult your opponent, the tactics least likely to confound or discredit them conclusively.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2011 12:40 PM
Comment #320577

I have come to the conclusion that most of the left is incapable of answering more than one question at a time without resulting to posting liberal, leftist, rhetoric, talking points. So I will only ask one question at a time. Maybe Mr. Daugherty can simply answer the question without resulting to writing a dissertation.

Tell me, those of you on the left, how angry are you at Obama? At what time do you face reality and stop trying to defend or explain everything Obama does? He has virtually shut down oil drilling in the US and your defense of him is the BP oil spill, and yet he guarantees Brazil $2 billion for the purpose of financing their own off shore drilling. He even told Brazil of his eagerness to be involved in their offshore drilling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

This support of foreign offshore drilling kind of blows a hole in the save-the-environment theory, doesn’t it? I’m sure Obama would love for us to import more oil from Brazil as well as the Middle-East. Let the defense of Obama begin…

Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 1:37 PM
Comment #320578

Mr. Daugherty, your link to the graph on poverty has no author or source. LOL…did you do the graph yourself at 2:00 in the morning in a moment of enlightened thinking? You can’t defend your numbers and then resort to talking about the causes of poverty. So sad. The truth remains, as I said originally, we have squandered trillions on poverty since the 60’s and the only result is…more poverty. Wow, that’s some great liberal accomplishment.

He writes; “…you’re just going to make symbolic cuts to the priorities of liberals…”

I am really laughing out loud now. If the “priorities of liberals” only cost 1.6% of the budget we conservatives would be happy campers. NPR is now a liberal priority? Really?

He writes; “A deeper recession was what made it difficult for Obama to hit the 7.5% mark, not a failure of design…”

The laughs just keep getting better. Thanks! The design of the airplane wasn’t what caused it to crash and burn, we just forgot to put a pilot in to fly it.

The reason Mr. Daugherty must, as he claims, spend so much time researching is that it is very difficult to find sources that will support his failed ideas. I can find many articles proving the earth is round, Mr. Daugherty has difficulty finding those who still believe it is flat.

And finally, he writes; “I get more stubborn the more you try to beat me down. Somebody tries to bully me, I’m just going to dig my feet in.”

I just love it when he goes “stubborn”. Just a barrel of laughs.


Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment #320583

1776, First of all you seem to think that by going off the topic of the thread you are somehow entitled to demand answers for what ever conservative talking pointy you deem important, well I guess if you can’t come up with logic or facts to refute Stephen you have to resort to something, right?

Secondly,how has oil drilling in the US been shutdown? The moratorium on drilling in the gulf was lifted last year, wasn’t it? It didn’t cover drilling in Colorado and Nebraska as I have watched new holes going in here. Perhaps after the BP oil spill what was done was necessary as it seems private industry is unwilling to comply with the safety rules required for drilling in the gulf.

Murdoch’s WSJ article you refer to indicates it is new leases that are coming up for auction soon,now that the court case has been resolved. How does that stop drilling in areas already leased? It doesn’t. Just more foolish conservative misinformation and half truths you blindly spew as if they were factual.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/usa-drilling-permit-idUSN2414851420110324

One has to wonder if you are paid for the intentional misdirection of your comments on this thread by extremist far right Obama haters. Especially since you falsely accuse others of being “plants”.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #320584

Stephen Daugherty uses his opponents to project his party’s own deficiencies. His verbosity only mentions Republicans, but Democratics are guilty of the same behaviour. It’s not that Stephen Daugherty doesn’t see it. It’s more like Stephen Daugherty doesn’t want to see it.

Here’s a good question? Why are Democratics getting a pass on these Tax evasion charges? Why isn’t Stephen Daugherty writing about the list of Democratics who have been charged with a failure to pay their taxes? Not enough space, Stephen Daugherty?


jane doe, your link didn’t work.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 24, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #320585

1776, good job getting those permits back online! Who says a squeeky wheel gets the grease?

From j2t2’s link:

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Chevron (CVX.N) on Thursday received the first U.S. permit to drill a complete exploratory well for oil or gas in a new deepwater reservoir since the end of the drilling moratorium that followed the BP (BP.L) oil spill.

March 24th, that’s today! Thursday!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 24, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #320586

Willie, I believe Mr. Daugherty is caught between a rock and a hard place. He has written of his past association with Republicans and how he saw the light and became a Democrat. Those who lack the personal fortitude and wisdom to admit their mistakes are condemned to continue on a failed course rather than admit it and become whole again.

Like a moth to a light bulb, Mr. Daugherty believed the dim light of the Dem party would allow him to feel good about himself and his association with them. The warm and fuzzy feeling about doing good soon disappeared and he is left with defending policies of “interest group liberalism”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 3:33 PM
Comment #320588

Stephen,

Simply for the sake of proving the point, I will be glad to help Tom out. I believe his problem is much the same as mine when it comes to your work. You rant for pages, which would be great if it were simply to build and develop your argument. But instead, your theory seems (to those of us reading it) that you simply hope to overwhelm the opposition with pure quantity of false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims. So, while normally I leave your articles alone due to the fact that I don’t have the time to systematically pull out and analyze/defend against every one of these claims (I actually have a job and a family to take care of), I will do it today— Simply because it illustrates Tom’s point rather well… (I only made it halfway, lunch is over, and I have to go back to work—sorry Tom. Just too many absurdities)

Virtually every state has decided to take more out of the local economy, and put out less.
—The presumption that it was a choice is not supported by the article. Many states and almost all local governments are required to maintain a balanced budget. They don’t get the liberty of running a deficit, or borrowing money that doesn’t exist. The assertion that it was a choice is simply a ploy by Stephen to prop up a straw man at which to blame…for supposedly making this ‘decision’.
Regardless of what certain political dogmas allege, this is in hard fact a withdrawal of capital from markets and economies already hard hit by the recent recession. Or, put another term, while the recession has ended in the general economy, the Government sector, by its ill-timed cuts and revenue hikes, is creating a drag on growth itself.
—Sounds nice and concise, except there is no support for this claim in Stephen’s writing or the article he links. Being a ‘hard fact’ should be fairly simple to support how government spending actually supports the markets and economies he mentions. But Stephen refuses to do this. Instead he presents the basis for his argument as fact, when truly it is the largest point of contention between republican and democrats. Ignoring this, he basis all of the rest of his conclusions and accusations on a premise he never even takes the time to support. Then he refers back to it over and over until you take it as the gospel truth. Just to be clear, here is one economists different viewpoint in a statement to congress.
Republicans haven’t been around long enough, or passed enough significant legislation recently to explain the rise in jobs and the drop in unemployment. Ten weeks is not enough to steer as huge of an economy as ours around the corner of an economic disaster like we just experienced. I keep on reminding Republicans that the “After this, therefore because of this” argument is a fallacy. No, just because jobs go up in the first weeks of a presidency doesn’t mean that President is responsible for the policy that brought it along,
—Wow… Republicans can’t claim the growth as their own. Why? Because Stephan says there hasn’t been enough time, End of discussion. Now all of the republicans should just go to our rooms without dinner. Right? Wrong! Economic turnarounds take time, I think we would all be willing to concede that. But we have yet to see a full turnaround. We are starting to see the beginnings of improvement. No one has claimed that we are out of the woods yet. The opposite logic can be applied to the democrats: They had been in office for 2 years with virtually zero effect to show for all their work. No improvements on unemployment. No economic recovery. Nothing. But when the republican walk in the door, things start improving. How can anyone believe the democrats are responsible when they had all that time, with no results? My point being that nothing says how fast or slow the first signs of improvement will surface in an economic recovery. (FYI: My true belief is that neither party is responsible, that the economy recovered just like recessive economies do all the time…with or without government intrusion). So don’t take anything from Stephen’s assertion that it is too quick for repbublicans to be responsible as anything other than his opinion (without any factual backing).
Citing psychological effects doesn’t wash either, not unless you advance the theory, in tandem, that businessfolk are such morons that they’d understaff and underpay people just when the chance for real profit is coming about.
—The ‘psychological effects’ he is trying to head off at the pass are that business was unwilling to move forward due to fear of the democratic agenda. Now that we have cleared that up, why would business people have to be ‘morons’ to fear the higher taxes, new social programs (which they will have to fund), new regulatory requirement placed upon them under the proposed democratic agenda. I see quite a bit of foresight in holding off business expansion until you can evaluate ALL the costs with doing business. Additionally, Stephen proposes that it is virtually a guarantee that the ‘chance for real profit is coming about.” This is just another reminder of Stephen’s naivety. Anyone in business, or for that matter, anyone with life experiences outside of the classroom knows that NOTHING is guaranteed in the real world. With that chance for ‘real profit’ is an equal chance, for ‘real losses,’ that Stephen need not worry about in the utopian world view in front of his computer screen. The funniest part of this argument is that three sentences later in his post, Stephen links to an article which details the fear which is still holding business growth back. Here is his link again
Just think, with so many jobs being lost, with such heavy cuts in the government sector of the economy, what would have turned the economy around, if it hadn’t been for Obama’s policies?
—Well, just from Stephen’s article, the first two that come to mind would be the new republican leadership in the house and a stronger showing in the senate (in other words: the republicans), and the extension of the Bush tax cuts along with the abandonment of other democratic agenda items. But further more, I would include the market, which does not necessary answer to either party, but does what free markets do…fluctuate. Too bad Stephen didn’t give us this choice. According to him government MUST control everything, so the choice is only democrats or republicans. He just can’t fathom that the economy (or anything else) functions with directly relating back to the government somehow.
But their political desperation does not excuse the stupidity of working counter-cyclically. Fiscal balance relies on a steady, robust flow of tax dollars, revenue that pays for things, rather than debt that borrows with interest for them.
—This is why Stephen’s blogs are so subversive. This sentence is actually perfectly valid, IF you accept the claim he made within the first two lines of his argument. The only problem, he never supported the claim earlier. He just threw it out there without any support and logic. He actually postulated that it was a ‘hard fact’ without providing the hard evidence. So, based solely on his own viewpoints, this conclusion seems acceptable. But once you actually take the time to break down his argument structure you realize that there is nothing there… In essence, we have already discussed how fiscal balance does not rely on a “steady, robust flow of tax dollars,” it relies on business’s and individual flow of money.


Sorry, I’m out of time to continue. But at least that should illustrate Stephen’s excessive tendency towards overpowering the reader with quantity instead of quality…

Posted by: adam at March 24, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #320589

Stephen, said he advocated investments and infrastructure and economic aid. Where do you think the funds are going to come from Stephen? Out of Obama’s Butt? If you don’t know yet Stephen, this countrie’s credit cards are about maxed out.

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2011 4:04 PM
Comment #320592

The truth is, we could take on a lot more debt if necessary. I’m not recommending it. That’s just what the bond markets are telling you, and that’s what an examination of the finances of other industrial debtors tells you.

In 1993, conservatives were saying exactly the same thing they are saying today about debts and deficits. Clinton and Congress raised taxes. The economy did not decline, as conservatives insisted it would. The economy boomed. The job market boomed.

By the end of Clinton’s second term, the national debt had stabilized, and we were projecting surpluses of $10 trillion. Congress sent rebates to taxpayers because the economy looked so good.

Then Bush and the GOP cut taxes. By the end of Bush’s second term, the national debt had doubled. The stock market crashed. There was a credit crunch. Jobs never did materialize.

Well, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Posted by: phx8 at March 24, 2011 4:20 PM
Comment #320593

1776-
Yawn. I already posted a comment dealing with the offshore loans made by the Export-Import Bank, which is under the control of a bunch of Bush appointees mainly, which would require them to use the money to buy American equipment and services. So, scroll up and find it.

And no, he has not virtually shutdown American drilling. That’s pure bull**** and you know it. Or should. He instituted a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. You know, that place where we had a multimonth megaspill? He’s directed his people to make sure that there isn’t a repeat of that disaster.

There’s always been at least one deepwater drilling permit issued since then. The question will be about doing it safely, not simply chasing oil development into another disaster.

Obama’s not limiting, but rather increasing other kinds of drilling. He’s just not sacrificing every other consideration, like tourism and fishing industries, or the notion that some places ought to remain undeveloped for the sake of preserving the wilderness and wildlife. You know, the things we aren’t enough like God to recreate once gone?

Blind greed cannot be a sustainable energy policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2011 4:28 PM
Comment #320594

adam, thanks for the Cato link to that excellent testimony. Mr. Daugherty would never, ever, read it as he would then have to change his mindset.

You did a great job in analysing Mr. Daugherty’s proclivity for hunches and guesses rather than analytical and fact based commentary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 4:44 PM
Comment #320595

phx8, what are you recommending…more debt, higher taxes, or both?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 4:50 PM
Comment #320596

Weary, here is another interesting fact from the same story.

“It is also the fifth deepwater drilling permit approved by the department since the BP oil spill.”

“1776, good job getting those permits back online! Who says a squeeky wheel gets the grease?”

So before you give the high five to 17, realize this is the first in a new area of the gulf, not the first in the gulf since the spill. Further to the point, the moratorium did not halt any drilling for oil on land that has been previously leased from the government. Yet 17 made the outrageous claim that “He has virtually shut down oil drilling in the US and your defense of him is the BP oil spill,”.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #320597

Royal Flush-
The source behind the graph is the Census Bureau. It says that right there at the bottom. Go back. Look at it, like you failed to do before you posted your comment.

And yes, Republicans are making cuts based on partisan calculation, rather than putting together a real problem to take care of the deficit. Why else are poverty programs, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Planned Parenthood funding on the chopping block? Are these all just bizarre coincidences?

Meanwhile, you go around in circles, claiming this is some great, responsible, and important thing, then admitting that compared to the rest of the budget, it’s chump change. The main reason for Republican cuts is not deficit cutting, it’s disempowering liberals with the deficits your policies created as a pretext.

On the discrepancy between stimulus goals and results? The GDP drop during the fourth quarter of 2008 was revised just after the Stimulus passed from a drop of 3.8% to 6.4%. This was even worse than the economists surveyed by the publication I linked to thought it would be. They were thinking 5.5%.

So, what happens when you apply a stimulus meant to deal with an almost four point drop in GDP with one that’s six and a half? Well, what do you think? Is there supposed to be some magic multiplication effect to make up for it, if it’s working?

The recession was bigger, and that meant it was going to take more than the current Stimulus to do the job.

And besides, the plane didn’t crash. It’s flying lower, but we’re not still in the trend we should be expecting to be, given the magnitude of our economic drop. We are making back jobs at a rate of 200,000 to 300,000 a month. That’s not enough to get us out of the economic slump, but I sure as hell will not call job gains a failure for an economic policy. There are much more stark examples of the failure to create jobs in recent times, so the comparisons should be positive in Obama’s direction, if the people critiquing him are being honest.

Weary Willie-
Yeah, you claim we’re guilty of the same behavior. Prove your claim then. Whatever I want to see or don’t want to see, if you know of facts that can counter mine, your best bet is to put those facts out for everybody to see, not just bluff and bluster about a bunch of BS.

Why should I do your arguing for you? I do my best not to be caught on the wrong side of a fact. But then, I’m only human. If I really have missed something, bring it up, for heaven’s sake.

And it’s Democrats. You cannot revise the English language to suit your annoyance that Republican is both a noun and and adjective. Most people, reading you use the word “Democratics” are going to assume you don’t know proper English. They aren’t going to have a clue about the background of your complaint.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #320598

SD

I’m going to give you an opportunity to write an addendum to your above mentioned book.

How do you justify your party’s Libyan approach? There is no policy and it is just fly by the seat of your pants. All the bad mouthing of Bush the the middle east military operations are now ok. The president goes to the UN to approve the action of our forces. How unconstitutional is that? He vacations and plays golf while the earth is going to hell!! And you support it!! How many pages will be in the addendum? I am very busy in moving our corporate headquarters 400 miles away and I will have to schedule to read more than a couple of paragraphs.

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2011 5:05 PM
Comment #320599

I am happy that Mr. Daugherty has now fixed his link to poverty as all it showed before was the graph. But, it still shows more poverty than in 1960 despite the trillions spent to eradicate it. We were shafted.

Mr. Daugherty claims that defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood would result in…”disempowering liberals…”

WOW, are they really that far down in the polls that without these two programs the libs would lose their power? I had no idea just how weak they were.

As for flawed estimates regarding the needed stimulus, who is surprised that government guessers were wrong. If we look at OMB’s rosy scenario for the next decade or two we can find some really outstanding, world-class, magical thinking guesses. Perhaps I will post some of their fairy-dust magic that Obama hopes to sprinkle us with.


Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment #320602

RF,
In the past, we have seen the economy grow with the tax rates of the Clinton years, and in the years between WWII and Ford, we saw the highest tax rate at 74% or even higher. If we look at a successful economy like Germany, their highest tax bracket is 45%. It seems to me like the Clinton tax rates might be about right for the US.

Until we raise taxes and cut defense spending and implement national health, I’d say the chances of pulling out of this economic death spiral are not good. No one wants to raise taxes, but everyone loves getting government services for free. The situation with the private Health Insurance industry and Big Pharma is absolutely ridiculous. The solutions are obvious, successful models are out there, but the willingness of Americans to step up is absent.

Posted by: phx8 at March 24, 2011 5:55 PM
Comment #320604

phx8 writes; “No one wants to raise taxes, but everyone loves getting government services for free.”

Well, many liberals seem ready and anxious to raise taxes. The “everyone” you write of are those who pay no taxes and so, for them, it is free. But, the bill always comes due and someone must pay. Does anyone really expect that Americans are willing to pay for even more “free stuff”?

I have written that I am willing to increase payroll taxes on higher incomes to help SS remain viable along with increasing the retirement ages for those under age 50 at this time. But, those changes must come with a guarantee by government to no longer “borrow” the SS funds for other purposes.

And, I am willing to reduce military spending by bringing our troops home from all over the world. At one time I did support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no longer. It is also insane to keep our military in places like Japan and Germany.

It is obvious to me that we have no intention of “winning” any current military engagement, whatever that means. And, as a member of the American Legion I believe it is unconscionable to hobble our military with ridiculous and politically motivated rules of engagement that puts the lives of our service people in even more danger. It has nearly come to the point of having to assign every service-person, in a combat area, an attorney so they can understand the rules and not wind up in prison.

We can cut spending without depriving any of our citizens the necessities of life; food, clothing and shelter.

As for corporate tax rates, they should be lowered as the rest of the western world has done. And, we should enact a balanced budget amendment with teeth. Congress should not be allowed to tax or spend more than 20% of GDP. This historic norm has served us well and will again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #320605

“The “everyone” you write of are those who pay no taxes and so, for them, it is free.”

Royal Flush,

Everybody pays taxes. You can’t escape sales taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, local property taxes, user fees, etc. When it is all added up, the tax burden by income class is surprisingly less progressive than normally thought. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #320606

Silly Rich, what freebies do those taxes purchase?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 8:21 PM
Comment #320609

Royal Flush,

Sure, silly? Data on the actual total tax burden across all income groups. Definitely something you wouldn’t want to know. Just facts. I thought that was what conservatives wanted reading this thread.

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 8:54 PM
Comment #320612

First new deepwater oil and gas exploration plan approved since Gulf oil spill
Published: Monday, March 21, 2011, 10:00 PM Updated: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 9:57 AM
…………..://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/03/first_new_deepwater_oil_and_ga.html

The Obama administration Monday approved the first deepwater oil and gas exploration plan since last year’s Macondo oil well blowout, giving Shell Offshore the green light to seek drilling permits for three new wells 130 miles off the Louisiana coast.


U.S. OKs 4th deepwater drilling permit since BP spill
WASHINGTON | Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:56pm EDT
……….//www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-usa-drilling-permit-idUSTRE72L6FL20110322

(Reuters) - The U.S. Interior Department said on Tuesday it approved a permit for Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) to drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the fourth such deepwater permit the department has cleared since the BP oil spill last summer.

Feds approve fifth permit for deepwater drilling banned after BP spill
Published: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:45 AM Updated: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 11:08 AM
………-www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/feds_approve_fifth_permit_for.html

The federal government has approved the first permit for completely new deepwater exploration since last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, bringing the count to five permits issued overall since the moratorium on deepwater drilling was lifted in October.

All this week!

Permit to restart old well issued on Feb. 28. Less than a month ago.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 24, 2011 9:18 PM
Comment #320614

Weary Willie,

The reason that permits are now being issued is that the oil companies have developed the technology for capping a blowout such as the BP disaster. The improved technology was a requisite for issuing any new permits. The first permit was issued in February after the industry demonstrated the capping capability and many more will follow as you note. It was that requirement that held up new permits after the lifting of the moratorium.

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #320616

J2t2 says:

“1776, First of all you seem to think that by going off the topic of the thread you are somehow entitled to demand answers for what ever conservative talking pointy you deem important, well I guess if you can’t come up with logic or facts to refute Stephen you have to resort to something, right?”

Hey big boy, it happens to be Mr. Daugherty that wants to throw everything into his responses except the kitchen sink and a real answer. When dealing with adolescents…Oh well..

“Secondly,how has oil drilling in the US been shutdown? The moratorium on drilling in the gulf was lifted last year, wasn’t it”

Again, may I say, Silly boy, how many permits have been issued since the moratorium was lifted? Lifted last year, Hmmm, how come we have a judge ruling against the moratorium only a month ago?

“Judge Rules Against Obama Administration on Off-Shore Oil Drilling…Again”

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/17/judge-rules-against-obama-administration-shore-oil-drillingagain

“Perhaps after the BP oil spill what was done was necessary as it seems private industry is unwilling to comply with the safety rules required for drilling in the gulf”.

Perhaps you could give me a link showing Obama’s concern for the environment when he promised $2 billion American dollars to Brazil. I missed that part in his speech.

“The warm and fuzzy feeling about doing good soon disappeared and he is left with defending policies of “interest group liberalism”.
Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2011 03:33 PM “

Royal, not to mention that tingly feeling liberals get running up their legs, when they speak the words “Obama” bless his holy name…

Stephen said:

“Obama’s not limiting, but rather increasing other kinds of drilling. He’s just not sacrificing every other consideration, like tourism and fishing industries, or the notion that some places ought to remain undeveloped for the sake of preserving the wilderness and wildlife. You know, the things we aren’t enough like God to recreate once gone?
Blind greed cannot be a sustainable energy policy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2011 04:28 PM


You’re correct Stephen; Obama IS increasing other kinds of drilling, I only wish it were in the US of A, rather than Brazil. Again, I ask you this simple question Stephen, when did Obama show such concerns for the environment when he gave our money to Brazil?

J2t2 said again:

“So before you give the high five to 17, realize this is the first in a new area of the gulf, not the first in the gulf since the spill. Further to the point, the moratorium did not halt any drilling for oil on land that has been previously leased from the government. Yet 17 made the outrageous claim that “He has virtually shut down oil drilling in the US and your defense of him is the BP oil spill,”

Perhaps j2t2 could explain how many permits have been issued for fracking oil out of shale in the North Dakota, or drilling in CA, or off the East Coast?

Perhaps j2t2 could also explain why the Obama administration has been conviscating lands for the expansion of Federal lands, according to the UN Agenda 21? What control does this give the Federal Government over America’s natural resources?

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lamb/100801

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_17.shtml

Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #320621

RF,
Agreed, the world has changed enough that keeping American troops in Japan & Germany no longer makes sense.

I’m not sure what is going on in Libya, but it does not seem like it matters in terms of national security. It certainly does not make economic sense. I do believe in committing our forces when there are compelling moral reasons, such as a potential genocide, but personally, I don’t think Libya rises to that standard. I’ve heard others make the case that it does.

Posted by: phx8 at March 24, 2011 11:12 PM
Comment #320622

Adam-
The States have to do what they have to do. But their balancing of the budget can come at the expense of those who can afford the extra burden, rather than those who can’t. It can also be lightened if we break free of cloistered, stagnant, calcified thinking long enough to realize that making things harder for the average American consumer is not making things better for America as a whole.

The drag on growth is recognized by the folks over at Goldman Sachs, not exactly the world’s biggest fans of big government, at least when they’re not being bailed out. It’s real. It’s intuitive if you think about it.

If private dollars were flowing around enough, it would be worth it, but Corporations and investors are saving money rather than spending it, especially since the savings-inducing Bush Tax Cuts for the rich have been extended.

Now, your Cato libertarian can say the Stimulus is a failure and all that, but even the Heritage foundation had to admit it caused some growth, and the CBO, when it estimated the crowding out effect, found it negligible.

We have a variety of economists who came to the same conclusion: that the Stimulus worked. There just wasn’t enough of it, given the revised figures on unemployment and the depths of the economic recession, to reach what it was supposed to reach.

You say we have seen no improvement. That’s plainly untrue. We’ve seen economic growth restart, inflation go back into the positive (believe me, it’s never good going the opposite way), jobs start coming back long before the Republicans won the election.

Two years certainly is much more time than two and a half months, and when it’s these two years, in our nation’s recent history, where our economy was put through a terrible crisis, it can be very important what gets done in those two years. Time is not so much the crucial factor as opportunity, especially opportunities taken, and carried through. The Democrats, despite fanatical opposition from Republicans, passed a historic raft of legislation. The Republicans aren’t even capable of getting a budget through. No time, no opportunity, no follow through.

Now that we have cleared that up, why would business people have to be ‘morons’ to fear the higher taxes, new social programs (which they will have to fund), new regulatory requirement placed upon them under the proposed democratic agenda.

Well, generations of businesspeople have weathered worse, for one thing. If they can profit, so can these people. If you have people eager for products, only an idiot looks at that with marketing, and feels they would rather have their business fail than get those customers. If you’re filling those needs, but don’t have enough people to do all that business, you’d be foolish not to consider hiring somebody else to help you meet that demand. Nothing is guaranteed in the real world, but especially not those things people simply let politics scare them off from.

The real smart person, which I’ll assume many entrepreneurs are, will look for the opportunity in any situation, and asses things by facts and experience, not by partisan ideology.

You want to believe that somehow the economic recovery started right now? Fine, I’ll come back with evidence that predates your cause with my party’s results. It’s very easy to push a feeling about why things happen. It’s quite another to look at the evidence and discern the provable truth.

As for what I believe? ****, y’all are always telling me what I believe, even as I spend paragraph after paragraph giving a personal, first-hand accounting of that. I don’t believe that the government can and/or must control everything. That’s just your adversarial assumption. You favor libertarianism, so I must be an authoritarian. You love small government so I must be as madly infatuated with big government as you are with small.

Sorry to disappoint. I think there are times where government is better off staying out of the way, places where it’s better off keeping a firm hand always present, and other places where it should only intervene if absolutely necessary. I don’t have your problem of a false consistency. I don’t need to make everything laissez faire in my philosophy, to feel as if I’m approaching things right.

You go on to say my blogs are subversive, and say that I postulated something without hard fact.

What hard facts are necessary to prove that when you tax economic activity, and more of it goes on, revenues increase? Hell, that’s one of the basic premises of supply-side tax theory. You are supposed to expect that because of your tax cut, the economy will grow faster, and creating more of that activity, will bring in more revenue.

I mean, if taxes were actually an effective way to supercharge such activity, you’d be depending on that effect.

It’s simple math, simple logic. We increased the tax rates in 1993, the economy grew after that, the deficit diminished.

Of course, if you concede that, you have to concede that allowing our country to maintain its current economic course is severely damaging our fiscal future. The longer we remain in a bad economy that doesn’t generate more revenues for the same tax rates, the higher the deficits, the more the debt. The question is one of balancing the costs of doing something, with the costs of doing nothing.

One last note. I looked at your post, and I felt a bit of a thrill at first, because I thought somebody was finally going to bring some facts to bear.

Instead, I get two links to an opinion piece from a thinktank employee, and a lot of bellyaching about my political attitudes and economic beliefs. Thanks for nothing.

KAP-
Well we can start by carving out the waste and the corruption, by paying less the folks who have plenty of private dollars to replace the federal.

Then? We’re not absolutely broke. We push another stimulus package of some kind, but targeted at improving this nation’s economic picture at a fundamental level- Better infrastructure, especially data infrastructure. Better healthcare, better preventative care so peole are wasting fewer taxpayer dollars by becoming chronically ill.

So on and so forth. But jobs should be the number one priority, because people with jobs are taxpayers, contributors to systems rather than those drawing them down.

The less we have to charge on those credit cards, the better. Letting a lot of people remain poor will only keep the problem going on the revenue side, and complicate it on the spending side.

Royal Flush-
Why all the attention on NPR and the unions, given the fact we’re in the middle of a Jobs crisis, and people are actually expecting you to solve it?

As for the guesses, you know, somebody said it’s better to be approximately right, than precisely wrong. Just as with Global Climate change, you don’t seem to register that some systems just don’t behave with clockwork predictability. An economy is not an easy thing to make guesses about, and it’s damn near impossible to get a precise reading on things while they’re running. You think it’s just government that can’t predict these things? Then why couldn’t the big banks, with all their private geniuses head off that crisis?

And do tell us more about rosy estimates, because that was how your folks sold your Medicare Bills, your Tax cuts, and dare I say it, your wars! You were sprinkling the magic fairy dust of psychological effects on nearly every damn thing you did, hoping that somehow the calculus of your programs would overcome the arithmetic.

As for us winning Libya? That’s not our job. You know, your side is quick to jump right into things with both combat booted feet, but not so quick to get themselves out of things. We are now in the midst of a war that is nearing its tenth anniverary, and we’re fighting one that just reached it’s eighth. If you want to advise us about avoiding long wars, be my guest. We haven’t had a good laugh in a while.

Who is suppose to win Libya? Duh. The Libyans. The whole point of what we’re doing is to even the odds, so that the advantage shifts back to the popular Rebels.

Now, you can take this opportunity to do your typical conservative hyperventilating about liberal Military policy, but whatever happens in Libya, it’s much less likely that Americans will continue to fight there for years to come, than it is in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We can cut spending without depriving any of our citizens the necessities of life; food, clothing and shelter.

I’d read through your budget a couple times before you get that optimistic about it.

As for GDP? I keep on telling you that percent of GDP is kind of arbitrary. It depends on tax rates, economic growth, and the intermingling effects. More to the point, it’s a phenomena, not necessarily an ideal. You have to quit confusing what’s natural with what’s right.

1776-
You know, these discussion would be a lot more interesting if we spent less time describing wht foul ***holes the other side is, and focused more on the logic and the evidence. You have yet to provide your objections to my points of substance. Instead, you just go around in circles.

You keep on making claims, which by the hard facts I’ve provided are not sound. Again, Obama doesn’t control who the Export-Import Bank offers a loan to- a loan predicated on the requirement that American jobs and American equipment be paid for with the money. And who, exactly is it, who gets paid back this money? If we loan them money, and they make money and pay us back…

You’re correct Stephen; Obama IS increasing other kinds of drilling, I only wish it were in the US of A, rather than Brazil.

Didn’t you read what I said? Drilling increased here. Just not in deep water. Apparently, you think all of America’s oil exploration takes place in the Gulf, in deep water!

Meanwhile, what to my wondering eyes does appear, but Weary Willie providing us examples of permits being granted for deep water drilling! You’re so busy marketing a conspiracy theory about Obama plotting against needed drilling, that you’re not even noticing where he’s allowing it.

As for the UNCLOS? I guess you prefer Ad Hoc shifting boundaries and disputes, not to mention leaving a greater area of potentially exploitable resources, including oil, in doubt, just for the sake of your paranoid arguments. Yeah, what your boasts give, your actions take away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 1:26 AM
Comment #320628

“Perhaps j2t2 could explain how many permits have been issued for fracking oil out of shale in the North Dakota, or drilling in CA, or off the East Coast?”

Better yet 76, why don’t you back up your outrageous exaggeration that Obama “has virtually shut down oil drilling in the US and your defense of him is the BP oil spill,”. You seem to have moved on to yet another tangent without being able to back up your claim, yet you have nothing but outright lies such as “When dealing with adolescents…Oh well..”. Oh well is right 17 or in your case perhaps it should be Orwell as you are using Reaganspeak to make these false claims then cut and run to a different subject when called out for your nonsense.

“Perhaps j2t2 could also explain why the Obama administration has been conviscating lands for the expansion of Federal lands, according to the UN Agenda 21?”

Or better yet perhaps 1776 can actually back up these claims of land confiscation with facts. You have made the claim that Obama has been confiscating land according to Agenda 21. Prove it.
BTW, Why is this tangent you now have us off on relevant to oil permits?

The problem as I see it 17 is these extremist sites you link to, in this case Renew America, are completely delusional or their exaggerated claims are based upon either intentional misinformation, half truths or outright lies. I quickly reviewed the UN link but could find nothing about “confiscation” of land.

“What control does this give the Federal Government over America’s natural resources?”

Good question 17, since you seem to think it somehow gives the Feds greater power show us the evidence to back up your claim. Sometimes we need to realize that just because Renew America says it is true does not mean it is actually true. They don’t seem to provide any concrete information just wild claims, what does that tell you?

BTW if not the Federal Government who exactly do you think should have control over our natural resources?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13547

Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2011 10:00 AM
Comment #320629

Thank you Mr. Daugherty for the reems of rhetorical spin, but you have proved my point; you write pages of BS to keep from giving an answer. I also agree with RF and Adam, you play the game of building a concensus upon false first statements. My simple one question to you was:

“I have come to the conclusion that most of the left is incapable of answering more than one question at a time without resulting to posting liberal, leftist, rhetoric, talking points. So I will only ask one question at a time. Maybe Mr. Daugherty can simply answer the question without resulting to writing a dissertation.

Tell me, those of you on the left, how angry are you at Obama? At what time do you face reality and stop trying to defend or explain everything Obama does? He has virtually shut down oil drilling in the US and your defense of him is the BP oil spill, and yet he guarantees Brazil $2 billion for the purpose of financing their own off shore drilling. He even told Brazil of his eagerness to be involved in their offshore drilling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

This support of foreign offshore drilling kind of blows a hole in the save-the-environment theory, doesn’t it? I’m sure Obama would love for us to import more oil from Brazil as well as the Middle-East. Let the defense of Obama begin…


Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 01:37 PM”

My question was, “This support of foreign offshore drilling kind of blows a hole in the save-the-environment theory, doesn’t it?” Why do you support Obama’s decision to shut down oil drilling in the US on environmental grounds, but have no problem with Obama investing American money with a foreign country to drill for offshore oil, with no guarantees of environmental safeties. As I said, this blows a hole in the “save-the-environment” theory, doesn’t it?

Its okay for Brazil to drill for offshore oil with no Obama approved safety standards, but it is not okay for companies in the US to do the same. I call this a double standard, and wealth distribution. Answer the one question Mr. Daugherty without writing a book. Then we can move on to another question.

PS. I love the support you get from all your little mush heads who feel the need to defend you on WB.

Posted by: 1776 at March 25, 2011 10:21 AM
Comment #320630

“PS. I love the support you get from all your little mush heads who feel the need to defend you on WB.”
Posted by: 1776 at March 25, 2011 10:21 AM

17, it is not so much defending Stephen as it is calling you on your misinformation, half truths and outright lies. You call us adolescents yet feel the need to resort to defending your false claims with rebuttals such as “mush heads”. Your adolescence is showing IMHO.
Why not try to defend your BS with facts not fiction?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #320631

1776-
The reems of rhetorical spin are yours.

Let’s start with your claims. Snopes, a respected site for debunking falsehoods, tells use the following:

1) The President doesn’t have authority over the bank, rather the folks who Presidents appoint to the board do, and all of the appointed leaders of the bank at the time of the approval were Bush appointees. which was in April of 2009.

Which adds another problem, because Obama certainly couldn’t have planned to approve a loan to give an edge to foreign oil companies a year in advance of the actual Deepwater Horizon disaster, which was in April of 2010

2) He signed no executive order to force anything.

3) George Soros’ hedge fund sold off 27 million of its 37 million Petrobas shares before May of 2009.

4) The Ex-Im Bank does not use any taxpayer dollars, and entirely operates on the returns it gets from doing its chartered purpose: making sure American products and American workers do the jobs that otherwise would get done by foreigners.

As for the environmental considerations? The Brazilians are not half as trusting of their oil rig operators as we are, and they require Acoustic Switches, so that oil wells can be shut off remotely, without having to rely on the rig’s direct connection. I read in my hometown paper that one reason why the Blowout preventer failed to cut off the flow of oil was that the sinking of the rig had pulled the pipe off center. I think we’re a little too naive about whether industries engage in best practices when the dollar and its loss is their main motivator.

The oil disaster cost us a lot. What kind of naive thinking is it to absorb such costs time and again, see industries threatened, just so a few can profit a bit more? We can’t just base our limitations on what people do on a fear of reduced profits. There are more aspects to the public good than that, more responsibilities that our Government should be fulfilling.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 11:47 AM
Comment #320632

Stephen, There you go again with the liberal “Robin Hood” tactic rob from the rich to give to the poor. Granted the rich can afford it. I agree with the CUT OUT THE WASTE AND CORRUPTION. We still have the first stimulous why do another? We do need JOBS and that will keep the poor from being poor all their lives, but we have to keep the hand outs to the minimum and only for a pre determined lenght of time, this is one thing we CANNOT keep doing. Sooner or later the poor need to get off their FAT LAZY behinds and provide for themselves, AND I DON’T MEAN THAT FOR THOSE WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF FENDING FOR THEMSELVES.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2011 11:49 AM
Comment #320633

KAP-

We still have the first stimulous why do another?

A $900 Billion dollar output gap and an 8.9% unemployment rate. I mean, if the possibility of an 8.5% unemployment rate was a good reason for a stimulus in the first place, why shouldn’t the reality of an 8.9% level unemployment rate for the next few years prompt action?

As for getting the poor off their fat, lazy behinds? I’m afraid you don’t understand the nature of this crisis. The jobs aren’t there. The poor are getting up and standing in lines for those jobs, and not enough can get them.

This is the problem with having one stereotypical model, a Robber Baron mentality sanitized for popular consumption, as the basic paradigm for the right. The Elites of today are blaming the poor for the mess that the elites should be blaming themselves for.

The problem is not that poor people are too expensive to carry as a burden. The reality is, they would work if they could work, but the system the elites have created is so dysfunctional, so inefficient, that it leaves millions of Americans idled for various reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #320634

So, I gather from Mr. Daugherty’s latest disertation, he supports Obama using our money to drill in Brazil, but does not support it in America. Obama can shut down oil exploration in the US until a federal judge tells him he can’t, but he can finance foreign oil companies in a foreign nation, with our money, with no time line restrictions due to environmental concerns. Have I got this correct?

Posted by: 1776 at March 25, 2011 1:40 PM
Comment #320635

Stephen, I do understand the nature of the crisis, It is to many people milking the system for all it’s worth and knowing how to milk it. The generations of welfare families. The people who really need it, I don’t mind. There are jobs out there Stephen but people don’t want them because they don’t pay enough. My Son in law just got a job in a little hick town in W.V. the pay isn’t the greatest but it’s a JOB and he was greatful to get it. If a person wants to work he will find a JOB, but as long as the Uncle Sugar Government is willing to give out the free hand outs, why should they work.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #320636

I do believe in committing our forces when there are compelling moral reasons, such as a potential genocide, but personally, I don’t think Libya rises to that standard. I’ve heard others make the case that it does.

Posted by: phx8 at March 24, 2011

“Potential Genocide” is a tough one to deal with. It appears we are siding with the “rebels” in this case in Libya. But, what if the situation were reversed, and the “rebels” we about to eliminate “genocide” the government forces? What then?

Sometimes good folks confuse the word “rebel” with something honorable, to be defended. One persons rebel could be another’s terrorist. Frankly, I don’t believe we know much about the Libyan rebels. If we are supporting them just because they are rebelling against a tyrant then the question becomes, why not do that everywhere in the world where such conditions exist?

On the same subject, Mr. Daugherty writes: “Who is suppose to win Libya? Duh. The Libyans. The whole point of what we’re doing is to even the odds, so that the advantage shifts back to the popular Rebels.”

Mr. Daugherty, that comment is insane. Who are the Libyans if not all who have citizenship there. That would include those who support government would it not?

“Even the odds”, is hardly a worthy effort. Doesn’t that imply that even more folks will be killed and injured if the two opposing forces are made more equal?

“Popular Rebels” is hardly a formula for choosing sides. I would ask Mr. Daugherty to give his comments a little more thought.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2011 1:55 PM
Comment #320638

“Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ranking Member of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, will release a report Thursday from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing that the United States’ combined recoverable natural gas, oil and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.

Russia comes in as a close second with recoverable fossil fuel reserves, followed Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Canada.

According to the new report, an updated version of a 2009 paper, the United States’ resources are larger than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada, combined. The report estimates that the U.S. has 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil and enough natural gas to meet the country’s demand for 90 years.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/new-report-says-u-s-has-largest-fossil-fuel-reserves-in-world/#ixzz1HdVBIggL

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment #320639

Wittism for the day from Billy Graham.

“Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2011 2:16 PM
Comment #320640

Correction…”Witticism”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2011 2:17 PM
Comment #320645

Royal Flush-
This is the kind of sloppy critical thinking skills we have to put up with from the Right these days:

While we only have 28 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, there are 135 billion additional barrels of undiscovered, yet recoverable, oil resources throughout our territory. In other words, as a result of the war against drilling, we can only “prove” the existence of 18% of the total 163 billion barrels. This is because we can’t officially prove the exact amount of fuel resources until we explore and drill them. If we were to tap into our resources, we could cancel our imports from the Persian Gulf for 50 years, still meeting our energy needs.

Ha-ha, very funny.

When oil engineers talk about what reserves an oil field might have, they talk in percentage possiblities. You know, best case scenario, we have this much. Average scenario, there might be this much. At the very least, there should be this much oil.

They assign probabilities to this. Why? Because we can only guess, only sample what’s so far below the surface. When Obama talks about proven reserves, he’s talking about the barrels of oil we’re more than 90% sure is actually there, the oil you’re pretty much able to take to the bank as yours.

What Inhofe and his people likely might have done here is tell the CRS to give them the best case scenarios on every oil field we got. But that’s not responsible, if that’s what they did, because if you’re wrong, then you’re running an energy policy based on oil you don’t actually have. When your oil wells run dry ahead of schedule, well, you’re sort of screwed.

I discussed the outlines of the report with my Grandfather, asking him what recoverable would mean.

My Grandfather, by the way, is a former executive from Exxon. He ran refineries for a living. He told me the first stage of getting that oil up is under it’s own pressure, the pressure of the rocks above and the natural gas. That’s about a third of the oil. Then you have pumping, and that gets you about half. Then he talked about pumping with an assist, like pushing CO2 down into the formation.

He mentioned Tar Sands, like I have, which he said was difficult (It is, only recently becoming economical), and Oil Shale, which he also said was fairly difficult. I looked that up, and that’s fairly accurate. In one case, you’re getting Bitumen, and in the other case it’s Kerogen. Both have to be be cracked into smaller chained hydrocarbons to be used to make gasoline.

Funny thing: the report mentions that, too.

Not all oil, recoverable or otherwise, is made equal. Some of it has a higher percentage of heavy hydrocarbons, and thus needs to be cracked in order to be useable as gasoline. Other kinds, sometimes the same kind, have higher amounts of sulfur in them, and therefore require special processing to remove it. Some oil is more expensive because getting to it requires deeper drilling, or in the case of Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico, drilling underwater at incredible depths. The increased pressures, heat, and even radioactivity deep underground are matched by additional pressures, cold and unsurvivable water pressures at those ocean depths above.

All this, putting safety aside, makes drilling more expensive, more challenging.

Which brings me to what should be, if we’re being responsible here, the crucial point: we are not magically going to get to cheaper oil by exploiting all the resources that Inhofe’s guessed at riches might yield. And no, we’re not going to get it tomorrow.

What Inhofe is doing is shilling for energy company concerns, and using irresponsible rhetoric to do it. The President talks about the oil we pretty much know we’ve got, Inhofe talks about a whole bunch of oil that might be there if we’re lucky, and neglects to mention that this oil is much more expensive, dangerous, and in many cases more environmentally hazardous to get out, even if you don’t count the CO2 emissions, which are higher since you have to bake the hydrocarbons out of the rocks and sands at high temperature.

On Libya? Look, most people support the rebels. But the rebels were getting pounded by superior military equipment, which that bastard bought with money he stole from the people. Concerning the character of those people? How would you know the first thing about it?

And why does it have to be everybody who wants to rebel? The Patriots of the 13 original colonies didn’t wait for everybody to nod their approval before they began their revolution. If we applied your standard to that period in our history, you would have been opposing the Americans and supporting the British on that count.

You know, I just think your people tend to take the position that’s opposite of whatever Obama decides to take. That’s the limits of your rhetorical consistency.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 7:29 PM
Comment #320647

1776-

So, I gather from Mr. Daugherty’s latest disertation, he supports Obama using our money to drill in Brazil, but does not support it in America.

There’s nothing to denounce here but the tired old repetition of a discredited argument. The Deepwater Horizon was a year away from being sunk, and the Obama administration pretty much pro-oil development at the time. The members who made the approval was all Bush appointees, Obama didn’t have a say in it.

Hell, there wasn’t even American Taxpayer dollars involved. The Ex-Im bank is entirely self-sufficient.

KAP-
If you want to know who’s really milking the system, look at where most of the cartons end up. The concentration of wealth at the bottom scale of income has gone down. Maybe the theory you have has emotional heft with you, reflects an anecdotal understanding of local economics, but it doesn’t reflect real-world income distribution. Poverty was increasing even before the economic collapses

Or put another way, if we’re working on the hypothesis that the poor took too much of the money in the system, why is it that poverty has increased, even before the economic collapse? The poor would be getting richer, keeping more money. Is that the result? No, income distribution went the other way.

So, don’t blame the poor. Their fingerprints aren’t on the disaster. Punish them, and nobody profits.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #320648

Mr. Daugherty said:

“You know, I just think your people tend to take the position that’s opposite of whatever Obama decides to take. That’s the limits of your rhetorical consistency.”

Conjecture, un-provable, and liberal talking points.

Since Mr. Daugherty has sat at the feet of his grandfather and learned all there is to know about recovering oil, then we must accept the fact Mr. Daugherty has once again proven to us he in an expert on yet another topic. Will miracles never cease?

At what lengths will Mr. Daugherty go to prove we do not have any oil in America and we do not have time to get it out of the ground before we all die of Global Warming? If Mr. Daugherty had agreed with drilling for our own oil when he came to WB, instead of opposing it, we would now have an abundance of oil.

Although, I must say, I am impressed with Mr. Daugherty’s latest comments. He managed to stay on topic and no veer off too much. There is an old saying that applies to Mr. Daugherty, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with B.S.”

Posted by: 1776 at March 25, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #320649

Mr. Daugherty writes; “What Inhofe and his people likely might have done here is tell the CRS to give them the best case scenarios on every oil field we got. But that’s not responsible, if that’s what they did, because if you’re wrong, then you’re running an energy policy based on oil you don’t actually have.”

OH, please, I am sure the CRS takes direction from republicans. Can Mr. “Facts” back that up? Now the OMB, with their “fairy-dust” sprinkled projections designed at the direction of Obama, is probably something you could sink your chops into. What a laugh.

He writes; “On Libya? Look, most people support the rebels. But the rebels were getting pounded by superior military equipment, which that bastard bought with money he stole from the people. Concerning the character of those people? How would you know the first thing about it?”

I see, public opinion determines which rebels, and where they are located, that we choose to support. That comment is just too stupid to comment on further. How in the bloody hell would you know the first thing about the character of those people? Good Grief man…get a grip. What the hell difference does it make?

Have you heard obama or hillary or anyone else in charge of this action talk about the “character” of the rebels as the reason for the action? Or, did that comment come early in the morning from a fatigued brain?

My hope is that somehow, some way, Mr. Daugherty could be transported to a battle field. He might be amazed at the reaction he would get spewing his nonsense about war to real men and women service members. His comments include imaginings that are simply unbelievable for those whose brains aren’t mushy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2011 8:15 PM
Comment #320650

Stephen, I’m not blaming the poor, I’m blaming the government and their handouts which keep the poor, poor. Limit the handouts and maybe the poor will have no choice but to get off their poor butts and do something for themselves besides sitting around and letting uncle sugar government take care of them. I’ve been there Stephen and I didn’t like it so I did something about it.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2011 8:21 PM
Comment #320651

In my continued quest to get one answer for one question from Mr. Daugherty, I will now ask question #2: “Why are we in Libya and what is the difference between the conflict in Libya and the conflict in Iraq?” You will notice I used the term conflict ad not war, because Obama doesn’t believe in war. He went to war without congressional support, of which he stated a president must have when he was a Senator. He has no entrance plan, no exit plan, and no leadership. He is using a military that is despised by the left, he has surrendered US sovereignty to the UN, he is again spending the taxpayer’s money on yet a 3rd war, he is losing the support of his own party, and once again liberals are willing to defend Obama to the end. What say you Mr. Daugherty, do you once again defend him?

Let the disertation begin…

Posted by: 1776 at March 25, 2011 8:24 PM
Comment #320655

1776-
2005, Republicans believe that filibusters are un-American and a betrayal of Democracy. They demand up-or-down votes for five judicial appointees of Bush, having gotten nearly every one of them

2006-onwards: Filibusters are essential to maintaining the integrity of the Republic against the evil Dems, and anyways, we’re not a Democracy.

2003- Republicans create a vast new Drug benefit and supplemental insurance benefit into the system, and fight like mad to make sure it happens. They forget to offset it with spending cuts elsewhere, or raise taxes to cover it. This is supposed to be a good thing.

2008-onwards: HCR is teh devil. Even when it’s more than offset by tax increases and spending decreases elsewhere, including, ironically enough, in the institutions the Republicans created in their bill.

1993-1994: Republicans push a mandate as alternative to “Hillarycare”

2006: Mitt Romney puts into practice that very same mandate.

2009: Obama pushes same mandate as part of a larger package of healthcare Reforms. Mandates, and Romneycare, are now teh devil.

Early 2011: The tide is turning against rebels, thanks to the much better armed and equipped Qaddafi Troops. Newt Gingrich says Obama not doing enough, that he should strike.

Not so Early 2011: Proving Arbuckelian agility, Newt quickly condemns Obama’s intervention.

2009: Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia presents a plan that would allow Medicare recipients to consult with a professional about Living will and advanced care directives. This is seen as a sensible, humane plan, to allow old people to avoid extended, unwanted suffering and avoid expensive, unnecessary treatments.

2010: Caught up in the controversy, he’s forced to muddle that position up, so his party can have it’s bloody DEATH PANELS.

You guys struggle to win, and then get hit with the consequences of having to be consistent with your rhetoric.

Case in point: oil. I’m not against oil exploration. It did a lot of good for my family. We’ll need it in the meantime. I’m for not waiting to find alternatives, though. While the supply is still good, and the fuel still relatively cheap, we need to plan and create the new infrastructure for renewable and sustainable energy. That way, our economy doesn’t get nut-kicked continuously, and we have the economic strength to come out the winners on this, rather than handing the advantage to the people who did plan ahead.

As for Iraq and Libya? I’ll call them wars.

The difference will be, the natives will own the regime change. The natives will own the government, not us. We will have a minimal role in this, once things have started off. Our allies will bear actual weight, rather than America getting saddled with everything.

I think he did the right thing in not waiting. There wasn’t going to be a rebellion to salvage if he didn’t act quickly. We got there just in time.

And more to the point, the UN has bought Libya, rather than us. They now have incentive to get the job done, unlike in Iraq, where they were only doing us a favor, until their people got blown up in an insurgency we failed to stem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 9:11 PM
Comment #320657

KAP-
The kind of welfare you’re talking about is over. Your people killed it long ago. You’re fighting a ghost of a policy.

What’s killing jobs now is that people can’t afford to be customers like they once were. Don’t you think all the lay-offs, pay-cuts, compromised, part-time jobs and such have their effect?

It’s time to stop thinking of this in terms of those who are not benefiting. Follow the money. Find the people who really are making out good. The poor did not crash the economy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 9:17 PM
Comment #320658

Royal Flush-
With reports like the CBOs or the CRS’s, the question is often as important as the substance addressed in getting the answer.

Paul Ryan, for example, got a more favorable answer from the CBO, by asking them to use his tax numbers on the budget instead of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Erick Cantor asked the CBO to score Healthcare Reform with a separate bill included, one that wasn’t germane to the legislation at hand.

So, the question that was asked is very important. And what kind of question is perhaps visible in the fact that Inhofe hedged on whether we’d find the oil he’s talking about. Knowing that oil reserves are measured according to a probability of finding the oil there, such a hedge raises a red flag.

As for the Character of the Libyans? They are a people, not a person, and I think a Democracy is good for the character. it turns people from helpless pawns into active agents of their own destiny.

What is your alternative? Pull out immediately, perhaps? Or, perhaps, set down ground forces.

Or what precisely? Are you an isolationist or an interventionist here?

I mean, that’s the confusion you get when pretty much everything you say is about what somebody else should do or think, or what they’re doing wrong. For me, it’s about the good and bad of the situation.

Finally, what’s with the abuse? Where does this hatred and contempt come from? I’d be quite happy to have a civil conservation with everybody here. It doesn’t rack up the comment count so well, but oh well, that’s what happens when it’s not people aren’t stuck in a feedback loop.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 9:41 PM
Comment #320659

Stephen, No, your people killed it. If I’m not mistaken the President’s name was Bill Clinton who proposed the 3yr.and out for a liftime policy. But the programs still continue. Maybe not in the form of a welfare check but the assistance programs still continue. My daughter in W.V. has been recieving assistance for over 3 years.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2011 9:55 PM
Comment #320660

KAP-
Bill Clinton did sign the bill. After it passed a Republican Legislature.

Why do you believe that the only thing that can discourage people from competing is government assistance? How about getting beaten down so many times by circumstances, feeling like a failure all the time because you’re always falling short, yet the demands are never letting up?

Being poor is trauma enough to leave many people burnt out, unwilling to do any better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2011 10:47 PM
Comment #320662

Stephen, Education, perserverance, and the want to better yourself. Many people have overcame being poor. You know the saying “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.” That’s what you do for the poor, TEACH THEM TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES and not rely on the handouts. If they don’t want to do that, SORRY ABOUT YOUR LUCK. Don’t give me that crap there aren’t jobs out there. There are jobs but people don’t want to do them because they think it’s below them or they don’t pay enough. Bill Clinton proposed the bill it’s what he wanted, maybe it was a republican congress that passed it but Bill Clinton wanted it.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2011 11:28 PM
Comment #320665

Stephen gives new meaning to the term “bleeding heart liberal”.

The fact is, liberals don’t care about the poor, what they care about is power and power comes from making entire classes of people dependent on government. Mr. Daugherty probably spent his whole life on welfare and food stamps. The government probably paid for the education he loves to boast about, and he probably works for the government as a good union dues paying civil servant. I even imagine him to be an african american who at one time was told to ride in the back of the bus and I am sure the reverend wright is his pastor and mentor. How else could he know so much about the poor and downtrodden?

Posted by: 1776 at March 26, 2011 12:47 AM
Comment #320670


1776, why did you tell Stephen to get in the back of the bus? What happened, did you lose another argument?

Posted by: jlw at March 26, 2011 5:53 AM
Comment #320671

1776

You beat me to the punch. Power is the name of the game with liberals. If they really cared about people and their situations we would not be having near the problems in the country today. In order to continue the power they need money. They use money to perpetuate their power. In everything the liberals have written on this subject it is about power to control something or people outside their own self.

SD

Libya—Here we go again. You speak of democracy as if rising up against an evil person is the act of replacing that evil person with democracy. That is not logical thinking. First of all democracy is one of the worse forms of government. Second freedom in the middle east will not be attained with the people running the show over there and over here. There culture is just not that way. Do you think that over night the middle east culture is going to change concerning their treatment of women? Do you think that over night the middle east culture is going to change concerning the treatment of the Jew? The questions keep adding up about the cultural change that is necessary for them to even begin to think about freedom.

Liberals have a great misunderstanding of people and how they think and act.

Our President went to the UN instead of our Congress to do his bidding for the Libyan situation. Americans are not in favor of doing anything to get involved with Libya. Let the region take care of the region. The Arabs have enough planes and money to take of the problem in Libya and as well as other nations in the middle east. GET OUT AND STAY OUT is what our country should do.

Posted by: tom humes at March 26, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #320672

KAP-
There’s not much use to teaching a person to fish if the lake is dried up. You could give them enough fish to get to the next lake, to keep them from starving.

The numbers, last time I heard, are something like 5 or 6 to one. They are like that because businesses can’t get customers, and because they can’t get customers, there’s no point in paying people to help the customers that aren’t showing up.

I’m not giving you crap, it’s the statistical reality, the comparison of numbers of job openings to people who need jobs. Being independent is pointless if it doesn’t let you follow the facts instead of the political prejudices of the party you left behind.

1776-
If you want to know what the average liberal is like, pick a neighbor of yours at random, and look at them. They could be just like that. They way you talk, we’re practically an alien species, barely American, if American at all.

Whether I’ve taken government assistance or not, whether I belong to a union or not, whether I am young or old, whether I’ve worked for the government, state, local or federal, or whatever, whether I am black, or white, whether my Pastor was an angry afrocentric or a Diocesan Priest or not, I am going to stand right in front of you, and make you look me right in the eye, and acknowledge me as an American, as somebody with equal rights and privileges as such.

You have turned mere disagreements into a cause to strip others of their humanity and dignity. You love the law of the jungle so much, think it exemplifies the best path. I think the law of the jungle is only good for living like an animal, controlled by your impulses. As you take from me, you take from yourself. What does this reckless hatred of people like me gain you? It’s only going to make people like me more stubborn, more strong in resisting you.

And, at the end of the day, less willing to indulge your interests when we get back in power. After four years of being constantly blocked, and twelve years before that of being humiliated as a minority party by the aggressive Republicans, Do you think today’s Democrats are more or less inclined to compromise with you?

By turning it into an epic struggle for yourself, and taking that ends-justify-the-means approach, you’ve made the opposition, if not in Washington, then in the rest of the country, much more willing to throw the elbows you’ve been throwing at them.

Just because you stir up more contention doesn’t mean you’re whistling up more success in the long run.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 11:14 AM
Comment #320673

Stephen, So your saying keep the poor stupid so that instead of teaching them to hunt when the fishing runs out they keep relying on government handouts. What would you do if your calling in life ran out? Would you learn another trade?

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2011 12:06 PM
Comment #320674

tom humes-
The thought that comes to mind as you lecture me and other liberals about what motivates us, is “When will these folks get a life?”

Seriously, we’re not that difficult to understand. We want what you want, for the most part. If we want power, it’s for the same reason you want it, to set society in your image, in the image of how you think it should be.

The Framers dealt with no less an amount of contention. The system they devised, though, is meant to help people deal with their general interests as a matter of priority, the things they could agree were big matters.

But unfortunately, the Republicans nowadays are too busy trying to secure their power to pay attention to what people really want. They obsess about the deficit nowadays, but if you ask people in a scientific poll whether they think the deficit is a bigger problem than the jobs situation and the economy, the consensus is lopsidedly in favor of dealing with jobs and the economy first.

There are so many places where the Republicans and Americans are on different sides of the issues. The Republicans got the unfortunate idea that just because they got a majority in 2010 in one chamber of congress, that all of a sudden they have license to pursue every hardline idea they’ve got.

Just because, though, they chose you for one reason, doesn’t mean they’ll be happy with you just running wild. Republicans, unfortunately, have been taught to think that just because the public has handed them a flower, they should assume they’re free to move in and try and make out with them. They can, and often have hated both parties, so don’t take 2010’s rejection as an indication that they want you to just go bonkers with your agenda items.

As for Libya? Again, as with many times before, your picture of our naivete is a caricature, and a bad one at that. We know things aren’t perfectly aligned with our values, but here’s the thing: we can better influence them if we’re siding with the people who free them, rather than the ones who hold them down. They, in fact, react against modernity, when they do, because it represents colonialism, humiliation, and subjugation to them. If it represented a way out for them, then they’ll push for it, instead, because many of them want to live just like we live. Many of them envy our society.

As for not being entangled?

The World’s changed, and the steps it would take to un-change it would ruin us. Unfortunately some are willing to ruin this country to get politics the way they want it.

KAP-
Why would I say that? I’d say teach people to fish, give them fish when circumstances beyond their control dry things up, and meanwhile keep things to where the ponds dry up as little as possible.

A person would have to be suicidal and self-destructive to think the way Republicans think liberals think. Surprisingly this doesn’t clue folks to the possibility that we might actually think something different.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 12:16 PM
Comment #320675

Stephen, Another words you are saying keep the poor stupid. You didn’t answer my question, What would you do if YOUR calling in life ran out? Would YOU learn another trade? Or would YOU rely on the government to supply YOUR needs for an unknown length of time?

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2011 12:26 PM
Comment #320676

KAP-
Are you going to play 1776’s game now, too? Has it gotten to a point where nothing I say will change your misapprehension of what you think I’m saying?

Look, it’s not as simple as satisfying some philosophical question.

People will do what they have to, in order to survive. They’ll change the system. They’ll get rid of people in government who aren’t changing things fast enough, and they’ll sure as hell get rid of people who are making it worse, having promised to do better than the other guys.

I would to, and in my current condition am doing what it takes to keep my family fed, housed, and in good health. Others will do the same.

And they’ll have to. The Financial crisis, as it were, has sucked out about a quarter of the average person’s net worth in the last two years.

It’s time for you to stop supporting politics that turns people into beggars, then beats them into the ground for becoming dependent on the kindness of others.

People are doing what is sensible in these times: spending less, buying few things, creating less economic activity.

And as an aggregate, that’s pulling down on the economy. Until people can rationally spend money again, things will stay this bad. It’s time for those on the right to recognize that things aren’t getting back to normal, and they’re not getting better fast enough by themselves. It’s time to admit that a limited government philosophy has it’s rational limits.

As for learning another trade? Look, that takes money, that takes time and opportunity that I might not have. The limits of changing careers might just end up being accepting a job that doesn’t pay my bills, that doesn’t let me put the brakes on my personal economic slide.

I don’t think many people on the right are really facing what austerity means for them. I know what it means for me, and believe me, I have enough rational self-interest to be against it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 12:53 PM
Comment #320677

Mr. Daugherty writes: “While the supply is still good, and the fuel still relatively cheap, we need to plan and create the new infrastructure for renewable and sustainable energy.”

That is the dem and lib position for certain. Central planning by government bureaucrats. For some reason, they believe that bureaucrats know best. I am reminded of the continuing fiasco of ethanol. Government planned, government implemented, and government subsidized. Anyone who has read the reports knows that ethanol is not the fuel of the future and yet, the subsidizes continue and the regulations require ever increasing amounts in our fuel mix. This is fostered by both dems and some reps. It is all about payback and pork.

This is just one example of failed, yet continuing government planning. It is “interest group liberalism” being practiced by liberals on both sides of the isle.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “How about getting beaten down so many times by circumstances, feeling like a failure all the time because you’re always falling short, yet the demands are never letting up?”

Let me sum that paragraph up. People feel like failures because of circumstances. Granted, there are circumstances beyond ones control that makes them unable to work at a paying job. For them, I have sympathy and compassion and will gladly help with their food, clothing, medical care and shelter. I believe their number in the US is small and can be easily managed by government.

For others, I am not so generous. We still have more folks in the world wanting to legally enter the US for the opportunities we provide than any other nation in the world. Why do they want to come here? Because we offer liberty and freedom to succeed or fail by our own actions and not by the whim of others. Illegals come here for the exact same reason.

The question is, then…if so many see the US as the land of opportunity and will do just about anything to get here, why then do those already here find this the land of failure? Why are they not taking the jobs that immigrants seek?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2011 1:09 PM
Comment #320680

“The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we are attacked or he has proof that we are about to be attacked… If he does, I would move to impeach him…” —Vice President Joe Biden

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation…
—Senator Barack H. Obama, December 20, 2007

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2011 1:45 PM
Comment #320682

Correction…Senator Joe Biden

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2011 1:53 PM
Comment #320683

I am saddened by the news of Geraldine Ferraro’s passing. I have always like her and enjoyed seeing and listening to her on TV talk shows. He was a fierce, but just, political fighter and a great spokesperson for women of the nation. The Huffingtonpost quoted the first line of her speech accepting the vice-presidential election…”“My name is Geraldine Ferraro. I stand before you to proclaim tonight: America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.”

May God bless her and welcome her home.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2011 2:05 PM
Comment #320684

Royal Flush-
Well, my mistake, but I thought the Ethanol tax credits came out of a Republican Controlled Congress in 2005 with the Energy Policy Act, and was signed by a President that Conservatives fought practically to the death to get re-elected.

Ah, but my people have already committed to it as well, haven’t we?

Maybe this is one of these situations where bipartisan opposition might do better. If bipartisanship were actually allowed for your folks.

The reality is, there are political limits to what the Republicans say they want to do, and unfortunately they won’t admit that out loud to their voters.

As for Biden’s quote? Treaties have the force of law, and the backing of the Senate. End of story. Biden was talking about a unilateral invasion of Iran, which would have been a different story.

But I will agree with you on something: it’s sad to see Geraldine Ferraro go, and I hope for the best for her and her family. May she be one of the elect.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment #320685

Stephen, Did you get government grants to go to college? There are government programs to help people get job training or get a college education to better themselves instead of relying on government hand outs. Sometimes Stephen, you have to do what you have to, to get by in this world. If it means learning a new career, so be it. I know I had to when a company I worked for closed down. So if your as smart as you say you are Stephen, you can to, and so can others.

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #320688

KAP-
I got Pell Grants. But those constituted a small percentage.

I’ll do what I have to. But really, should we be creating a situation here where we’re amplifying these kinds of problems, discarding billions of dollars worth of education and training, just so we can move the market and government around the way a certain party of people want to?

There was a job training program in a recent bill, one for people on welfare, which was helping to get them off of it. It was thought that perhaps the GOP would back off of their filibusters, and let it be renewed. But instead of doing that, they instead filibustered it.

The GOP in America is no longer interested in even teaching people how to fish. They’re willing just to let them starve, no teaching how to fish, no handing them a fish or nothing. They got theirs, the people they think they work for got theirs, and so the rest of us can just get screwed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 2:28 PM
Comment #320690

Stephen, I agree with one thing you wrote “I’ll do what I have to.” That’s what I did Stephen, not worrying what the GOP or Democratic party was doing. Because waiting on either of them I would have been screwed. Besides those Pell grants did you work any? If you did thumbs up.

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2011 2:42 PM
Comment #320692

SD

I did not push the replay button on my machine. But I got your replay just the same. Never fear I will record over it.

Posted by: tom humes at March 26, 2011 4:59 PM
Comment #320694

Mr. Daugherty writes; “There was a job training program in a recent bill, one for people on welfare, which was helping to get them off of it. It was thought that perhaps the GOP would back off of their filibusters, and let it be renewed. But instead of doing that, they instead filibustered it.”

I will take your word for it. What else was in the bill?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2011 5:14 PM
Comment #320695

KAP-
My finances are tight. I can’t afford new schooling. This is deflation, folks: the forced reduction of financial activity by a system that inefficiently distributes economic resources.

Tom Humes-
It must give you some great satisfaction to make irrelevant comments.

Royal Flush-
I think it was pretty much by itself. Your people were more concerned with it whether it was being paid for than whether it might do some good. Hell, even the American Enterprise Institute was supporting it, calling it a cost effective way to put people back to work.

This kind of behavior, from Republicans, is what bugs me. Even the reasonable compromises, the market-based programs, the programs that get people off of welfare checks seem to be politically forbidden.

And for what reason? I’m sure we look worse, for all the obstruction than we otherwise would, but that bad image is also there for you and your party. Politics is always simpler and easier than getting things right, I’ve found, which is why I insist on basing actions on evidence, on examination of the real world: because humans, with their creative but limited minds are entirely capable of imagining away the important details and facts of the world, and just operating things according to what’s in their heads, ignoring the way reality deflects their efforts.

I used to be a lot more favorable towards bipartisanship. I wasn’t so insistent on it being the Democrats who got their way, before things started getting screwed up under Bush.

They should have set the politics aside and decided on them later, because in my opinion, it’s a hell of a lot easier to explain a change of mind than why you persisted, knowingly, in a bad policy. People care most about government, and creating more of it, and giving more power to it when things get screwed up.

To my mind then, a conservative must be willing to make some increases in regulations, some increases in taxes, concede some losses without dividing the country in a fight, and so on and so forth, to relieve the tensions that would pull people towards doing even more of the same.

If you don’t head of the demand for those things, it will still grow, until it’s too much for you to resist, much less ignore. If there is any lesson from 2006 and 2008, it’s that. Take care of the needs of this country, or you will be taken care of (politically speaking) when the American people lose their patience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 5:47 PM
Comment #320697

Mr. Daugherty writes; “I think it was pretty much by itself. Your people were more concerned with it whether it was being paid for than whether it might do some good. Hell, even the American Enterprise Institute was supporting it, calling it a cost effective way to put people back to work. This kind of behavior, from Republicans, is what bugs me. Even the reasonable compromises.”

Isn’t this just like you. You use the word “think” in your comment, implying that you don’t really know what was in the bill, and then conjure up all kinds of things to disparage what you don’t know. You claim to know that AE was supporting it but you failed to give a link or a quote.

Then, to top it off, just for good measure, you add that it is/was a…”reasonable compromise”.

Do you understand why some on WB just write your comments off as nonsense? There is not one “factual” comment in your entire post and yet, you write as though you know something about it.

Sure hope you have a restful weekend and being the new week with some comments that have a little “meat” on the bone.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #320698

SD

The relevancy in my statement is that you keep repeat yourself. In other words replay. Can I make the statement any clearer and relevant?

Posted by: tom humes at March 26, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #320699

Royal Flush-
There you go.

What now, a dig at the credibility of my source?

But I think spending 1.3 billion to put people back to work, to get them off welfare is a good idea. The AEI thinks it’s a good idea, too. The goal is precisely what you would say would be the responsible thing to do.

But it’s part of the stimulus, you know. And for that reason, it got voted down.

When your only real mode of argument is to deny the other side victories, cooperation, credit, whatever, then you don’t have a lot of good choices at the end of the day.

You want people to write what I right off as nonsense, but would you care to total up how many different sites I’ve reference, how many provable, checkable facts I’ve posted here, and how much of this is you and your right-wing buddies sneering about liberals, making broad sweeping conclusions, and even repeating allegations that the evidence I uncovered disproved quite unequivocally?

I base what I believe on what I know. I know that when somebody talks about oil reserves, that there are certain levels of probability. Proven reserves means they’re more than 90% sure that they’re actually in the ground. It also means that it’s economic at this point to retrieve that oil, and possible with today’s technology.

When you announced those unexpectedly high numbers, it sort of sent up a red flag. Whenever Republicans reveal big, counterintuitive results like this, I get very suspicious.

I went and researched it to see what I could find on the report. It’s not been released yet as far as I know, but that quote I pulled kind of raised a red flag itself.

More or less, it’s that line about having to drill in order to know. Well, if he’s saying that, it’s like him hanging out a sign saying, “The results in these reports reflect estimates of reserves based on lower probabilities of actually finding the oil.”

That’s dishonest. You’re selling people on oil that stands a much higher probability of not being there, or being uneconomic to bring up. Either eventuality, the absence of oil, or the greater cost or technological challenge of bringing it up, yields a higher cost to the consumer.

That’s an additional dishonesty. On top of saying that this oil will actually be there when you can’t be so certain, you are also forgetting to mention that much of this oil, even if found, will not be on the market for more than a decade, will not ease current supply limitations, and will not be as cheap or easy to get up as the other stuff.

This, while you make an argument that implicitly promises people cheaper gas if they go with your plan.

So, based on what I know, I believe what the report will talk about is optimistic assessments about our energy future that the oil companies themselves, talking amongst themselves, would label more unlikely outcomes.

Personally, I think we should prepare for the worst, even if we have a chance that it won’t come to pass.

First, I think we should avoid planning for the best outcome, because that’s been the bane of this country for the last few years. We need to have the imagination to figure out whether something can go wrong, before we have to handle the emergency in which it does go wrong.

Second, the more efficient we are, the less reliant on fossil fuels, the less vulnerable we are to supply crises and setbacks.

Third, it’s always better to make a transition before the crisis forces your hand, so you’re in a more favorable position when it does come. Bush’s energy crisis is seen by many economists to be one of the shocks that caused the recession. Transportation costs became a multiplier for our economic troubles. We’re also growing fuel where we should be growing food.

If car companies had put together more fuel efficient vehicles to begin with, they would not have seen their profits flee for the Far East. Should we once again be on the wrong side of a demand for green technology, for efficient technology?

Fourth, I believe global climate change, driven mainly by man-made carbon emissions, is a real threat, and the oil sands and oil shales mentioned in the reports are dirtier than just oil by itself. So, the further we get down this road of using such energy sources, the worse things get.

I think I have the more realistic point of view here.

I’m not counting on scientists to be wrong, markets to be fair to those behind the demand curve, prices to stay low while we depend so heavily on the resource, nor the notion that we’re actually going to find all the oil that’s in there.

I would rather change our luck concerning energy before it runs out, not after.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #320700

tom humes-
You have maybe one comment in there that actually touches on what was in the discussion, and even that is rife with snide remarks about liberals.

I may insist on points repeatedly, but at least I’m not insisting on things that are pointless to a substantive debate on the issues.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 8:21 PM
Comment #320701

Mr. Daugherty said:

“KAP-
Are you going to play 1776’s game now, too? Has it gotten to a point where nothing I say will change your misapprehension of what you think I’m saying?”

The problem is Mr. Daugherty, you say nothing. You offer platitudes and liberal rhetoric, but you won’t answer questions.

You have a problem with oil companies drilling for oil in America, because of environmental issues, but you have no problem with Obama giving money to Brazil for the purpose of sucking the same oil out of the ground, with the same environmental issues.

You had a problem with Bush going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, for whatever reason, but you have no problem with Obama doing the same thing. In fact, Bush had a goal, but Obama and his administration have no goal. His reasons for going into Libya changes with the time of day. Obama wants Gadhafi out before its okay for him to stay. It’s not a war, but we will send the military in anyway. We are not nation building but it will be okay if somehow a democracy develops from all this confusion. And today I heard the MSM trying to explain and justify what Obama is doing in Libya, but Joe Sestak criticized Obama for Libya, Senator Joe Manchin concerned about another war in Libya, Kucinich, “talks impeachment, threatens military funding for Libya”, and “Liberal Democrats Are Hurting Obama’s Presidency over Libya”.

We are talking “crème de la crème” of liberals. These people are DailyKos material when it comes to being liberal and yet they are against this new war.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/15695-sestak-raps-obama-on-libya-

http://www.dailymail.com/News/NationandWorld/201103211177

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/22/kucinich-talks-impeachment-threatens-military-funding-for-libya/

http://theloop21.com/politics/liberal-democrats-are-hurting-obama%E2%80%99s-presidency-over-libya

Mr. Daugherty said:

“I used to be a lot more favorable towards bipartisanship. I wasn’t so insistent on it being the Democrats who got their way, before things started getting screwed up under Bush.”

I’m having trouble believing this one!!!

Again he says in response to Royal:

“That’s dishonest. You’re selling people on oil that stands a much higher probability of not being there, or being uneconomic to bring up.”

The liberal socialists of which Mr. Daugherty belongs does not care if there is oil in the ground, how much it will cost to get it out, or if it will supply America’s needs. What they care about is shutting down all drilling of oil in America, because we would then have to buy all our oil from foreign countries and this accomplishes their goal of redistribution of America’s wealth to other nations. These same socialist want to spend more and more, because it means America will have to borrow more money from foreign nations, which in turn accomplishes the goal of redistribution of America’s wealth to foreign nations. The goal is the destruction of America. Either Mr. Daugherty is too blind to see what is going on, or he is a willing accomplice.

“tom humes-
You have maybe one comment in there that actually touches on what was in the discussion, and even that is rife with snide remarks about liberals.

I may insist on points repeatedly, but at least I’m not insisting on things that are pointless to a substantive debate on the issues.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 08:21 PM”

This is a great response from someone who writes reems of material and never answers a question.

Posted by: 1776 at March 26, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #320711

1776-
I have given you your answer. The question, and its offered answers, are meaningless in the real world. There is no evidence that Obama had any say on that decision, and there is absolutely no way Obama could have anticipated the disaster a year in advance to put the kind of fiendish plan you talk about into effect.

That is, unless you want to compound one fallacy with another by claiming a secret plan. I wouldn’t put it past you. This is, what, your third time pushing this BS about Obama favoring Brazil over America?

And I won’t bother to give the count of how many times you’ve called me a socialist, or disregarded some bit of evidence on the basis of my politics.

If you’re so right, one of the best ways to put a hitch in my stride is to bring out the facts that make you right. If all you’re doing is heaping abuse on people for being liberals, when you have substantive information that would illuminate something to them, you’re actually serving as a distraction to your own best argument.

If all you can give us is fevered speculation about what the real goals of liberals and liberal politicians really are, then you’re in sad shape.

I’m sorry if it makes you unhappy that I don’t play the games the way you want me to, or stick to just answering your supposedly devastating questions the way you want me too. It’s interesting that somebody who is so big on the free market needs such subsidies of self-inflicted handicaps on my part not to feel put upon.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 1:21 AM
Comment #320712

Did obama know about the oil spill in advance? No, but remember, never waste a crisis.

So Stephen, are you saying your not a liberal socialist?

Posted by: 1776 at March 27, 2011 1:36 AM
Comment #320717

“…but you have no problem with Obama giving money to Brazil for the purpose of sucking the same oil out of the ground, with the same environmental issues.”

1776,

Why do you keep making this allegation? Are you incapable of admitting that you might be wrong on the facts? http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm; http://factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

Posted by: Rich at March 27, 2011 8:36 AM
Comment #320718

1776-

Did obama know about the oil spill in advance? No, but remember, never waste a crisis.

1) There was no crisis to take advantage of. In April 2009, the net effect of the loan, as approved by the Bush appointees who were its sole members at the time, would be to guarantee Americans work and sales of equipment if the Brazilian oil company decided to take advantage of it. Even now, the net effect of Petrobras taking advantage of the loans will be jobs and equipment sales for US suppliers and contractors.

2) In a Democratic Republic like ours, crises are always an opportunity for our leaders to show leadership, to resolve problems, and prevent future disasters. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes you do need a politician to exploit a crisis, in order to end the bad habits and bad practices that led to it.

But, of course, there are other ways to not let a crisis go to waste, less benign means of exploiting public sentiment, public fears.

Of which, your claim is one. So, congratulate yourself, you’re not letting a crisis go to waste. Instead, you’re using the problems of the oil and gas industry to try and stir up sentiment against Obama on false pretenses.

So Stephen, are you saying your not a liberal socialist?

I’m a liberal capitalist. I believe in a system where folks are rewarded for being productive, and helping others be productive, not for financial trickery and irresponsible speculation that generates perverse market incentives.

The capitalists on the right have too naive of a notion of the system, and fail to acknowledge that competition can drive people towards bad behavior as well as good. It isn’t virtue that a market rewards, it’s profit, and profit can be had regardless of the virtue of the actions involved.

Many of the actions that lead to that crisis in the gulf were cost-cutting measures. People wanted to save money, so they took short cuts. They perhaps did it before, and events didn’t align in such a malignant way. But such luck always runs out.

American taxpayers are paying the price, all too often, for the mistakes of these private businesses. If that is to be expected, then taxpayers should have a means of limiting their risk, like anybody else who steps in to insure a given industry. No private insurance company that wanted to keep its shirt would insure a business without requiring it to take certain measures to decrease the likelihood of a claim.

Why should government keep the banks from failing, in order to save the economy, without reducing the likelihood that those banks will fail? Why, in the same vein, would we do the same thing with the oil industry, without requiring similar risk management, similar efforts on the energy company’s parts not to leave us a big mess. To do otherwise would invite these businesses to act irresponsibility with the knowledge that they wouldn’t suffer any consequences.

Whether you’re a derivatives trader on Wall Street, or an oil driller in the gulf, if your actions hold the potential to cause a major, expensive mess that the government’s going to be called in to manage at taxpayers expense, you should expect more regulation and more scrutiny of your dealings We can’t afford to socialize losses like this, while private industry pockets the profits that encourage them to continue to take such inordinately high risks.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment #320723

Prior to the BP blowout, the Obama administration had announced intentions to open previously restricted areas for oil exploration and drilling.

The BP blowout was a reality check on expansionary plans in environmentally and economically sensitive areas (e.g., east coast offshore drilling). It became abundantly clear that the oil industry did not have the technological capability for capping major blowouts and managing the risks of deep water drilling.

The subsequent moratorium and enhanced licensing requirements (e.g., demonstrated technology for capping blowouts, etc.) were a realistic and common sense response to the disaster in the Gulf.

One could argue that the response to the Gulf disaster was excessive and beyond that required to address the type of problems experienced with the BP spill. However, it seems to me that any argument that Obama is utilizing the BP disaster to further some secret agenda to shut down US oil production and transfer wealth to foreign nations is absurd and contrary to the energy plans that Obama promoted up to the BP disaster and continues to promote. Yes, we must drill but we must drill safely.

Posted by: Rich at March 27, 2011 10:40 AM
Comment #320725

Stephen, Everyones finances are tight. Did you ever hear of ON THE JOB TRAINING, you don’t have to pay for it, but the pay may be less then what you are accustomed to. If you really meant “I’ll do what I have to” that should not be a problem. You see Stephen, I’ve been down that road a few times, it’s not fun but you will servive, and guess what I didn’t need Uncle Sam to help.

Posted by: KAP at March 27, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #320727

“1776,Why do you keep making this allegation? Are you incapable of admitting that you might be wrong on the facts?”

Rich, 17 has made it clear that the truth, about these factually challenged “questions” he uses to take the thread off on tangents, is merely liberal talking points. 17 has made claims of land confiscation, as well, that when challenged is unable to prove them to be truthful.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2011 1:48 PM
Comment #320730

http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy32.htm
TAKING AMERICAN’S RIGHTS AND LAND
Nancy Levant
March 14, 2006


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/18/obama-eyeing-millions-wild-acres-national-monuments/
EXCLUSIVE: Obama Eyes Western Land for National Monuments, Angering Some
By William La Jeunesse
Published February 18, 2010


j2t2, it’s not that hard to find.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 27, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #320733

KAP-
Weary Willie: Research Teddy Roosevelt and the Grand Canyon. Research the Anasazi Cliff Dwellings.

And, for heavens sake, stop listening to New World Order nuts. They start with land management and ownership laws that have been on the book for decades if not centuries, and use them to justify scary theories about takeovers.

KAP-
Do you think my finances are the only finances that are tight?

The fact is, there are some economic downturns that quit behaving in a way that preserves the status quo, but instead set a new balance point for the economy. This is one of them. If we let things be, the slack in our economy’s not going to go away. Just look at Japan.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #320734

Stephen, Did I not say EVERYONES FINANCES ARE TIGHT. That was the first sentence in the comment Stephen.

Posted by: KAP at March 27, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment #320735

KAP-
Does it not then logically follow that the funding for training is tight as well? At least that’s my experience on my job.

Look, I’d love new training, but it’s not going to come my way any time soon. I’m not really all that keen on being moralized to by somebody who insists that I fulfill some fantasy of self-sufficiency while I’m trying to keep my head above water. Real life matters more than politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 5:29 PM
Comment #320737

Stephen, Everyone is trying to keep their heads above water and neither Democrat or Republican politicians seem to care. You say another stimulus, the first one didn’t do so good, so why do you think another will do any better. You say tax the rich but those are the ones who will provide the jobs, granted they could afford to be taxed more. IMO this crop of politicians we have in DC aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell with and that includes Obama. Fulfill some fantasy of self-suffciency, who else are you going to depend on Stephen except yourself? If you rely on government to help you, you may be dead before you get it.

Posted by: KAP at March 27, 2011 5:52 PM
Comment #320738

“j2t2, it’s not that hard to find.”

Weary, 17 had made the claim “Perhaps j2t2 could also explain why the Obama administration has been conviscating lands for the expansion of Federal lands, according to the UN Agenda 21?”. I was unable to find any facts to back up his claim and it appears he was unable to find anything either as he has, I know surprise surprise, not responded with anything other than unfounded accusations.

BTW your Fox link doesn’t seem to name the people or companies that are having these lands “confiscated” by the Obama administration. Could you find out who these individuals are that seem to have had their rights violated? It looks like these lands they mention are government owned lands that are being considered for national monuments not confiscated.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #320740

KAP-
The Stimulus worked well enough, since we’re out of the recession, out of a deflationary period. Multiple independent reports from diverse sources, like Goldman Sachs, Moody’s Analytics, and the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the stimulus was a success. However, the stimulus had to push back both against a recession that was greater than what it was designed to counter, and against state cuts and layoffs, which swallowed much of the gains.

As far as taxing the rich goes, if you increase the taxes on a rich person by a few percentage points, they’ll still have plenty of money left to create jobs. At this point, we’re only talking about modest rises, and folks at that income level are actually doing better than they were before the crash. So, They’re not suffering, and wouldn’t suffer much, or be hindered in their job creation, if we raised their taxes.

I mean, by definition, a rich person is a person who has more money than they need to satisfy their needs. Right now, they are flush with cash, and their investments are doing well. The corporations they run are keeping lots of cash on hand, too.

As for self-sufficiency? I don’t pay my own paycheck. I don’t have the money to pay for new college classes. I don’t have the money to pay for new training videos or online courses. I can learn an awful lot about things, and quickly pick them up, but sometimes even I need somebody to teach me.

This isn’t about necessarily relying on the government to help me. This is about getting me in a position where I can better help myself. If somebody could crack down on the Mortgage servicing companies, that might help many. If they could bring back the old, lower fees for medical service at county clinics, that might help.

Every burden your people propose, every effort at forcing self-sufficiency takes people who were barely getting by, and moves them closer to the edge.

Your people are creating economic turmoil when that’s the last thing we need. We don’t need some moralizing person coming around and trying to make as all good free market libertarians. What we need is relief from our situation. What we need is more jobs. What we need is to break free of this funk the economy is in, and get it moving. If you want to continue the policies that made the Bush Administration one of the worst times for job creation since WWII, okay, but don’t expect results. It may be closer to what you like, but that doesn’t mean its closer to what the country needs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 7:16 PM
Comment #320748

SD

Why is it “your people”. I thought we were all Americans. But what do I know. By referencing “your people” your are demeaning people who you don’t agree with. It is no wonder you don’t have the foggiest idea what solution would work for all people.

Posted by: tom humes at March 27, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #320750

tom humes-
I was told a while back that folks like me were not real Americans. I don’t feel any such need to tell somebody that they’re not a fellow citizen, in order to allege that they are simply wrong, and misguided.

At worst, what I’ve done to KAP is lump her in with all the rest of the folks who believe as she does. Should that be an insult to her? She agrees with cutting people off of assistance, I’m saying that she and others like her, by seeking that, aren’t making things better.

I don’t mean to be insulting. I mean to challenge her, to confront her with the knowledge that things aren’t getting better, and won’t be getting better on account of such policy.

We tried giving back the rich more money, on the premise that perhaps if we did, they’d not be so strapped for cash that they’d be unable to create jobs. Leaving aside that the definition of being rich is having so much money you can afford to be choosy about spending much of it, the evidence shows that the money was saved, rather than spent. The evidence also shows, in case people said it was both saved and spent on jobs, that job growth was at an all time low during the Bush Administration, even without the recession being counted.

If somebody saves money rather than spends it, and you stop giving them the money they’re saving instead of spending, the net effect on their spending will be minimal.

She should realize that if you want poor folks to be better off in a crisis like this, hand them the assistance. Support programs that make it easier for them to get off assistance, and help build an economic recovery that keeps them, and all others willing to work off the dole.

But don’t play as if this crisis is just a run of the mill event. Something happened to our economy that has thrown its internal compass off of efficient production. We’ve got too much productive capacity that is simply idle. Whether that’s manpower or machine power, it’s not being used.

It is no wonder you don’t have the foggiest idea what solution would work for all people.

Really? And you do, right? Mister, the reason we have a Democracy (or a Democratic Republic, if you insist on quibbling) is that nobody knows entirely what works, period, much less what everybody would like. Since we can’t wait for a 100% consensus, we wait for most people to be on the side of the policy, or the people creating it, and let those policies and those people be considered chosen by the people in general.

It’s interesting that you and others keep on making comments that are aimed at badmouthing my credibility or belittling my opinion, rather than answering it directly, on the merits.

For me, that’s all the more reason not to give in. If you really started from the facts, if you had better than just strong party sentiments to power your words, you could be pushing me back. God knows, I’m not perfect, I’d be getting something wrong somewhere, I bet.

But instead of a nice discussion about things that are going on, I get called a socialist, people insinuated, but don’t demonstrate that I lack credibility. They push conspiracy theories about what Obama is up to, and when I confront them with evidence that says what they’re imagining is impossible, they repeat the same garbage all over again.

After all this, you take my generalized statement to KAP, and accuse me of demeaning people?

I don’t have to beat the other side’s spirits into the ground. That isn’t necessary. It sometimes isn’t even winning.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 11:23 PM
Comment #320752

Stephen, I never said anything about cutting people off assistance. I said LIMIT the amout of time they can recieve assistance. I did say that what Clinton did to welfare was a good thing because of the abuse of the system, generations of families on welfare was breaking the system and causing laziness. Is it making things better to have generations of families dependent on assistance? HELL NO! Yes we need jobs Stephen, YOUR PEOPLE had 2 years to act and all they did was inact a HCR bill that nobody wants instead of focusing on JOBS and the ECONOMY. Now you expect Republicans to do something in a few months what YOUR PEOPLE should have done 2 years ago.

Posted by: KAP at March 28, 2011 12:09 AM
Comment #320758

KAP-
In this situation, limitation of aid would be arbitrary, and counterproductive. If we were looking at an economy recovering fast enough to create jobs, that would be one thing, but the ratio of openings to job-seekers is still high.

Clinton made his welfare reform in the middle of an economic boom. People who could find jobs, did find jobs, and government investments had private investments ready to help do that. In this case, though, you don’t have a lot of people being hired, so all these people are going to do is become an economic burden on those folks who do have a job.

That in turn becomes a burden on the rest of the economy as a whole.

We enacted healthcare reform, yes. You know what that did? Made it easier and less expensive for businesses to hire people, or give the ones already on their payroll healthcare. Made it to where people weren’t losing their coverage or going bankrupt over medical bills for their children. Meanwhile, before that, we enacted the stimulus, which regardless of the pravda-like propaganda from the right, did create jobs, did help growth, and did help steer this economy on a better path. We also preserved the auto industry.

Which translates to millions of jobs that are still here because of our actions. We took care of jobs, and if it weren’t for the blockade in the Senate, we would have created even more. Your people stood in the way.

As for what the Republicans have done in the last two or three months?

We had the stimulus out by February of 2009, not two months after the stronger Democratic Majority was sworn in. We had done something to create and preserve jobs.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have legislated a lot, but not a damn thing has been about what they’d promised they’d be all about. They pulled a bait and switch, told people jobs would be their priority, and instead we get social engineering, and spending cuts that will actually kill jobs.

Regardless of what my people have done, they shouldn’t have campaigned on going a step forward, then taken two steps back. We created jobs with our first acts of Congress, the Republicans seem to be looking to flood the market with Public Sector workers, in an effort to drive down wages among private sector workers.

Of course, though, if fewer people are employed, and those who are make less, is the economy going to perform better?

Your people are trying to prove an inherently flawed theory of economic improvement, and they’re going to continue testing it until somebody takes the burden of responsibility from them. Being wrong isn’t enough to discourage the Republicans these days. Predicting the results wrongly, failing to reach the desired goal through the desired means is not enough to make them stop.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2011 7:56 AM
Comment #320762


“We had the stimulus out by February of 2009, not two months after the stronger Democratic Majority was sworn in. We had done something to create and preserve jobs.”

Pure and simple, it is not the responsibility of government to create and preserve jobs.

“Your people are trying to prove an inherently flawed theory of economic improvement, and they’re going to continue testing it until somebody takes the burden of responsibility from them. Being wrong isn’t enough to discourage the Republicans these days.”

You want the republicans to be wrong like the liberal, progressives. So two wrongs make it right?

Government has grossly overstepped its limitations and has caused a myriad of problems in the civilian sector of society, but you want them to continue and do more. That is lunacy. You want to grow government, which would grow spending and produce nothing but more power for those who are already too powerful.

SD, you need to take a sabatical and study the ins and outs of why man wants more power and how governments are used to get this end. Much is typed on the site about money, labor, power, and the lack of it, or the mis-use of it. Take the labels off and look at the substance of character or lack thereof in our society today. One good example is why are we now an ally of Osama in Libya? When the labels are stripped off and each individual in power is examined in transparentcy, it will be found that in todays world people are so power hungry that they will do anything to gain more of it. Case in point. Newt Gingrich. He committed adultry for love of country. And now wants to be the president. Of course there are many other examples that could be listed and they are not limited to government personnel. Church leaders, big business, labor, ecucation and on and on.

What would please me greatly is that those that post here forget the labels and look at the person and how they are using sound arguement or not using sound argument. That is not being done here. I am guilty as much as the next. Use more names of those who support the arguement given and cite why that arguement is supported by that person. This is not a column of original thought, so somewhere the reference is there for what is put forth.

Posted by: tom humes at March 28, 2011 1:15 PM
Comment #320763

“Pure and simple, it is not the responsibility of government to create and preserve jobs.”

Why not Tom. It benefits the government when it’s people are working for decent wages and benefits. It makes the country stronger when it’s people are working. It would seem to me it is smarter to have the government of the people passing legislation to create and preserve jobs than it would be to run the economy into the ground with legislation that inhibits job growth and preservation.

We certainly cannot expect the private sector to accept responsibility for creating and preserving jobs in this day and age can we Tom? Major corporations view labor as a commodity to be purchased as cheap as possible when needed and discarded when not needed. Look at how many jobs the private sector has not created or preserved this past decade and it is obvious they have no intention of creating or preserving jobs unless it benefits them.

You seem to espouse this Agrarian economy concept in the post industrial age. Things changed in the 20th century and are changing again. We cannot apply 18th century thinking to the problems and expect to solve them can we?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 28, 2011 1:35 PM
Comment #320765

Mr. Daugherty writes; “As far as taxing the rich goes, if you increase the taxes on a rich person by a few percentage points, they’ll still have plenty of money left to create jobs.”

Perhaps this is true, although not all rich people invest money directly in employment gaining endeavors. I wonder how much revenue a “few percentage points” in extra taxes on the “rich” (let’s define that as persons with earned incomes above $500K per year) would generate. Once that number is known, I would ask Mr. Daugherty how this extra revenue would be used. Would it just be spent on some government program, or be used to pay down our national debt?

Would Mr. Daugherty consider a quid pro quo arrangement? For example, for every dollar of revenue increase resulting from increased taxes (used to pay down our debt) one dollar would be cut from the budget.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 28, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #320766

j2t2

“Agrarian economy concept”.
Define that phrase. Agrarian is associated with farming. So where do you see farming and anything I penned about the economy? Maybe someone with quadfocals whereby four lines get mixed up and new sentences are made in the mind of the viewer.

Let me use this posting to help you see this. If someone had quadfocals they may see this from what I penned:

Agrarian is someone in the mind of that phrase associated with the mixed up economy and wearing quadfocals to see farming and four lines in our economy and define.

It is not constitutionally correct for the federal government to create jobs. That is also a misnomer. Government only creates grief. It creates nothing else. It takes from the governed. It cannot give to the governed anything but grief. And that it does with expertise.

Posted by: tom humes at March 28, 2011 3:46 PM
Comment #320767

Royal Flush-
Stage (1) Normal spending priorities are kept the same, or any changes are offset by spending cuts elsewhere. Stimulative spending, directed mostly at infrastructure, research and direct creation of jobs is done in the short term to help resolve our nation’s slack in productivity.

Wages and employment must be made to increase, because the bad economy is responsible for a large amount of the deficit. It’s no coincidence that the deficit skyrocketed with the financial crisis. The two are connected.

Stage (2) When the economy has recovered, less money will be necessary for federal assistance programs of different types. Help to states, among other things, can be reasonably phased out. Further healthcare reform will be necessary to reduce growth in Medicare costs. Medicare should bargain on drug prices, not simply be given the list price.

We should continue to prioritize Federal spending on new energy and scientific development, help increase exports for this country. Financial Reform should be instituted to a greater degree in order to promote the health and stability of the economy. A few billion dollars in the right place will save hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue and bailout spending.

Stage (3) Further rearrangement of spending should occur, waste and duplication aggressively ferreted out. Tax rates should be set with a priority of bringing whatever Budget deficit is left a this point to an end. We shouldn’t wait fifty years to undo the deficit, we should do it in fifteen.

But we should acknowledge that federal, state and local spending are a part of the economic equation. The deficit won’t be defeated by simple means, because while creating a deficit amidst plenty is fairly easy, undoing one in a time where deflation is a real threat is a hell of a tricky balancing act. Austerity must come when the market can bear it, or it will just end up undermining itself, and becoming such an unendurable burden that people give up on it, and go back to running chronic deficits with relief.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #320768

tom humes-
The Government we started out with was built to deal with a nation of low-tech farmers. The government we eventually got is in part the product of years worth of experience with an industrialized, computerized, and now networked nation. The challenges we face, in that part, are different.

Laissez faire worked better in a time when systems weren’t so complex and so overwhelmingly fast in their operations that had a tendency to go catastrophically chaotic.

We don’t need a government suited to the framers and our times, we need one suited to our times. Wisdom does not disregard context. The principles of the framers remain powerful, but they must be interpreted in a way that allows the spirit of those foundational laws to be expressed in far different times.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2011 4:10 PM
Comment #320769

While I don’t agree with your order of priorities, I will comment about that later. How would a “few percentage points increase in taxes on the rich accomplish what you write?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 28, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #320770

SD

The twisted interpretation of the constitution is why we now have the problems we have. If the original intent were being practiced we would not be having the problems we have today. That is not difficult to understand. I believe the framers put together a document that fit all seasons. It is the occupiers of those seasons who have tried to change things to fit their ill will. When the framers established a limite powers government, that was for all time. It fits for all time. The people who think different are the ones who have muddied the water and twisted and done many things with the constitution to abort the constitution. To me those people are dangerous. The don’t have labels. They are just plain dangerous. The constitution covers everything in society we face. There have been attempts to abort its meaning, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Fortunately the framers saw that this would be attempted and made it extremely difficult to change the constitution. Thankfully so.

“The Government we started out with was built to deal with a nation of low-tech farmers.”

Did you get that at BU or BSU? Either way your view of the founding fathers need for a government of farmers is so far out of the reality circle it cannot be described by any analogy. The federal government left the state governments to deal with farmers. The federal government had no control over farmers. We are talking about the beginning of our country, not present day. Just thought you needed reminded of that.

Posted by: tom humes at March 28, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #320772

Tom Humes writes; “The federal government left the state governments to deal with farmers.”

I enjoyed your post Tom and agree with your estimation of the national government’s role. It was intended by our founders that the states retained all the power except for a few designated roles for the federal government.

Our founders did not envision the role that the federal government plays today and would be horrified at the prospect.

Beyond the designated powers granted to the federal government in our founding documents, the states are very able and competent to perform all the other actions necessary for our democratic republic.

The complexity and growth of our nation was, and is, no reason to change the formula preferred by our founders.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 28, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #320783

Royal Flush-
1st comment: It would be a start to facing the problem, and would help us in a time when few other parts of society can afford any rise in taxes.

2nd comment:Well… not quite. You see, the reservation of powers to the states was an anti-federalist idea, included with the bill of rights, which was the price of the constitution’s ratification.

It’s important to realize that the founders were not unified on all policies, and that many provisions in the constitution were written as compromises between competitive factions.

So, ask certain framers what the meaning of something was, and you might not get the same answer as others might provide. Adams as opposed to Jefferson, Hamilton as opposed to Madison.

Our founders could not imagine the world we live in today, not from their position. Fortunately, they gave us an adaptive form of government, so we would not bound to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. America’s current position is not the result of a sudden heresy against the framers, but of centuries and decades worth of experience in dealing with the matters of the country we became.

As for your claim? That is a broad claim to make, and vague to boot. there are different functions that the states can perform well, and ones they can’t. We cannot substitute platitudes for good judgment.

Besides, you’re missing the point: Americans chose to expand the powers of government. They chose to interpret the constitution more broadly, to allow it those powers. You dislike this, disagree with it, but the framers did not create this country with the notion that only one set of views, only one set of people would prevail. The created a system for resolving such differences, and it seems like the Republicans are constantly chafing against it.

Nobody was meant to be the sole determinator of what this country could or should be. No one set of views were meant to have unquestioned dominance. This was meant to be government where compromise and limitations of the strength and duration of victories were to be par for the course.

Nobody gets to win forever, especially when they’re not taking care of business. The Republicans don’t want to pay the price for policies gone haywire. Unfortunately, as long as this nation is a Democracy, they will, if they push their luck hard enough. And these days, Republicans seem unwilling to do anything but push their luck.

tom humes-
I do not deify the Framers. They are men of their time, with the imperfect judgment of men, and I thank God they had the humility to leave so much about our government up to us. They understood their judgment wasn’t perfect, or they would have selected a King to rule over us, rather than let us do it ourselves. They would have written a thick phonebook of requirements for our laws, instead of given a few short instruction and rules.

The Framers, in their compromises with each other, gave us the ability to compromise with each other as well, the means by which we can resolve disputes in the courts, in the legislature, and in the execution of our nation’s laws.

I believe that sometimes to properly express an old idea, you have to re-express it by means of a new interpretation. You cannot interpret the Fourth Amendment as you once did. Society has changed. Means of surveillance have changed. Means of communication have changed.

You cannot discount the different constitutional amendments that have come about since then, and the effect they have on the way we look at and determine things about government. You also cannot discount that technology itself has changed the way commerce, military actions, and other matters of state are carried out, how dealing with our borders and our immigrants have changed.

I think the Framers anticipated change in their society, even if they did not anticipate the full scope, depth, or kind of it, and they kindly let the people of today make their own decisions. I think too much loyalty to their points of view can blind us to our own need to see our nation and its needs for themselves, for their own sake.

We are not the nation we once were, but our system of Government is designed to let us make it work regardless. They weren’t founding nannies. They didn’t want to wipe our noses for the rest of American history, and certainly don’t need to behaving as if we need somebody else to do it. This is a Democratic Republic, which means we should take responsibility for our own damn selves, even as we try to remain consistent with the constitution they gave us. We have a responsiblity to todays economy, todays rule of law, today’s societies needs. The Framers took care of their own society with their independent, free thought. We should take care of our own.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2011 8:44 PM
Comment #320784

SD

Who is deifying the framers? I certainly am not. So why is that brought up?

“They understood their judgment wasn’t perfect, or they would have selected a King to rule over us, rather than let us do it ourselves.”

They were not even close to considering a king. More stuff that is made up by someone to just say they think this is what it was like then. Pure rubish.

“You cannot discount the different constitutional amendments that have come about since then…”

Are you saying I was discounting the amendments?
To tell you the truth, what you are penning above is coming from an overactive immagination. Like always you have not responded to others, just penning something to sound like it is a response to a point or question. Standard SOP for you.

Posted by: tom humes at March 28, 2011 9:02 PM
Comment #320792

tom humes-
What else are you doing when you treat their judgment as practically holy writ, unbreakable, to be interpreted as literally (and of course as conservatively) as some do the bible?

Oh, and there were some who suggested a king. But note that I did not speak of them being close to crowning a King, rather, I spoke of them not deciding to crown a King, not deciding to make a government which would be long term and authoritarian in its character.

My sensibility is, our government was built to be changeable, to be able to express the principles of democratic and republican government not just in the time of the founders, but in perpetuity. Our system was designed to change and grow with us as a country. Not everybody likes what has come of that, and some people appeal to a nostalgia of a time they have no living memory of, believing something was lost.

Me, I think we do a disservice to generations of Americans who had to make their own judgments as to what was right and wrong, who felt the effects of the lack of labor, environmental, and civil rights laws. Americans chose to have a bigger government than they had before. They chose to regulate financial systems in the wake of 1929.

Are we to leave our system to the mercy of powerful special interests, simply to please those who pine for the Days of Washington, and what want to run a high tech 21st Century nation like a 1700s agricultural frontier nation? Keep things up, and farms and small towns might be all you have left of what this country once was.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2011 11:23 PM
Comment #320797

SD

“…farms and small towns might be all you have left of what this country once was.”

Big government people are doing worse than that. They want to make this the Union of Socialist Sharia America.

That is where we are heading.

“Americans chose to have a bigger government than they had before. They chose to regulate financial systems in the wake of 1929.”

Some writers have said that. The truth is quite different. Just because government has grown to obesity, does not mean that most American want it that way. Power of government has caused the obesity and now their has to be a diet plan to reduce that obesity. People have never wanted big government. People understand that big government has always had a problem of not growing the power that they somehow think that it must go with it. The machinery of government is well. The operators of that machinery are very sick; hopefully terminally ill.

Posted by: tom humes at March 29, 2011 1:00 AM
Comment #320800

“When the framers established a limite powers government, that was for all time. It fits for all time.”

Tom Humes,

You should remember that our current Constitution was not the first and only constitution of this country. It was proceeded by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union which was not simply amended but abandoned by the founders as unworkable in favor of a Constitution providing for a stronger central government.

The framers were pragmatic and recognized the need to adapt to changing conditions. The Constitution they adopted not only provided mechanisms for its amendment but its articles were less a set of detailed prescriptions and proscriptions and more a framework for a mechanism upon which to build a government. This has resulted, from the day of its adoption, to a constant debate as to the nature and limits of the federal government. The debates of today would not be unfamiliar to Hamilton and Jefferson nor, I suspect, unexpected.

Posted by: Rich at March 29, 2011 8:39 AM
Comment #320801

The Bill of Rights also spells out the limits of the federal government. It sharply limits the federal government from acting upon several areas and then says that if it is not mentioned in the Constitution then it is the states who have the right and power to deal with said subject. The federal government has usurped the tenth amendment for its own use and that is why we have the myriad of problems today.

Posted by: tom humes at March 29, 2011 9:41 AM
Comment #320802

“It is not constitutionally correct for the federal government to create jobs.”

Where is job creation specifically outlawed in the Constitution Tom?

” That is also a misnomer. Government only creates grief. It creates nothing else. It takes from the governed. It cannot give to the governed anything but grief. And that it does with expertise.”

Tom such a misunderstanding of what the functions of government actually are. It is this type of hyper-ideology that has served to prevent effective governing by our elected officials. It seems this self perpetuated vision of government is what conservatives attempt to create, I will give you that, but it is a distortion of what our system of government actually is supposed to be.

“Big government people are doing worse than that. They want to make this the Union of Socialist Sharia America.”

Such a foolish comment Tom. This is why conservative movement types have such little credibility in the real world.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2011 9:44 AM
Comment #320803

tom humes-
Are you serious? You’re serious. Damn it, you’re really serious about pushing that crap.

Look, simple question: If I don’t like Christian leaders hijacking my government, what makes you think I would deliver it over to leaders of a religion I don’t even practice? What makes you think, as a liberal who is definitely in favor of feminism, freedom of religion, gay rights, and all that other stuff, that I would even begin to consider just chucking the whole authority of my government over to a religious code, much less the rigid, ultra-conservative brand of it you’re trying to scare people with?

Besides, have you consider that small, inconvenient fact that Marxist Socialism (which is the kind we’re speaking of) is staunchly atheistic? That many of the Islamists balk at governments that are so totally secular?

You have this screwy way of deciding that if somebody doesn’t take as extreme a version of your opinion as you think is appropriate, that they’re somehow for your opinion’s complete opposite.

Since we’re not in favor of putting millions of innocent Muslims under increased scrutiny, or treating them and their religion with disregard, you therefore assume that we’re for overwhelming this country with radical Islam’s preferred mode of government.

Since we’re not in favor of carving regulation down to the bone, and letting businesses do whatever they want, you assume that we’re for the complete nationalization of the economy.

Since we’re not in favor of undoing the strong, centralized power of the Federal government in this day and age, you act like we’re for having that government overwhelm and destroy every bit of freedom this country has.

It does not follow, though, that any of that is true. But that doesn’t stop people from repeating and echoing it until the hyped-up bull**** takes on the weight of truth for them.

We’re a hell of a lot more boring and reasonable than you folks are. Mostly, we want to stop seeing people get harrassed and made to feel like second-class citizens because their religious practice and ethnicity vaguely relates to that of some terrorists out there.

Mostly, we want the power of big business to get away with doing terrible things to consumers and clients to be balanced by laws which will hold them accountable, make things fair for people.

Mostly, we want government to be the size it needs to be, at the cost it needs to be, to carry out what we ask of it. If we can make it do more with less, great!

The trouble with picturing us as such extremists is that it’s given the right a perpetual motivation to keep on going further and further to extremes, to the point where their actions and their legislation constitute more radical revisions of the current system, with less reasonable cause than what the Democrats propose. In fighting this illusory monster of liberalism, they’ve turned their own politics into a problem for this nation’s financial security and social stability.

People want government that has the quality it needs to do what it asks of them. They don’t want to be told that they have all these protections, and then see folks doing obviously crooked things go scot-free. They want justice. They want to make what they earn. They want to worry less, and be happy more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2011 9:49 AM
Comment #320806

“Where is job creation specifically outlawed in the Constitution Tom?”

That is an incorrect and outrageous statement. The Constitution is not about outlawing things, it is about empowering people. It gives specific, defined power to the federal government and all the rest remains with the states.

Just as we have lost our constitutional bearings with regard to empowering the federal government at the expense of the duly granted power to the states; we have lost our constitutional bearings when it comes to matters of war.

Congress has not been asked for, nor has it granted, a declaration of war since WWII. The constitution addresses this issue directly and without ambiguity. Yet, since WWII our nation has entered into war without a declaration by congress. This same erosion of the constitution has prevailed even in such matters of waging war. Congress has given up the powers assigned to it by the constitution in favor of granting that power to the CIC.

Here is an excellent summary of how the war powers have been usurped, willingly, from congress just as the powers of the state have been eroded.

What Happened to the American Declaration of War?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110328-what-happened-american-declaration-war?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110329&utm_content=readmore&elq=1e456a37fd634515ad8c469fe85141ee

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment #320808

SD

So what did you say new? You keep re-hashing the old grist and hope it comes out as steak.

j2t2
Read the tenth amendment and re-read the constitution to see where the power is and is not.

Posted by: tom humes at March 29, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment #320810

RF,
Thank you for sharing the article about the lack of war declarations for the last 7 decades. However, I want to point out that Presidents started fighting wars without Congressional declaration in the 1790s.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 29, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #320811


Republicans won’t vote out Republicans that support unconstitutional acts.
Democrats won’t vote out Democrats that support unconstitutional acts.

So, it is a mute point.

Republican Senator Inhofe wants to know if there are Al Qaeda forces fight among the freedom fighters in Libya that are trying to overthrow the terrorist Qaddafi.

Posted by: jlw at March 29, 2011 4:04 PM
Comment #320814

Royal Flush-
The weakness in your argument is that you neglect to address agreement and disagreement on what government people want, as well as what they don’t want. As with Tax Cuts and the Budget, you seem to only see the side of the equation that your ideology permits you to see.

As for Declarations of War? There were plenty of military actions we got into before WWII that were undeclared. I think you’re idealizing the relationship between declarations of war, and actual war.

As CINC, the President is in charge of the military. He cannot declare a state of war, but he can order an act of war to be undertaken, something that was done many times before Both the Civil War and WWII. Today, in the wake of Vietnam, the War Powers act governs this more closely, but Congress does not get to decide everything, especially on matters it’s already written the check on.

And Really, are we going to be lectured on this responsibility by Republicans who eagerly got us into two undeclared wars, and seem eager to have us intervene in Syria and Iran in a similar way?

By the way, you know why nobody declares wars anymore? It’s pretty simple: Declarations of war trigger treaty obligations. You declare war on them, then their allies, if they have so agreed, are obligated to declare war on you. In today’s world, with so many alliances, it’s a recipe for WWIII. During the Soviet Union, declared wars on Soviet Satellites would mean bringing the Soviet Union or China into the fight, which would tend to mean Nuclear war, rather than conventional.

The War Powers act, in essence, was a recognition of both the need to keep the wars undeclared, while at the same time, at least applying a fig-leaf of Congressional oversight, if not more.

I think you question the shift of power without fully realizing what the consequence of such a power shift would be. Would such a system really work? It’s easy to advocate measures that are so radically unlike current practice, to act like those times were so much better.

I think such idealism is unwarranted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #320820

I think such idealism is unwarranted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2011

I believe ignoring the provisions of the constitution is dangerous.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #320823

Royal Flush-
And I believe you’re wrong about much of what you think constitutes such a disregard.

I think folks like you would do well to look at the actual constitution, not just with the notion of seeing whatever support for what you already believe that you can find, but with a mind to seeing what the Framers intended for the way government is assembled.

If the Framers had wanted one view to triumph (hell, if they had one, united view to have triumph in the first place), they would have written it into the Constitution.

But it’s not a product of such a group. It’s a product of a contentious group of people who had competitive interests, who by virtue of working out a compromise for themselves, gave us the ability to work out our own compromises in our own time.

You act as if they all had one united idea about how far government should go. They didn’t. Otherwise, how did you get the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans? (later the Democratic Party)

What Republicans want out of these claims of theirs, out of their constant appeals to the Constitution, is an unquestionable viewpoint, a perspective on what government is supposed to be that cannot be gainsayed.

The Framers, if they had gone on such pursuits, would have have never completed the Constitution. They had to balance the wants and needs of different states, find the common ground.

In the end, that was the longer lasting approach. They created a President to lead us all, a Congress to factor in the viewpoints of the different communities and different states, and courts whose members were appointed by the President, giving an elected Representative some influence in how the law was interpreted.

Contrary to your ideologically narrow perspective, the Framers did not see one view of the law naturally triumphing. They created a court to interpret the law, and gave the President and the Senate choice of who occupied that bench.

People are going to have different opinions about what the constitution means, whether you like it or not. Those differences will have to be resolved. The people who are appointed to resolve those differences aren’t always going to agree with your philosophy.

So you can complain about people ignoring the constitution, but is it really ignoring that, or not taking up your point of view as it would please you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2011 8:15 PM
Comment #320827

“j2t2 Read the tenth amendment and re-read the constitution to see where the power is and is not.”

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows-
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

“The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”[2] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[3] However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It seems many conservatives mistake the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation despite the difference between the two.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #320830

1776, good job getting those permits back online! Who says a squeeky wheel gets the grease?

From j2t2’s link:

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Chevron (CVX.N) on Thursday received the first U.S. permit to drill a complete exploratory well for oil or gas in a new deepwater reservoir since the end of the drilling moratorium that followed the BP (BP.L) oil spill.

March 24th, that’s today! Thursday!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 24, 2011 03:25 PM

Exploration wells are drilled purely for exploratory(information gathering) purposes in a new area.

The real information on drilling permits issued before and after the spill can be found here:link text

And yes, I am aware that you all have moved on from this subject. You all tend to do that a lot. I just wanted to clear a few things up on this subject.


Posted by: Observer at March 29, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #320848

So you can complain about people ignoring the constitution, but is it really ignoring that, or not taking up your point of view as it would please you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2011

That comment is merely double-talk, aimed at justifying “Interest Group Liberalism”. What our founders produced in the Constitution was forged after much discussion and argument. And, clearly, the federal government has vastly overstepped its charter.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #320849

Thanks for the link. Observer.
I used this link to verify my original comment of news articles documenting the issue of permits.

I saw that and it verifies that only 5 new wells were approved since october. News articles verify 5 wells have been approved and they were all within the week.
Rich noted that a shutdown was in effect until verification of new blow out preventer technology. This does not refute 1776’s original statement saying drilling has been shut down until very recently.

copied from the table in your link, Observer.


Approved since October 12, 20106
New Well
A new well involves an operator drilling an original
wellbore hole in the seafloor to a geologic target.
5

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 30, 2011 2:51 PM
Comment #320853

Royal Flush-
It’s interesting that you lash out at me and other liberals as being beholden to interest groups. When’s the last time your people crossed the NRA, said no to the Chamber of Commerce, failed to take the energy company’s position on Global Warming?

I’d go ahead and state that the Constitution was never meant to be the end of the debate, like you seem to portray it, only the beginning. That’s what a Democratic Republic is: a nation where the debate about what the law is, and how it should be interpreted doesn’t end with one side forever after able to impose their vision.

What is clear to you doesn’t reflect the obvious conclusion for everybody.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2011 4:08 PM
Comment #320855

“This does not refute 1776’s original statement saying drilling has been shut down until very recently.”

But it does Weary. For starters no land based drilling was shut down. Secondly the 5 you refer to were for 500 feet or greater and you didn’t mention the 14 revised new well permits approved in the next line.

Not to mention the reason for the moratorium was a major oil spill from one of the deep wells resulting in the deaths of 11 workers on the platform. The moratorium was not due to Obama but to lax standards that resulted in an oil spill. Even then it was for deep water drilling only.

1776 was trying to link his exaggerated piece of misinformation to Brazil and Obama which was a red herring as Brazil has to have environmental standards that must be meant before they can drill and all Obama was doing was procuring work for American companies.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2011 4:34 PM
Comment #320858

I find it senseless to continue debating a subject in which the goal of the left is to defend obama, no matter what he does.

But, to answer j2t2 about the “red herring”; I am sure Brazil does not have an EPA, and I am sure their environmental laws are NOT the same as ours. That being said, obama is not concerned about their environmental laws, only about ours. He would willingly give Brazil American tax dollars to use for drilling, but would shut down our own drilling. The reason being, for the ditribution of America’s wealth.

Posted by: 1776 at March 30, 2011 5:37 PM
Comment #320864

Mr. Daugherty writes; “When’s the last time your people crossed the NRA, said no to the Chamber of Commerce, failed to take the energy company’s position on Global Warming?”

Please read the constitution…the right to own and bear arms is just one of our many rights. What the hell is your beef with the Chamber? As for MMGW…it’s based upon flawed and controversial science.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2011 7:04 PM
Comment #320867

Royal Flush-
How cute. Changing the subject much? I asked you when the last time they crossed them, and you rationalized your agreement instead of citing incidents where you differed in your opinion.

As for flawed and controversial science? If 90% of Americans supported a war or a candidate’s position, it wouldn’t be considered very controversial. Yet, you take 90% of climate scientists, and say such a large consensus represents a controversial theory.

Bull. And as for flawed theories, no theory is perfect, but even so, our theory is better proven and better grounded than the myriad of lame excuses that so-called Climate Skeptics come up with not to accept the consensus on the science.

In science, no theory is considered perfect, but you don’t give up on an imperfect theory for the sake of one that is much more terrible at explaining things, much more untested.

It’s rhetorical trickery, really. It’s meant to create doubt where the facts say to trust the theory. As such, it relies on false logic to promote its view, rather than tested hypothesis.

If you want to stand for political paralysis in the face of another looming crisis, be my guest. It seems you haven’t had nearly enough lessons in humility.

j2t2-
Just a little note: as much as I’d like Obama to get credit for procuring jobs, remember my source said that the Ex-Im Bank board, all Bush Appointees, approved the loan.

1776-
You know, j2t2 might be wrong about who approved the loan, but you’re wrong about the entire thing. You’re wrong about who approved it. You’re wrong that Obama shut down drilling, except for permits in deepwater, which is justified because need another out of control oil spill like we need a hole in the head.

You’re even wrong about the God-Blessed tax dollars, because the Ex-Im Bank is completely self sufficient, and doesn’t fund itself through tax dollars!

Do you even care? Do the details matter to you?

This is why I have become so strongly opposed to Republicans running things, because most of them seem to think just like you, and the consequence is, because they cannot admit fault, they cannot solve problems when they have their ass to cover, or their ideology to satisfy.

I would tell your fellow Republicans that they need to go cold turkey on the GOP as it currently is. They have been sold a bill of goods here, and all they will see for their efforts is more pain, suffering, and failure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #320869

SD

The bull is coming from your location. 90% of no group is in agreement on global warming. Not even 80%. Not even 70%. Not even 60%. And on and on. Stephen some day you are going to have to wake up to reality. The crap you post is just that crap. And that is because it lacks credibility. It make absolutely no difference what I think or say. It is crap. Careless Radical Assumptions Perhaps.

Posted by: tom humes at March 30, 2011 8:49 PM
Comment #320870

“I am sure Brazil does not have an EPA, and I am sure their environmental laws are NOT the same as ours.”

Of course they are not exactly the same nor do they have the same name, but so what 17? Brazil does have an agency that serves basically the same functions, SISNAMA being an example.

http://www.pinheironeto.com.br/upload/tb_pinheironeto_livreto/pdf/030507092509leg%20ambiental-ing2007.pdf

It seems those Brazilians have also decided they needed to plan for and deal with oil spills and they seem to have done a good job at it.

www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss02/taampaper.pdf


“That being said, obama is not concerned about their environmental laws, only about ours.”

As it should be, he is the president of the United States not the president of Brazil. The regulations in place for drilling off the shores of Brazil are the responsibility of the Brazilian government. Your argument is without merit 17.


” He would willingly give Brazil American tax dollars to use for drilling, but would shut down our own drilling.”
An outright lie 17. Obama has not given our tax dollars to Brazil for drilling, pure BS and it has been proven in this thread several times. Our oil drilling was curtailed due to the BP oil spill for deep water drilling only. Not shut down as you have falsely claimed.

“The reason being, for the ditribution of America’s wealth.”

Pure BS based upon an outright lie, yet you want to be taken seriously! go figure.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #320878

When obama’s plans for America force us to buy foreign oil, it is for redistribution of America’s wealth. When obama and the libs passed obamacare, it was for redistribution of wealth. Why do liberals always try to make believe they actually care about the underdog?

Posted by: 1776 at March 31, 2011 12:10 AM
Comment #320880

1776
Will the libs confess to Chuck U Shoemere’s(sic) extremist crap and that it was wrong for him to make believe such slime?

Posted by: tom humes at March 31, 2011 12:58 AM
Comment #320882

tom humes-
Should I bother asking you your evidence, given that you’ll probably give me the runaround?

Here.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 “How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?” got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

More:

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[108] [109]
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords “global climate change”. Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. According to the report, “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.”

No major Scientific organization backs the skeptic’s point of view. None.

I guess now you’ll retreat to the tired old saw of political suppression of scientific opinion, or maybe paradigm shift (which is dodgy since there’s no solid theory on the Climate Skeptic’s side to shift to.)

Your people will retreat to whatever position makes it difficult or impossible to test their claims. Political suppression, for example, can be claimed without much evidence.

Never mind whether the results of the scientists are reproducible, verifiable, or anything like that. You’re not interested in actually being scientific about it. This is all about political manipulation of people in order to stall action on Climate change that might cut into the profits of those whose profits depend on steady consumption of fossil fuels.

As for Chuck Schumer’s comment? Well, Republican cuts are extremist, and Republicans and extremists should be mentioned in the same sentence as much as possible, given how vigorous they’ve been about union busting and other partisan BS they never sold voters on. Not only are voters not getting the jobs they were promised, your people are actually going in and killing- literally- hundreds of thousands of jobs, in the meantime probably crippling government services people have come to expect.

You think people are addicted to big government? Well, let me ask, have you planned for the withdrawal? Have you also planned for the fact that you’ve got hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed people competing for the same number of jobs?

Republicans love to make messes they have no intention of cleaning up. The public’s love of being left with such messes, though, is an open question.

1776-
First of all, nobody’s going to be buying oil from a well that bursts open in a blowout. With the extremes of temperature, depth, pressure, etc, it will be difficult, expensive and time consuming to deal with the consequences of the disaster.

And you want us to go gallivanting in there, with no concern for what the economic effects of a repeat of this crap is? How many more nails do you need in the coffin of big oil? Do you think Americans will be that much more eager to support drilling after the second, or third well goes?

And what about all the oil leases that the corporations already have, but aren’t using?

Folks like you are like that Soviet ambassador from The Hunt for Red October. Your government doesn’t always tell you everything, and your position changes to whatever is necessary to serve their political ends. Whether it’s agreeing to cap and trade in principle, or spreading false controversy over Climate Change and the folks who study it, you’re always there and always eager to serve the party and it’s claims.

But like the Soviets, you folks fail to learn one very important lesson: politics doesn’t undo reality. It didn’t change the laws of physics that allowed Chernobyl to blow sky-high, nor did it change the ecological consequences of diverting the rivers that once fed the Aral Sea.

The politics of capitalism have overwhelmed common sense and good practice, allowing ever more dangerous and risky behavior to occur, in the name of pushing things to the limits. Good capitalism and good government require moderation, not merely by a squaring of different opinions, but by the squaring of opinion with the facts.

Which your side is utterly unwilling to do. But treating the facts with contempt will not give you the power to change them, and it is a certainty in my opinion that once an oil spill of the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon repeats, the support for further drilling will sink like a rock. In short, once again, Obama’s saving capitalism’s ungrateful ass once again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2011 7:53 AM
Comment #320888

“When obama’s plans for America force us to buy foreign oil, it is for redistribution of America’s wealth.”

Obama’s plan? Where have you been since the ‘70’s 17? We have been importing oil for decades. This illogical belief you have that oil production was shut down is just wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-oil-production-last-year-was-/

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2011 9:51 AM
Comment #320892

Stephen Daugherty is obsessed with getting in the last word, as I said before, “if he can’t dazzle you with his brilliance, he will baffle you with his bullshit”.

The rest of the libs are like little rat terriers; nipping at the heels of conservative writers and defending SD.

Posted by: 1776 at March 31, 2011 11:26 AM
Comment #320893

1776-
The real question here is whethere you can present a calm, factual case as to why my opinion is bull****.

I keep on knocking down your case, and you keep on bringing up the same claim. You don’t explain why I’m wrong about the self-sufficiency of the Ex-Im Bank. You don’t reveal any new facts that would indicate a stronger case for Obama’s influence of those board members, or other policy that deliberately disadvantaged domestic oil production with the intent of making foreign oil more lucrative.

Instead, you simply shout your point of view all over again, and allege political reasons for my failure to agree with your sacrosanct point of view.

I think you and yours, out there in the political world, are once again demonstrating why people deprived you of power in the first place. Your hostility and insulting comments are crossing the line. If you can’t keep civil, I might have to start deleting comments. I’ve given you plenty of room to express your points, but if you interpret that as permission to engage in trollery, you’re sadly mistaken.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #320894

I commented last…

Posted by: 1776 at March 31, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment #320895

I have changed my mind on MMGW and now support placing a carbon tax on fossil fuels so we can get electricity rates to at least $1 per KWH (I believe this would be high enough to satisfy oobama) and gas prices to at least $10 per gallon. Just a rough guess means that this would suck at least $1 trillion per year out of the private economy and into the government coffers to further the goals of “Interest Group Liberalism”.

We could create a whole new level of persons no longer able to support themselves with such high fuel and electricity cost and could fund their survival with this trillion per year. They would be beholden to government for their subsistence, along with the millions of other in government-induced poverty, and would most surely vote dem in future elections.

We could then tax any remaining private money in wages and profits at around 95% and that would generate even more money to support all the newly poor. The dem party could then rule alone and we could then be The United States Socialist Republic.

It will be grand. All will be poor together. Money will be worthless and we can resort to the much fairer bartering system. Those with nothing to barter will be asked to die or leave as they will have nothing left to contribute to society.

Mr. Daugherty and his lib/dem allies will no longer suffer from jealousy and will finally rule over this new serfdom where all have equal rights of poverty, disease and suffering.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2011 11:51 AM
Comment #320896

SD

“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts…for support rather than illumination”

Andrew Lang

Posted by: tom humes at March 31, 2011 12:01 PM
Comment #320897

Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!

Posted 03/21/2011 07:08 PM ET

Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we’ll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.

His “What, me worry?” presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country’s ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America’s decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices “necessarily skyrocket” to foster his green energy agenda.

In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: “Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership.”

Yet in his alleged quest for “secure-energy supplies,” he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia’s reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. market.

That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 “shovel-ready” jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.

Yet it’s now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure?

If Brazil had copied our current energy policy, it wouldn’t have discovered in December 2007 the Tupi field, estimated to contain 5 billion to 8 billon barrels of crude, or its Carioca offshore oilfield that may hold up to 33 billion barrels.

Haroldo Lima, head of Brazil’s National Oil Agency, estimates that Carioca might hold as much as five times the reserves of Tupi. Somehow the Brazilians aren’t too worried about oil spoiling the pristine beaches of nearby Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro in the tourist season.

We suggest that President Obama return home and start worrying about an unapologetic American renaissance in which we focus more on American energy and American jobs and less on mythical environmental hazards and foreign accolades.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=566719

Posted by: 1776 at March 31, 2011 12:08 PM
Comment #320900

Good post 1776. It is easy to understand oobama’s thinking since he developed his “smarts” helping folks in Chicago get public funds to fix their toilets and provide transportation to the polls to vote dem and show their gratitude.

With no real job experience and a liberal education by some of the nation’s most respected socialists, he is well qualified to lead the nation into bankruptcy and poverty.

We now have congress facing increasing the limit on our national credit card. Imagine for a moment that the credit card belonged to American Express. Congress asks for an increase in their spending limit. What are the odds that American Express would increase the credit limit?

My vote is that they wouldn’t and would call for repayment of the entire loan based upon an inability to pay in the future and over indebtedness.

I wonder if oobama and congress have consulted with the Chinese yet about funding the additional debt. OH, WAIT…that would require some thoughtful consideration. However, they could sweeten the deal by giving the Chinese more of our national security secrets and plans.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #320902

1776 and RF

Thanks for those remarks. I for the life of me cannot understand why the libs will not stand up like American men and be counted. They are like blind sheep led to the slaughter. I just hope and pray that the senate becomes less liberal next year to the point that legislation can get passed with out those two week budget farces and planned parrenthood getting more monies for their lies and murder. Oobooba needs to take a vacation in the WH. This guy is just unblievable and the people that voted him in have to be boobs for Oobooba.

I don’t use too many sources anymore. SD and his henchmen just call them lies when the facts have just bitten them in the tusch. They bring up these wild writings from the left and call them fact. They have trouble telling fact from fiction.

Posted by: tom humes at March 31, 2011 1:17 PM
Comment #320905

1776-
Well, Holy Incestuous amplification! Another Op-Ed repeating the same BS.

Sorry, the guy’s wrong. Not only that, contradictory.

First, the Canadian Tar Sands still count as an import. In fact, Canadian oil (of which the tar sands are a big part) amounts to about a quarter of what we import. Building a pipeline down to Houston will not only help bring more imported oil to this country, but it will also decrease oil prices for domestic oil sources, making it less worthwhile to develop domestic capacity.

And remember, as I said earlier, this is the kludgy kind of oil, not the light, sweet stuff we might get from Brazil.

So, what he suggest will actually have us importing more oil, and undercut our own domestic supplies.

And really, is it a bad thing to have Brazilian oil companies buying American equipment, employing American workers, and paying back money to American banks? They’ll drill anyways. You don’t think they’d leave that resource in the ground, do you? Well, we can profit, or not, and your choice, based on Professor Beck’s inane BS is to not profit from Brazil’s good fortunes.

As for a green agenda? Look, it’s not the green agenda that makes oil expensive, it’s a world market where we’re no longer the only ones driving around a bunch of cars. It’s typical that some folks who support free markets balk at the actual consequences of the market’s operations. They’re too busy buying into the hype that it will make everything cheaper, not busy enough actually seeing how the market really behaves.

tom humes-
You can make snide comments on my use of facts, but at least I have the problem of having facts to be accountable on my use of.

Thanks for those remarks. I for the life of me cannot understand why the libs will not stand up like American men and be counted.

Well, for one thing, some of them are women, so standing up like American Men would present some problems.

I suppose you are the one who gets to determine what standing up like an American man is, right? ;-) Thanks, but no thanks, I stand up for myself just fine.

As for your latest name for Obama… Really, you need some help when your name for him barely even shares real sounds with it. I find such concentration on namecalling to be a pathetic tactic, and abstain from using it. I really prefer not to use a tactic better suited for the playground than adult debate.

You seem resigned to not relying on facts, to simply muddying the waters on other people’s beliefs, rather than thinking out your own with any great detail or justification.

Me, I look at your position and am glad I still cite sources and rely on facts. I like having the ground underneath my feet, and not trying to rely on telling other people that my opposition is unreliable.

Royal Flush-
Today’s Republican politics is about distracting people as much from their previous stupid choices in both leadership and fiscal matters as possible. You need Obama to be stupid, an empty suit, because you made the mistake of electing one yourselves twice, and paid the political price for it. You need the Democrats to take the blame for your fiscal practices, so you can escape responsibility for it, despite the truth on the record and the likelihood that your own policies would just repeat the same mistakes once again.

But the foolishness of your argument on the debt limit illustrates how out of whack the political thinking is with the reality.

The plain truth is, if we don’t pass that debt limit increase, it will essentially send the world the exact message you claim not passing the debt limit will send: that the full faith and credit of the United States dollar is BS. It would be an economic collapse of massive proportions as the new debts your budget will inevitably create would either have to be cut out of the economy, or taxed out of it.

In short, your party’s dumbasses would do the exact bankrupting of this country that you claim has already occured. Only this time, it would be more than political hype, it would be real, and the GOP’s fault.

The Chinese have no intention of bankrupting their best customer. We should not do to ourselves what our rivals shrink from doing. Such self-inflicted stupidity may appeal to you, but I think of government in terms of actually helping our country, instead of just helping whatever folks made the mistake of painting themselves into a corner on the budget.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #320908

“Thanks for those remarks. I for the life of me cannot understand why the libs will not stand up like American men and be counted. They are like blind sheep led to the slaughter.”

Tom all of us on the left do stand up to the lies perpetrated by 17 in this thread as an example. The extremist on the right, like yourself, have to resort to this type of ignorant comment when their outright lies have been called out. Funny you should resort to such hateful comments but it does seem to show your true colors.

“Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! We are a sacred brotherhood, who love our country too. We always can be counted on, when there’s a job to do. We serve our homeland day and night, to keep it always free. Proudly wear our robes of White, protecting liberty.

http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1553627/The-Klansmen-Stand-Up-%26-Be-Counted-Lyrics

And you call us blind sheep, go figure.

“Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!”

17 the whole article reprinted here! But it doesn’t prove your point, it just rehashes your misinformation and half truths and shows them to be merely conservative talking points.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #320911

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “You need Obama to be stupid, an empty suit, because you made the mistake of electing one yourselves twice, and paid the political price for it.”

Funny…very funny. I can hardly count the policies of that “empty suit” obama has followed. Such hyperbole is amusing. OH…and that “political price” you write of…doesn’t exist. Perhaps you didn’t know that Bush couldn’t run for a third term. And, what about the reps taking back the house in numbers that were startling for the dems and libs. obama diddles and farts when it comes to international policy and the Middle East. He sticks his finger somewhere and when the United Nations speaks he pulls it out of his butt and pretends to be a leader.

He writes; “The plain truth is, if we don’t pass that debt limit increase, it will essentially send the world the exact message you claim not passing the debt limit will send: that the full faith and credit of the United States dollar is BS.”

Ya…Ya…Ya…such blather. If we don’t get more credit to spend more money our credit will be ruined. Only a brain-dead person, whose only real life experience is dabbling in film make-believe, with his hand out for more government largess, could possibly spew such nonsense comments.

Tell American Express, or any other credit card company, that unless they extend more credit you will file bankruptcy. American Express and all the others would tell you to stick that threat where the sun never shines. But then, that assumes you even have a credit card.

If the Reps, Cons and moderate Dems in the house fulfill the promises made to get elected, they will fund the bare necessity to keep government operating and let the libs and dems take responsibility for any total government shutdown.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #320917

SD
Just trying to bring myself down to your level so you could understand me better. I really am not very good at fiction and bs. So, it is a challenge for me to go toe to toe with someone with so much experience.

Posted by: tom humes at March 31, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #320920

I’m wondering how a corporation is allowed to be chartered at a federal or international level, considering the history our country has had with corporate domination.
Is BP chartered by the federal government to do business in the entire U.S., or is BP granted permission by individual states to do business in each individual state?

When taking our country’s history into account I would be inclined to believe BP is chartered by each individual state, but the fact that BP is operating in areas dominated by domestic oil producing states defies that notion.

Stephen Daugherty, with all your wisdom and research capabilities closely equaling the Remer, can you definitely produce BP’s charter agreement with the state of Texas in your next diatribe?

Also, can you compare the cost of producing domestic oil in Texas against purchasing oil thru BP generated in the area dominated by Texas? Please include domestic labor costs as well as BP figures for the equivilant production amount and extranious costs that relate to this inquiry.

Thanks Stephen Daughery in advance, for enlightening us with your wealthy ability to generate and document the facts we need to discuss an issue with clarity and a determined attitude towards a positive conclusion.

I’m looking forward to those figures and agreements from Texas and BP, Stephen Daugherty, and this new-found ability to work together.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 31, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #320922

He bails out.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 31, 2011 9:55 PM
Comment #320925

Royal Flush-
There’s a whole lot of trash talk there, and opinion, but what supports it?

Let’s take this debt limit thing. You do realize that part of our budget is paying back our debts, right? So, if we don’t borrow anything more, then about a third of the budget cannot be paid for. Not gradually, but all of a sudden. Who gets paid? Whoever doesn’t, almost doesn’t matter. Suddenly, America, for some bizarre reason, has decided to demonstrate that it’s unable or unwilling to either pay for services rendered, or pay for debts taken on.

Full faith and credit no more. No more guarantee that if you buy a treasury bond, you’ll get your money back. No more guarantee that if the nation makes a promise of payment to you, it will be fulfilled.

That you fail to understand that means whatever expertise you claim in superiority to my own is pointless. You’ve failed to understand the matter at hand.

You would willingly produce such problems. Is their no better demonstration of how out of touch and extreme your party has become?

I don’t think most people will buy the idea that Obama or the Democrats sought a government shutdown. Republicans are such obvious and vocal haters of government, and so outspokenly unwilling to make compromises, that the charge easily sticks to them.

You’re dreaming if you think the Republicans come out of this controversy well at all. Either you disappoint your base, or you spread anxiety about the quality of your leadership to all corners of the country, just like you did in 1995.

tom humes-
You haven’t proved a damn thing false of mine. Your fiction, conveniently enough, is that you don’t have to deign to respond.

Weary Willie-
States grant the charters to corporations, and the constitution grants full faith and credit to that incorporation everywhere, so it’s note necessary to get a charter in every state to operate as a business there.

Delaware is the chartering state for BP America, though its headquarters are right here in Houston. So Texans couldn’t revoke their charter, and certainly not Louisiana.

Also, can you compare the cost of producing domestic oil in Texas against purchasing oil thru BP generated in the area dominated by Texas?

?

State waters go about nine miles out. Beyond that, it’s Federal control. That’s my best guess of what the distinction you made is. But really, onshore oil likely costs less than offshore, and deep offshore more than shallow offshore. It all has to do with the complexity of the facilities and the structure needed to secure the oil drilling and production rigs to the well.

If you’re talking the pipeline from Canada, it’s simple economics: flood the market with a lot of foreign product, and the high amount of supply lowers demand. You don’t need a lot of complex economics to tell you that. That’s simply the way any market works. If your idea is to have domestic sources create more oil for home consumption (thought that’s not the way the market works) Then allowing the pipeline is counterproductive.

And if your product costs more to produce at home than it does to import from abroad- well Adam Smith could tell you what happens then.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2011 12:29 AM
Comment #320935

SD

I don’t have to prove you wrong when you do such a great job without my help.

Posted by: tom humes at April 1, 2011 12:58 PM
Comment #320967


The Chinese are willing to sell the Brazilians what ever they need and probably at a better price than we are offering.

The argument that alternative energy sources are not viable because oil is so cheap has morphed into the argument that oil prices are being controlled at an artificially high price by the government to make alternative sources viable.

Apparently the conservatives don’t want to spend all the tax dollars they will be saving by eliminating social spending on gas.

Don’t you just love the logic of conservatives, eliminating social spending won’t increase poverty but higher gas prices will.

The price of energy is going to rise and that has and will continue to have an above average adverse effect on the lower class.

The same is true of social spending. It is a fact of life that adverse affects due to change are predominate born by the lower classes.

Posted by: jlw at April 2, 2011 12:59 AM
Comment #321019

Wake up America. It’s time to regroup.

“THE REVOLUTION HAS STARTED”
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
“Spread the News”

Posted by: rick moss at April 2, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #321038

tom humes-
Or maybe you just find it easier and more fun to snipe at me without having to defend a position of your own.

Oh well, your loss.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2011 6:02 PM
Post a comment