Oil & Gas to the Rescue

The irony is that the true stimulus will come from a fossil fuel boom, not from green energy and certainly not from government coffers. Big-bad oil & gas is the engine that will pull us out of the Obama doldrums. I guess “Drill baby drill” was a good slogan after all. I have been writing about this upcoming big boom for five years. It was creeping up on us and now it is here. It is the biggest change in a generation.

As I wrote before, the great thing about this energy boom is that it is American, that it is widespread and that it is sustainable within the reasonable life expectancy of everybody alive today. Gas is replacing dirtier coal, so the U.S. can reduce its pollution and CO2 footprint. The new American energy industry is already creating jobs and these are REAL jobs, not the ersatz variety propped up by debt and government spending.

On the geopolitical stage it just gets better. The Middle East, long a cauldron of trouble, is being made less important by vast new reserves not only the U.S. but also in friendly countries in South America. Wouldn't it be nice if there was trouble in Saudi Arabia and nobody much cared? What a great day it would be if we could tell the Iranians to stick their fuel back up their gas holes.

I know that this turn of events comes as a disappointment to those who talked about "peak oil" and thought that we would be running out of gas & oil ten years ago. I believe that we will indeed transition from fossil fuels and we are doing so already. But now we have more time to do it.

Environmental factors remain a concern, but the new methods of extraction are significantly cleaner than the alternatives, a gas well v a coal mine for example. And the newer fuels burn cleaner. President Obama is already trying to repackage them as part of his otherwise unsuccessful and expensive green energy debacle. He comes to the party late and a little reluctantly but better late than never.

So after all the sound and fury about the new economy built on government subsidized green energy, Obama may be saved by the gas & oil industry his followers have so insulted and demonized.

You know why this happens, that leftist "ideals" get turned into rightist realities? Because the leftist ideas don't work. Even guys like Obama have to come around to reality when faced with real decisions.

Yes we can - address our energy needs with more energy exploration.

So Obama's big achievement has been dropped in his lap. He has achieved a boom in energy based on oil and gas. He achieved this by not being able to defeat reality. The REAL stimulus is provided by those industries his followers would have liked to destroy.

Now I expect that my leftist colleague will explain how we will soon run out of oil and they will make the usual arguments. But Obama and I know that we have to go with real world choices. I knew it sooner.

Posted by Christine & John at February 8, 2012 6:24 PM
Comment #335876

Did you really know it sooner?

Is it true that U.S. oil production is at it’s highest level since 2003? Doesn’t that mean that for most of the Bush Administration U.S. oil production flat lined or declined? Hard to believe, this was supposed to be an impossibility without ANWR.

Natural gas production has set a new high every year of Obama’s presidency.

Coal production is up. Nuclear fuel production is up. Green energy use is growing.

Manufacturing is growing, so to exports. The service economy is hiring. Small businesses are hiring. Some because of their reduced health care costs.

Who gets the credit? Well, I know who would be getting most of the credit if McCain were president, Republican governors.

Posted by: jlw at February 8, 2012 8:08 PM
Comment #335879


Yes. I knew years before Obama. He was criticizing the industry and didn’t understand its importance. He came around late.

The first time I can find on this blog that I mentioned it was when I cited an article (http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/europe/energy-security-national-security-and-natural-gas) on April 15, 2006. http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/003468.html.

I became fully aware of the benefits of fracking in 2008. I have an entry on my personal blog from then.

I wrote about oil shale on March 9, 2007http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004860.html

This is what I wrote almost two years before Obama took office.

“Oil shale. We have more of it than anybody else; much of the rest lies under friendly places like Canada & Brazil. With new innovations it to be produced @$25/barrel w/o a big surface footprint AND it is extracted by injecting CO2 into sequestration right back where the oil came from. How elegant, efficient & perfectly balanced AND it is American. We have found the Tao of energy. “

So yes - I was ahead of this game. Lots of people knew this, just not Obama.

Who gets the credit - the researchers and industry experts who pushed these technologies against the resistance of the various anti-oil and gas interests, of which Obama was a member until not long ago.

This happened certainly not because of the Obama folks but in spite of them.

Re reduced healthcare costs - healthcare costs have rise since the Obama reforms. No help there.

Posted by: C&J at February 8, 2012 8:53 PM
Comment #335880

“Stick your oil up your gas hole”

Best T-shirt idea I’ve heard in years.

I’m sick of the demonization of coal. 1/4 of the WORLD’s known coal reserves are here in Alaska, and anytime someone tries to mine coal here, in come the hysteria peddlers with massive budgets funded by the Sierra Club to lie to people and talk about kids covered in coal dust and other complete rubbish.

Look up the Fischer-Trope process. Clean Coal Technology was invented by the Germans who couldn’t get fuel anywhere else.

We have enough fossil resources to be completely independent for decades and decades, just between Alaska Coal and ANWR, Colorado, North Dakota and Texas.

Wait until the Iran/Israel bubble bursts and the Straits of Hormuz are closed. We’ll be RICH up here in AK because of $250 oil, but that is also way past the opportunity cost we are under right now to make green technology pencil out.

Not that it matters to Obama mind you, Solyndra is the most poignant example of horse manure “crony capitalism” and theft as I’ve ever seen, bailouts included, but you won’t hear the O’sycophants on WB ever call that spade a spade.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at February 8, 2012 9:18 PM
Comment #335884

“I have been writing about this upcoming big boom for five years. It was creeping up on us and now it is here. It is the biggest change in a generation.”


Well, your about three decades behind the foresight of Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress which initiated federal research into unconventional gas exploration and passed Section 29 of the Windfall Profit Tax legislation which provided tax incentives for exploration of unconventional gas development. A history of the development of unconventional natural gas demonstrates a successful federal/private research collaboration and the benefits of targeted tax incentives. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/1a3.pdf

Posted by: Rich at February 8, 2012 10:08 PM
Comment #335909

Good job.
As usual you poo pooed the environmental implications.They are real and getting worse. When you net those cost in, the numbers come out quite different.
Alternates are also getting much cheaper and will soon cross the line and become cheaper than fossil fuels even without adjusting for collateral damage. There’s my prediction.
Do you also oppose all the federal support for the nuclear power industry? In a piece of extraordinary lemon socialism ,the US government is responsible for waste handling, security , liability, and even garantees investment. Now there’s a good place to cut government interference.!00s of billions at least.

Posted by: bills at February 9, 2012 5:41 AM
Comment #335910

Yukon Jake-
If I were to break open a CF lightbulb, the amount of mercury released from that bulb would be less than the amount of mercury coal from power plants would put into the atmosphere powering the incandescent lightbulb it replaces. Fun fact, eh?

Coal is dirty. End of story. It puts out more emissions, more of those nice sulfur compounds that create acid rain, more of thos particulates that choke up kid’s lungs and help make heart conditions worse in older folks.

Getting it? Well, coal companies these days seem to like cutting off the tops of mountains and dumping them in nearby streams. I wish that was an exaggeration, but it’s not.

Coal releases more carbon than oil or gas, for every unit of it that you burn. I know you figure that the theory there is bunk, despite the fact that the ten last years are the warmest on record, or any of that other stuff.

As for the FT process, it requires heat, and heat requires energy. Where do you get it from?

Additionally, there is the fact that you are always left with the other part of the coal, which would basically be toxic waste, for all intents and purposes.

As for other resources, along the lines you talk of?

Well, let me be blunt about those. One, we consume too much for them to last long. Two, the market as currently constructed is a world market, so it won’t effect prices too much merely on supply grounds in the abstract. Three, real supply for much of the promised reserves either involves drilling in ecologically sensitive places we don’t have the godlike powers to repair, or unconventional technologies.

Or, as in the case of oil shale, technology we really don’t have yet. Worse yet, on that front, the necessities of the process to bake oil out of shale or sand both wastes natural gas, and drives up the cost of that oil on a permanent basis.

Put another way, that barrel can never get as cheap as you would promise it to be.

It’s time to switch. It’s time to change and adapt, and leave the industrial age fuels behind, much as they left relying on beasts of burden and human power for many things. There’s no shame in it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2012 8:36 AM
Comment #335911

I would like to know, C&J, on what basis you consider the President’s green energy policy expensive and unsuccessful. Do you have statistics proving it to be so, or do you merely have claims backed by editorials from a notoriously right-wing editorial page?

Fact of the matter is, both wind and solar power are growth industries at the moment, and each is becoming more efficient at what it does, as the actual application of the technology leads to the sort of real world trial and error which is necessary to improve technology.

His increase in fuel efficiency standards is also likely to mirror that programs earlier success.

There seems to be a double standard at work here, you know. Oil and gas companies fail and go into bankruptcy, too. But somehow, the solar industry and the program that supported Solyndra must have a total success rate, nothing below 100%.

The problem with the Republicans at this point in time is that they are engaging in a war not merely to challenge the truth of what Democrats are doing, conceding when the Democrats are proven right anyways, but instead are acting to completely discredit and destroy whatever the Democrats are doing and backing regardless of its truth. GM and Chrysler back in good territory after being saved? Doesn’t matter, it was a boondoggle. 97% of the companies in a loan program succeed? Doesn’t matter, it’s all a boondoggle. Economy stabilized in spite of one of the fiercest downturns in living memory? No matter, we’ll still claim it’s a failure. Jobs growing continuously for the last sixteen months, the economy growing better than expected? His policies are a failure, holding us back!

The Republicans have put themselves in a mode where they’re almost in an alternate reality. Obama’s not failing at near the rate they need him too, so they’re coming out with the propaganda.

But you know, there’s only so long you can make these claims without what’s staring people in their faces changing their minds, and that’s going to be the tragedy of the Republicans this election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2012 8:54 AM
Comment #335912

Does all this good news for the energy trust mean the Reps will stop whining about that dreadful pipeline? They seem to just fine without it.

Posted by: bills at February 9, 2012 9:09 AM
Comment #335913

C&J, yes, you and others have understood the lies from the left concerning the US not having enough fossil fuel. The argument from the left has always been, we either don’t have enough fuel to sustain us, or it will take too many years to get it out of the ground, and/or if we do it will simply be sent to foreign nations. Are three arguments are idiotic.

But, the truth is, these liberals want to shut down our production of fuel. The attitude of the left is the same as Obama’s; we are part of the evil world of colonialism. America is hated by the left as much as we are hated by the very foreign counties we have financially supported.

We now have liberals touting the “energy policies” of socialist presidents, “Well, your about three decades behind the foresight of Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress which initiated federal research into unconventional gas exploration and passed Section 29 of the Windfall Profit Tax legislation which provided tax incentives for exploration of unconventional gas development”; but they fail to mention that the socialist run EPA and other American hating environmental groups are doing their best to shut down any fossil fuel production. I can remember when the purpose of the EPA was to clean the environment, but “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”; thus the lofty goals of the EPA have been overtaken by power hungry corrupt politicians. I can remember when you could smell soot in the air when the rain first began to fall; I can remember when America’s rivers and lakes like Lake Erie were polluted terribly, but now they are clean. For those of you liberals who were nothing but a gleam in your daddy’s eye, or were in diapers; you have no concept of what pollution really is. The environment in America has improved a thousand percent.

We will never have energy independence until Democrats and RINO’s are sent packing. The environmentalist has used the religion of Global Warming to scare Americans. How many Hollywood movies have been made about the destruction of the world through GW? Is it any wonder Hollywood is an agent of the left? The left has told the GW lie so long, they actually believe it. Al Gore is perhaps the best example; he is a savior of the world in his own mind.

You are correct C&J, the economic recovery of America IS our natural resources; i.e. fossil fuel, but the left will never agree. They are liars and they have an agenda.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 9, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment #335922

Aren’t we robbing Peter to pay Paul with the fracking? Wherever fracking occurs the groundwater ends up contaminated. Local residents end up with drinking water or with water that belched flames from the faucet. IS this really the answer, are the unintended consequences to be ignored?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2012 1:23 PM
Comment #335924

The only reason fossil fuels seem to be so cheap is because of the explicit and implicit subsidies our government provides. The problem is that the gravy train won’t last forever and we’ll need to deal with the consequences.

I have no problem if people want to develop fossil fuel energy resources as long as they are willing to pay for all the costs that result from such behavior results.


I’ve debunked that whole “GW is a lie” story too many times to count. Let me know if you have evidence that proves one of the following:

Carbon Dioxide is not a greenhouse gas: This would require you to prove that CO2 does not absorb radiation at the same wavelength that the Earth emits.

Carbon Dioxide levels are not increasing: This would require you to debunk the Keeling curve.

Recent increases in CO2 concentration are not due to human activities: This would require you to identify a natural source of CO2 that has significantly increased in strength over the past few centuries.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 9, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #335930

You write: “The attitude of the left is the same as Obama’s; we are part of the evil world of colonialism.”

I thought that was a curious sentence. Does that mean colonialism is actually good? Or that the US never practiced it? I can’t make heads or tails of such weird assertions.

If someone can offer an explanation, I’d be curious to hear it.

Posted by: phx8 at February 9, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #335937


The gas is cleaner than the fuel is replaces. It provides a bridge to the future. Alternatives are developing. But they are not ready yet to replace fossil fuels.

“Does all this good news for the energy trust mean the Reps will stop whining about that dreadful pipeline? They seem to just fine without it.” – the pipeline debacle shows Obama’s real character. You know that he would veto any particular energy project that was not funded by government if he could. Our current energy boom happened in spite of him. A more confident Obama after reelection will probably figure out ways to cut it back. He will ban other pipelines or interfere with other leases.

We can find lots of things if we look for them. The dominant Democratic story line has been to oppose the development of oil & gas.

Obama himself ridiculed the “drill” idea. Most of his followers are still against it and were it not an election year, Obama would be less enthusiastic. This energy development was never part of his plan. He didn’t understand it when he was running for office and probably still doesn’t.

I would also point out that before this became an “Obama asset” almost all the liberals on this blog attacked the idea.


“I would like to know, C&J, on what basis you consider the President’s green energy policy expensive and unsuccessful. Do you have statistics proving it to be so, or do you merely have claims backed by editorials from a notoriously right-wing editorial page?”

Obama spent piles of money w/o increasing the rate of innovation on alternatives. In fact, his investment in firms like Solyndra may have slowed progress.

Can you point to any big gains?

Stephen and all

Are you familiar with the principle of the “rain dance”. This comes from the old Indian practice of dancing to make it rain. It takes a lot of effort and is very picturesque, but it doesn’t make it rain. Cynics suspect that the shaman organizing the dance knows that it won’t help, but he knows it will eventually rain and then he can get credit. So he dances earnestly and enthusiastically.

Obama is superb rain dancer. He spends lots of money and takes lots of credit, but his efforts do nothing to help. At least the rain dancers don’t waste too much money with the shenanigans. Obama’s dancing is putting us farther into debt.

Posted by: C&J at February 9, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #335942

The market celebrated all the good fossil fuel news by raising the price of gasoline by 20 cents per gal. this week. The lower prices touted by the Republicans are like those Obama is claiming for Obama care. It is not that costs will be reduced, but that the growth in future costs will be reduced.

The fossil fuel industry is counting on, BANKING ON, the Republican party to significantly help confuse the people and squash concerns about the environment for the indefinite future if not altogether.

The government is in the process of planning the replacement of our basically obsolete national electrical grid. Will this new grid be planned in a manner that facilitates the expectation of increased use of alternative energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal, or not.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2012 6:20 PM
Comment #335944

“The government is in the process of planning the replacement of our basically obsolete national electrical grid.” - this is a proper task for government.

In general, government can help create conditions for people to prosper, but should stay out of the management of prosperity.

Re gas prices - natural gas and gasoline are not perfectly fungible. You will save lots of money this year if you heat with gas and your electric bill will be lower than it would have been if you live near the gas producers. But the gasoline in your car is driven by different forces.

My goal would NOT be to lower prices on fossil fuels at the consumer level. That is why I could never run for political office. Personally I want them to be a bit higher to encourage alternatives. What I am interested in is taking away some of the power for foreign oil producers and stimulating the American economy with American energy.

Posted by: C&J at February 9, 2012 6:45 PM
Comment #335945

C&J, all the dancing in the world isn’t going to produce one extra drop of oil or one extra balloon full of methane.

It is not true that the world has suddenly discovered that there is a lot more oil and gas in the world. Most of these sources, including sources under the Arctic Ocean and under the ice of Antarctica, have been known or expected for decades and not explored or exploited because it was not economically beneficial to do so.

Economic conditions have changed, making these sources more economically attractive to exploit, and by doing so, continue to delay a major concentration on alternative energy sources, and thus extend the period of very lucrative profits to be gained through the continued high dependence on oil and gas. The same is true for economic conditions improving the viability of using natural gas or LNG for use as an automotive fuel.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2012 6:46 PM
Comment #335947

How is it that in a global economy, dependence on foreign sources of oil, primarily not of Middle Eastern origin, any more significant or dangerous than dependence on foreign sources for food, clothing, medicine, pots and pans, etc.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2012 6:59 PM
Comment #335948

“It is not true that the world has suddenly discovered that there is a lot more oil and gas in the world.”

The supply of anything depends on the prices and technologies available. Oil under the sands of Saudi Arabia was as far away as the moon to the people living there until Western technologies could reach it.

The value of everything depends on its cultural and economic context. Oil seeping out of the ground in pre-industrial times was a was a curse.

There is also the problem of availability. I have land. Among the “resources” are lots of big rocks. I need rocks to stabilize stream beds, but I cannot easily move those rocks. So instead I pay for rocks from a nearby quarry.

Are my rocks a useable resource? At some price or if we had technology to more easily move them, they would become one. But they are not now.

The same goes for oil and gas.

Changes in technology and price meant - for practical purposes - that we did indeed suddenly discover new oil and gas.

Posted by: C&J at February 9, 2012 7:00 PM
Comment #335949


Re foreign oil - it is not so much our dependency, but rather the power it gives them.

I think it was God’s joke to put easy oil under some of the world’s worst people. Think of those Arab fundamentalists. W/o oil they would just be picturesque. National Geographic would go take pictures. People like Obama bin Laden would still be vicious and dangerous, but on a small scale. Nobody would care.

Put oil in the mix and suddenly all these weirdos are empowered. It is like going to the worst trailer park and giving them big economic and political power.

Posted by: C&J at February 9, 2012 7:04 PM
Comment #335952

Obama is superb rain dancer. He spends lots of money and takes lots of credit, but his efforts do nothing to help. At least the rain dancers don’t waste too much money with the shenanigans. Obama’s dancing is putting us farther into debt.

Posted by: C&J at February 9

Thanks for the great laugh…made my day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2012 8:11 PM
Comment #335954

C&J, those Canadians sure are despots. Before the the supposed despot Hugo was running Venezuela it was being run by wealthy right wing despots. The same is basically true of Mexico.

We get very little of our oil from the Saudi despots.

So, why is oil more significant than food, clothing, etc.

Did you have a freudian slip there.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2012 8:29 PM
Comment #335956


I don’t worry much about the Canadians, or even little Hugo. I don’t like to empower the nuts in the middle east.

WE get little oil from the Saudi deserts, but THEY make lots of money. IMO, it would be much better if they didn’t have such access to unearned wealth.

Posted by: C&J at February 9, 2012 8:33 PM
Comment #335958

C&J, perhaps we should have a discussion about what makes oil conducive to alliances with right wing groups in general and right wing religious groups in particular.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2012 9:25 PM
Comment #335960

Did you know the cheap natural gas prices have put a hold on exploration?

Here’s what you aren’t figuring on: it’s not just about the supply of a given resource. That resource has been there for some time and not exploited in part because it was cheaper or more manageable to get it out elsewhere.

Fracking has created a glut on the market. But fracking isn’t cheap, so at a certain amount of supply, companies stop looking for more supply.

In the same way, tar sands oil, which the Keystone XL line is supposed to draw down from Canada to the Houston area, is not economical to extract below a certain price. In fact, the whole point of the pipeline is so that the companies involved can sell the oil at the price they want it to fetch, rather than the discount they have to sell it at in the Midwest, where it’s currently being piped around.

The paradox at work here is that all the new supply depends on oil being expensive. If it’s not, there is no new supply, and because of that, oil gets more expensive because the supply is down. As getting new fields becomes a matter of having to successfully exploit more difficult finds and resources (like oil shale and shale oil), a floor gets shoved in there under the price.

So, if your sales job to us is to say that if we build this pipeline, oil will become cheaper, that if we drill in ANWR and all those nice little areas, oil will become cheaper, then you’re just selling us a bill of goods here. Even if the speculators are forced to stop hoarding oil, bringing down the price will reduce what’s economic to drill, and the price will rebound. That, coupled with the finite supply means that oil and other fossil fuels cannot remain plentiful and cheap forever. The market won’t allow it.

So, you won’t impoverish the sheiks in the desert by piping in the Canadian oil. Meanwhile, we’ll be more dependent on oil that is heavier, dirtier, and more sour, and which requires much more environmental damage, both local and global to exploit.

As for “rain dances?” Venture capital dried up as a result of the collapse of the markets. Because of what Obama did, though, We increased solar power generation by a greater amount this last year than the year before. We were the third largest market in the world. Without Obama’s policies, we wouldn’t have been.

You take the failure of one company, and make it into the failure of an entire industry, but numbers tell a different story. The Photovoltaic market alone expanded by forty percent, and we installed 179% of the facilities we did the year before. That’s not a market in trouble. What makes computer chips cheaper than ever to make and engineer is what makes solar power cheaper and cheaper, not to mention more efficient. Pretty soon it will be cheaper to plant a solar panel somewhere than to burn a gallon of gas instead. If you want to encourage that, have us manufacture that here, and get the exports and American jobs from that (with solar installations grown by 40% worldwide last year) support solar. If you want to continue to pick the oil companies as your winners? Well that’s an opinion you’re entitled to, but it doesn’t make real sense.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2012 10:41 PM
Comment #335961

I mean really, C&J. You can take any number and make a counterfactual argument that the numbers would be better without intervention. The question is, can you actually prove it? All I get from your side is additional unsubstantiated claims, and I’m getting disgruntled for having to do the research y’all fail to do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2012 10:43 PM
Comment #336040

Face it. BO has done a decent, not superb but decent , job in very troublesome times. I appreciate that you have not stooped to the ridiculous name calling, Islamo-fascist socialist whatever, hate mongering level many in your chosen party try to use. Americans are not as stupid as many of your comrades seem to think, stupid or racist that is. Until you Reps have better policies to offer than the same old failed voodoo economics and hate based social agenda there is not much chance of a Republican in the White House for a long time to come.
You might consider giving more support, or at least less rancor, to an American president in hard times.

Posted by: bills at February 10, 2012 9:25 AM
Comment #336042

Obama is the the most centrist president the Democrats have produced since WW2. I do not like that much as I am not a centrist but there you have it. There has been no huge government expansion under BO. The huge inherited deficit coupled with a government automatically dealing with crises, unemployment extensions, food stamps etc. accounts for the burgeoning debt. There are no huge new government programs from the BO administration unlike his Republican predessor. The consumer protection agency and re-regulation of the banking industry are small peanuts and way overdue.That’s it. The affordable health care act is more of a consumer protection law than anything else and according to the CBO will save money in the long haul.Should make sense to you. Its based on the Rohmny/Heritage Foundation plan. Beside partisanship what does the Rep field have to offer besides making up a straw dog candidate and running against him instead of reality?

Posted by: bills at February 10, 2012 9:53 AM
Comment #336043

I trust”Obama Bin Laden” was just a typo on your part.

Posted by: bills at February 10, 2012 10:09 AM
Comment #336051


“The question is, can you actually prove it?” Nobody can prove a counter-factual. You seem to buy hook, line and sinker that it would have been worse.

IMO - Obama moved economic activity forward. His policies may indeed have reduced unemployment in 2009, but at the expense of the recovery in 2010 and now. That is why we are so weak today.

Posted by: C&J at February 10, 2012 6:59 PM
Comment #336054

Pure fiction C&J. You act like the financial meltdown was just another recession. You seem to have forgotten the do nothing Congress and the Repub/conservative plan to make Obama a one term president. The fact is the repubs/conservatives policies and do nothing responses have held the country back.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2012 8:08 PM
Comment #336056


The opposition party always hopes to make the president a one term president. Did the Democratic congress work to make sure Reagan got reelected in 1984? Did they help Bush in 1992? If Romney beats Obama this year, will Democrats help him succeed?

The problem is that for the first two years, Democrats controlled everything. At first they even had a filibuster proof majority. They had the power to pass all their stimulus and they did as they pleased. The Obama stimulus didn’t work as they hoped. They thought things would be humming by 2010. Now two years later, the economy is starting to improve in spite of their best efforts.

Posted by: C&J at February 10, 2012 8:47 PM
Comment #336469
Did the Democratic congress work to make sure Reagan got reelected in 1984?

Of course not C&J. The difference in case it has slipped by you is this- The conservatives have intentionally blocked legislation that would have helped the country and in turn Obama. They have set the bar lower in politics.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2012 10:23 PM
Comment #336478


Like what? The big thing they tried, but failed, to block was health care expansion. In the form Democrats wanted it, it should have been blocked. They did not cooperate with the Obama stimulus, which has turned out to be an expensive debacle.

Lots of Obama’s ideas were kind of dumb, based on his inexperience. It was a good idea to question most of them.

Posted by: C&J at February 12, 2012 6:07 AM
Comment #336482

What about the circus centered around raising the debt limit C&J for starters. Face it C&J the Congressional ratings are in the single digits due to the obstructionism. Deny as you will it was the conservative tea bags and repubs deliberate attempts to stymie the progress on jobs and anything else that would benefit our recovery from the conservative led meltdown. All because they were after Obama. Look at the crap you have been spouting lately and the desperation it shows as the election cycle warms up.


Posted by: j2t2 at February 12, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #336494


The debt ceiling was political theatre. It did nothing much. The downgrade was in the works and could have been averted only by an agreement that would have required more spending cuts than Democrats would give and more taxes than Republicans would accept. I assume that both sides acted on principle in not giving ground on this.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe that in general government can create sustainable jobs with the kinds of policies Obama was pushing.

Beyond that, if Obama thought the economy was job 1, why did he spend all that political capital on extending health care, which was a longer term, or at least less urgent priority.

Posted by: C&J at February 12, 2012 2:06 PM
Comment #336511

Gas drillers cut production as natural gas prices fall.

C&J you should give some of your allies economic lessons. According to some of them, the price of natural gas is supposed to fall to pennies per 1000 Cu. Yds. the same as gasoline is supposed to fall to pennies per gal.

Posted by: jlw at February 12, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #336520

Yes it was C&J, very bad political theatre by the tea party caucus. Lifting the debt limit to allow the US to pay it’s bills was routine until the tea bags got into the fray. Even Reagan did it 18 times! S&P lowered the credit rating of the US because of the political theatre that accomplished nothing, Intentional foolishness by conservatives in Congress, because the simple fact is the budget considerations you mentioned were not needed to keep the credit rating where it was. The unstable Congress led to the downgraded credit rating. The obstructionist in Congress were directly responsible for this.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 12, 2012 8:57 PM
Comment #336573

C&J, during the Bush Administration, millions of Americans lost their health care coverage because they could no longer afford it or employers could no longer afford to cover them as health care costs were going up way faster than inflation. An economic crisis, a jobs crisis, a housing crisis and a health care crisis is what Obama inherited from the Bush Administration.

There are real reasons why Bush’s popularity fell to ‘the darkest depths of Mordor.’

Posted by: jlw at February 13, 2012 3:41 PM
Comment #336603

Plus two wars on the Bush bar tab.

Posted by: jlw at February 13, 2012 11:33 PM
Post a comment