Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (2 Viewers)

[jamny]

Libya seems like it's going to end up a success. So Obama deserves some credit for this.

The amount of credit is debateble but I think it's way too premature to claim any kind of success in Libya. This is merely the end of the beginning. Baghdad fell pretty quickly too.

Baghdad fell to American military forces, and the next step was an American military occupation. That's what Obama has been trying to avoid. It's a completely different situation. Sure, we don't know how it's going to turn out, but can't we give Obama some credit for a good job so far?

Doesn't that depend on how it turns out? If Libya ends up more hostile to American interests, with a more "severe" dictatorship than it was previously, do we still give Obama credit for doing a good job?

At least in Egypt there was a military foundation that had some civilian support to move the country forward. It's anyone's guess what the hell will happen in Libya once Ghaddafi falls. Who's running the show?

 

[Sarnoff]

Libya seems like it's going to end up a success. So Obama deserves some credit for this.

The amount of credit is debateble but I think it's way too premature to claim any kind of success in Libya. This is merely the end of the beginning. Baghdad fell pretty quickly too.

Baghdad fell to American military forces, and the next step was an American military occupation. That's what Obama has been trying to avoid. It's a completely different situation. Sure, we don't know how it's going to turn out, but can't we give Obama some credit for a good job so far?

Doesn't that depend on how it turns out? If Libya ends up more hostile to American interests, with a more "severe" dictatorship than it was previously, do we still give Obama credit for doing a good job?

I think Tim would.

 

[Statorama]

Libya seems like it's going to end up a success. So Obama deserves some credit for this.

I don't think anyone should be happy with the way he circumvented Congress to start his own little war.

 

[jamny]

 

[Widbil83]

Overall, I give him a B+, graded on a curve.The curve being the TERRIBLE economy he inherited and has been struggling to improve.

I encourage him to withdraw, take the incomplete, and next semester change majors to something he excels at.

He's got the highest grade in the class. All the other boneheads are C's or worse. And let's not even begin to talk about the grades for the Republican frontrunner here, real or imagined.

It would be interesting to see Obama's grades. Rick Perry was a candidate for 15 minutes and somebody leaked his. Obama's been President for almost 3 years and we still have no idea.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Russian Supply Ship Crash Could Delay New Space Station CrewThe failed launch of a Russian supply ship may have ripple effects at the International Space Station.A spacecraft carrying nearly 3 tons of supplies failed to reach orbit Wednesday and crashed into Siberia.NASA's space station program manager, Mike Suffredini, says next month's planned launch of a new crew may be delayed. That's because the upper stage of the Soyuz rocket that failed is similar to the ones used to launch astronauts.Suffredini says three of the six space station astronauts who are due to return to Earth in two weeks, might end up staying longer. NASA wants to keep the outpost fully staffed with six to keep research going.

Good job obama, shut down Shuttle so we HAVE to depend on the Russians to get to Station... Plus have no "next" plan in place...NASA is one of the few programs that pays back way more than it costs...Please spare me with SpaceEx etc It is being paid for by YOU and would have gone bankrupt long ago if it really were a private company using its own money. When and if it becomes viable it's function as a private company will be to make money... The first time one explodes SpaceEx will be done and out... Moron...

 

[NJDawgPound]

I understand that being President is a stressful job that you need breaks from, etc. but this is ridiculous. Shared sacrifice?

Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five-star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations

By Tamara Abraham

Last updated at 8:28 PM on 24th August 2011

The Obamas' summer break on Martha's Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.

But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.

White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers' money on vacations alone in the past year.

Branding her 'disgusting' and 'a vacation junkie', they say the 47-year-old mother-of-two has been indulging in five-star hotels, where she splashes out on expensive massages and alcohol.

The 'top source' told the National Enquirer: 'It's disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position while the most hardworking Americans can barely afford a week or two off work.

'When it's all added up, she's spent more than $10million in taxpayers' money on her vacations.'

The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.

And the first family's nine-day stay in Martha's Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.

The source continued: 'Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

'The vacations are totally Michelle's idea. She's like a junkie. She can't schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next - all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.'

While the President and his wife do pay for some of their personal expenses from their own pocket, the website whitehousedossier.com says that the amount paid by the couple is 'dwarfed by the overall cost to the public'.

The magazine also reported that Mrs Obama, whose fashion choices are widely followed, had been going on 'wild shopping sprees', much to the distress of her husband, who, its sources reveal, is 'absolutely furious' at his wife's 'out-of-control spending'.

The President has already come under fire this week over his decision to take a family vacation while millions of Americans are out of work and countless more are financially strapped.

But the situation sparked further anger after he and his wife elected to fly separately to the Massachusetts retreat - despite travelling on the same day.

Mr Obama left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One - along with First Dog Bo.

After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey.

His wife and daughters, who arrived just four hours earlier, were also travelling from Washington, but took a specially designed military aircraft.

They would also have had their own motorcade from the airport to the vacation residence.

FIRST LADY OF LUXURY TRAVEL: HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OBAMAS' LAVISH GETAWAYS OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS

GIRLS' TRIP TO SPAIN: AUGUST 2010

The exact cost is unclear as Mrs Obama and her 40 friends footed many personal expenses, such as hotels and meals themselves.

But the U.S. taxpayer would have paid for the First Lady's 68-strong security detail, personal staff, and use of presidential jet Air Force Two.

Per diems for the secret service team runs at around $281 each - nearly $98,000 for the length of the summer break.

Use of Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a 757, comes in at $149,900 for the round trip. This does not include time on the ground.

Mrs Obama's personal staff, of which there are an unknown amount and might cost considerably more per day, should also be taken into account.

CHRISTMAS BREAK IN HAWAII: DECEMBER 2010

According to the Hawaii Reporter, the bill for the $1.5m trip included:

$63,000 on an early flight bringing Mrs Obama and the children to Hawaii ahead of the President.

$1,000,000 on Mr Obama’s return trip from Washington on Air Force One.

$38,000 for the ‘Winter White House’ beach property rental.

$16,000 to rent nearby homes for Secret Service and Navy Seals.

$134,000 for 24 White House staff to stay at the Moana Hotel.

$251,000 in police overtime.

$10,000 for an ambulance to be on hand at all times

SKI TRIP TO VAIL: FEBRUARY 2011

Mrs Obama and her daughters stayed at the Sebastian hotel on Vail Mountain, where rooms cost more than $2,400 for multi-bedroom suites.

The family appear to have flown there on Air Force Two.

They were escorted to the resort by a motorcade of about a dozen vehicles, including 15 state and local law enforcement officers

SUMMER HOLIDAY ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD: AUGUST 2011

The Blue Heron Farm estate, where the Obama family are currently staying, rents for about $50,000 a week.

According to U.S. News and World Report, the Coast Guard is required to keep ships floating near the property, the presidential helicopter and jet remain at the ready and security agents will be on 24-hour duty.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html#ixzz1W2vZ2PlV

 

[Statorama]

With the looming spectre of Obamacare on the horizon, businesses prepare to drop medical coverage for employees

Obamacare will kill us all

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers of more than 50 workers will face financial penalties if they don't offer health benefits. But at $3,000 or less per employee, the penalties are a fraction of what many companies pay for insurance.

Many firms could drop coverage, raise pay instead, and still come out ahead financially, management consultant McKinsey & Co. said in a report in June.

A whopping 30% of companies surveyed by McKinsey said they would probably or definitely drop coverage after 2014.

 

[StrikeS2k]

NLRB requires posting of workers' rights to unionizeAugust 25, 2011 | 7:24 pm The National Labor Relations Board has issued new regulations requiring companies to post notices informing employees of their rights to unionize, a vote of confidence in unions in a year that has seen organized labor come under attack as governments try to cut costs in a stumbling economy.The ruling came after the board received 7,034 comments about the proposed rule from workers, employees and members of Congress.The final rule, issued Thursday, was decided because employees might not know about their rights to unionize because of declining union membership. Unions have become less common in the workplace: 11.9% of employed wage and salary workers belonged to a union last year, down from 20% in 1983.The board is also concerned that no one is required to inform workers of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935. "The Board was established to ensure that employers and, later, unions respect the exercise of employees' rights under the NLRA," the ruling reads. "For employees to fully exercise their NLRA rights, however, they must know that those rights exist."President Obama issued an executive order in 2009 saying that employees needed to be informed of their NLRA rights.The NLRB has come under fire this year for what businesses and some Republicans are calling an attack on business. It is investigating whether Boeing has engaged in unfair labor practices by transferring some employees to North Carolina from Washington to avoid unionization. The NLRB is also looking into speeding up union elections, which business groups oppose. In a statement after the ruling, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation said the rule was "designed to push workers into compulsory unionism." A statement by the foundation's president, Mark Mix, reads:The NLRB's new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law. Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama's NLRB comes out with a new 'posting rule' to saddle every business –- from ‘mom and pop' stores to IBM –- with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism.Organized labor applauded the ruling. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that "this rule gives clear information to employees about their rights under this fundamental labor law so that workers are better equipped to exercise and enforce them." A blog post on the AFL-CIO website mocked the response by business, saying "NLRB says Workers Need to Know Their Rights, Biz World Flips Out."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/nlrb-requires-posting-of-union-rights.htmlI guess this is an example of one of Obama's job creating policies we're going to be hearing about when he comes home from vacation.....

 

[Phil Elliott]

I guess we know how Paul Azinger would vote in this pole.

Paul's tweet yesterday:

"Facts: Potus has played more golf this month than I have: I have created more jobs this month than he has"

http://twitter.com/#!/PaulAzinger

 

[Go DC Yourself]

2005 to Jan. 20 2009: Constant worries on whether FEMA was up to the task.

Late Aug. 2011, with a hurricane bearing down on large East Coast population centers: Crickets.

But I'm sure its all just a coincidence.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Armed federal agents raid Gibson Guitar again, 'browbeat' employeesKay Day, Conservative ExaminerAugust 26, 2011 National Conservative Examiner ExclusiveImagine you are an hourly worker in a factory building a product that is as American as baseball—the Gibson guitar. From budding musicians to legends like Dickey Betts, the Gibson is an American icon.Imagine yourself working in the Gibson facility in Nashville or Memphis. Suddenly you freeze because coming directly at you are federal agents armed with weapons. Those agents not only decide to question you, they threaten you with prosecution.Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz told National Conservative Examiner that three or four hourly employees were scheduled for interviews by government agents. “We had to retain counsel for the employees,” Juszkiewicz said. “The federal prosecutor flew down from Washington and threatened the employees personally with 5 years in jail.”Although Gibson employees were told by the government their legal issues were “a personal liability,” Juszkiewicz said the company had to pay “probably a couple hundred thousand dollars to defend our workers.”AdvertisementOn the surface, the raid appears to be related to amendments to the Lacey Act. Those amendments were passed by Congress in 2008. Both Republicans and Democrats supported the amendments that were part of massive agricultural and energy legislation. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was key in getting the legislation passed.The Lacey Act was first passed in 1900 to address interstate and global trade in some wildlife species.The 2008 amendments were praised by the left of center group the Environmental Investigation Agency. The group originated in the United Kingdom.The challenge for US manufacturers comprises complexities in international law and in domestic laws in other countries.Gibson issued an official statement summing up the obscurities in Lacey compliance: “The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.”In an analysis of the Lacey amendments for the Michigan Law Review, Rachel Saltzman pointed out, “Laws governing timber and logging often include forest management schemes that can be difficult for foreign companies to monitor. Indonesia, for example, has over nine hundred laws, regulations, and decrees that govern timber exploitation, transportation, and trade.”For Juszkiewicz and his employees, the raid is perplexing. “These guys have come at our company with the full force of the US government,” he said. “They browbeat our employees—took hourly workers into a room with five armed people browbeating them without legal counsel.”Agents from the Dept. of Homeland Security were in on the raid.Gibson appears to be the only company targeted in the sweep. Gibson is located in Tennessee, a right to work state. Taylor Guitars is located in California. Martin manufactures guitars in Pennsylvania and Mexico. California and Pennsylvania are categorized as forced union states by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.In an interview by phone, Juszkiewicz describes himself as non-political. “I’m a business guy,” he said. “If I’m doing something wrong, tell me. But coming in with a SWAT team as your first step is a little bit severe.”The Justice Dept.’s raid could have implications for other companies.Juszkiewicz said the majority of rosewood and ebony for the entire industry comes from India. That wood is not derived from endangered species. “In addition to the SWAT raid, the government said their belief is that all Indian ebony and rosewood is illegal—every guitar we produce and ship would be considered a criminal offense.”In the first raid on Gibson in 2009, wood valued at approximately half a million dollars was seized. Gibson has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to recover the goods. Gibson has documented the legal acquisition of that wood from Madagascar. A hearing is scheduled for Monday.The CEO said, “Government has moved to stay that case because it might interfere with the investigation which has been taking place for two years.”“This raid is basically an attempt to shut us down,” said Juszkiewicz. He also said there have been no complaints from the government of India or from vendors in that country. “The US government is interpreting foreign law differently than the governments of these countries.”Juszkiewicz views the raid as an “arrogant abuse of power.” The raid appears to contradict President Barack Obama’s pledges about creating or saving US jobs.“Over the last two years,” Juszkiewicz said, “we have hired 580 American workers. We are increasing American manufacturing employment at the bottom of the economic cycle.”The Gibson CEO pointed out another contribution the company makes to the US economy. “Sixty percent of our revenue is export,” Juskiewicz noted. “In a lot of countries, you’d get trophies.”http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/armed-federal-agents-raid-gibson-guitar-again-browbeat-employees

Another great job creation effort by Obama!!!

 

[Statorama]

Answering Alter's challenge : Why Obama has been a bad President

“Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president?” Jonathan Alter writes in his column.

Alter tells us he’s not talking here about Obama as a tactician and communicator, and he’s not interested in hearing ad hominem attacks or about people’s generalized “disappointment.” (Neither am I.) He wants to know on a substantive basis why Obama should be judged to have failed so far.

In Alter’s words, “Your mission, Jim [or anyone else for that matter], should you decide to accept it, is to be specific and rational, not vague and visceral.”

Consider the mission accepted.

In one sense, the answer to the Alter challenge is obvious: Obama has failed by his own standards. It’s the Obama administration, not the RNC, that said if his stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. It’s Obama who joked there weren’t as many “shovel-ready” jobs as he thought.

It’s Obama who promised to cut the deficit in half. It’s Obama who said if we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care cost curve would go down rather than up. It’s Obama who promised us recovery and prosperity, hope and change. What we’ve gotten instead is the opposite.

What makes Alter’s challenge particularly delicious is during the Bush years he spoke out about the importance of a “reality-based” presidency (as opposed to a “faith-based” one). “They [Republicans] could end up winning in November by distorting the argument,” Alter said in 2006. “But on credibility and the facts, they’ve lost.”

With Alter’s devotion to credibility and facts in mind, let’s take an empirical, reality-based look at economic life in America during the Age of Obama:

* Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.

* The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.

* July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

* Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

* Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

* The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

* The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

* The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

* The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

* Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

* During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.

That is to say, Obama has achieved in two-and-a-half years what it took George W. Bush two full terms in office to achieve — and Obama, when he was running for president, slammed Bush’s record as being “unpatriotic.”

* America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.

* Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

* The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

* A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago.

There is more that can be said, but you get the point.

What makes this record doubly horrifying is rapid growth is the norm after particularly deep recessions — but under Obama, our recovery has been historically weak. President Obama (and Alter) can blame his predecessor, the Tea Party, the Arab Spring, the Japanese tsunami, events in Europe, ATM machines and even athlete’s foot for his predicament. It doesn’t really matter, as even Obama conceded during the early months of his presidency, when he declared, “One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable.”

Indeed. Obama “owns” the economy, as both his senior aide David Plouffe and the chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz​, have said.

“If you lose a common ground of facts on which to move forward as a society, nobody can agree on anything, and you can’t pull together to solve problems,” Alter told Keith Olbermann during the Bush administration.

I agree. And it is on the common ground of facts that we can declare–in a calm, specific, reasonable, rational and empirical manner–Obama to be an utter failure.

 

[WalrusMan]

Libya seems like it's going to end up a success. So Obama deserves some credit for this.

The amount of credit is debateble but I think it's way too premature to claim any kind of success in Libya. This is merely the end of the beginning. Baghdad fell pretty quickly too.

Baghdad fell to American military forces, and the next step was an American military occupation. That's what Obama has been trying to avoid. It's a completely different situation. Sure, we don't know how it's going to turn out, but can't we give Obama some credit for a good job so far?

Doesn't that depend on how it turns out? If Libya ends up more hostile to American interests, with a more "severe" dictatorship than it was previously, do we still give Obama credit for doing a good job?

The next step in Libya is a NATO occupation. Will last for many years.Libya and Iraq are very similar.

 

[jamny]

Listen up! Here's how Obama wants 9/11 observed

You may have thought as a regular American citizen you were capable of marking the upcoming 10th anniversary of the deadly 9/11 attacks in your own quiet, sad way as you and your family choose.

However, in its infinite federal wisdom and one-size-fits-all philosophy, the Obama White House has drafted a set of detailed orders for how he wants the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks observed, both at home and abroad.

We're not kidding.

After weeks of quiet internal planning, two sets of guidelines were dispatched by the Democratic administration, one for American respresentatives to use abroad and another to all federal agencies at home.

Suggestions for elaborate programs including speeches and other ceremonies to mark the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, were discarded by the administration in favor of low-key appearances by Obama and a few other officials.

They are to emphasize that the day's observances are "not just about us," an unidentified administration source told the N.Y. Times, which obtained copies of the plans....

...and talking point documents. Of particular concern to Obama, the Times reports, is how the immediate post-attack sympathies for America in some foreign circles turned to anger at the U.S. responses on detention and interrogation by a certain U.S. president who immediately preceded Obama in the Oval Office.

Some 9/11 guidelines are common sense. U.S. diplomats, for instance, are reminded to acknowledge the ensuing losses and sacrifices of many nations to terrorist attacks during the past decade since 9/11. And there are the usual tribute reminders for military personnel, police and first-responders, among others, for their ongoing community service and sacrifices.

However, other Obama administration guidelines are more striking, even strange. For example, officials are to "minimize references to al Qaeda" because Osama bin Laden is dead and "al Qaeda and its adherents have become increasingly irrelevant."

Wait, say what? Irrelevant? So, the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan are after who, Butch Cassidy?

This 10th anniversary 9/11 talking point coming out in the same month as the downing of a U.S. helicopter killing 38 troops, the deadliest incident of the Afghan war, making this the deadliest month for Americans in the 10-year conflict.

Do you think minimizing al Qaeda's capabilities in the face of fatal evidence to the contrary could be connected with Obama's desire for a rapid U.S. troop withdrawal before the 2012 presidential election?

Puzzlingly, at the same time as officials marking 9/11 are instructed to downplay the al Qaeda crowd, they are to warn Americans about real oncoming future terror attacks and the need for reilience in recovery from those inevitable losses.

Now, that point could provoke lively discussion during next week's Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Presidential Library.

Such attacks, the Obama guidelines suggest, would provide the opportunity for renewed community service and a kind of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do national social unity unlike, say, the sordid public behavior the nation has witnessed in recent months among Washington politicians on all sides.

"A chief goal of our communications," one chipper guideline passage states, "is to present a positive, forward-looking narrative.”

And all these years we've been thinking of 9/11 as something sad.

 

[bueno]

First, addressing the numbers based point. My reading of the Heritage Foundation article led me to believe they were talking strictly about the Gulf, and possibly about only permits that have been The Gulf certainly ought to have the potentisl to produce more oil from deep water, from deeper formations and from tertiary and quaternary recovery techniques. It is not just the Gulf where environmental concerns have blocked oil drilling: coast of Florida, the Atlantic Coast, the Californias coast, ANWR, all of these areas added up would be significsnt. I don't have th enumbers sitting in an airport, but they can be researched. Point is, it is not just delays in permits, but delays in issuing new leases. TF might argue that there are leases that have not been drilled and we dshould drill them first. This is an argument Pelosi has made. However just because a lease has not been drilled, does not mean it has not been explored. The results of seismic surveying, for example, may suggest that certain areas are too small, or the geology too complex to address at this time. It is not as easy as all leases being of equal potential as Pelosi at least seems to believe. (One might recall a huge fight a few years ago over issduing more offshore leases.) Now TF's link to how many leases are granted (versus returned to applicant for more data) gives us little insight into how long it takes to get a permit from beginning the process of data collection through final approval. He is also guessing about the natural gas being a reason for withdrawn or cancelled applications. At a time when we are completing pipelines like crazy and retrofitting ships for exporting natural gas, I would find it incredulous that permits would be withdrawn for such short-term considerations.

It is true that oil is priced globally and natural gas locally, but not 100% so.It would be more accurate to say that oil is consistently priced in US dollars. Look at the difference on the various markets, or between Brent Crude and West Texas. The differences exist because Fact is, over-supply is affecting price right now. (As an aside, that our storage and refining capabilities are maxed out, makes Obama's release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve look silly, doesn't it? If as TF asserts, supply doesn't really affect price, it look even more absurd.)

And it is not just wells or just oil. Remember Clinton Gore making a national monument out of the Escalante Staircase - a piece of Utah desert with dubious redeeming naturla value. Why? Couldn't be to shut down a coal project could it? The boogiemen exist - sometimes at the highest levels. I know of mines that have been delayed over 20 years by a handful of dedicated environmentalists. TF - read up on the Crown Jewel Mine if you doubt that.

There is a reason why the natural resource industry has all but left the US. The reason is different from why manufacturing has left, but both reasons are somewhat tied to government regulation.

Are there boogiemen that fight every development? Yes there are. Should they be given the creedence they get? I would argue no.

Talking points are what they are. At least mine are based on an informed opinion. O'Reilyor the Heritage Foundation OTOH.....

I agree with most of this. I think the Pelosi "no new leases b/c the should use the leases they have" argument is silly. If there were commercially viable resources there they'd be producing. However, I completely disagree with the notion that there are delays in issuing new leases. As far as offshore drilling goes, the lease auctions are scheduled for five year periods. The current one is up next year. That means the current lease schedule was established by the Bush administration. As far as I know the Obama administration has skipped only one auction scheduled by the Bush administration. And the next five-year plan contemplates drilling almost identical to the Bush administration plan and previous plans. The only things that may be taken out that had previously been contemplated for leasing are a small area off the coast of Alaska and a tiny sliver off the coast of Virginia. Not a lot.

As far as onshore goes, I don't recall many new environmental protections stopping proposed exploration and production under Obama. There have been a number of auctions since January 2009- four this year alone auctioning off 72 parcels. I don't have historical data to compare that to previous administrations at my fingertips, but even that may be of little value because frankly, we've leased our most resource-rich federal lands already. You'd expect a slow decline over the last 10-20 years.

The larger point is still that we can't impact oil prices with increased domestic production, and certainly not by increased production in federally controlled areas, which is the only area the president's actions can directly impact. Even the most optimistic projections are a tiny fraction of the global supply.

On the rest of your post:

The reason I think people are pulling out of shallow water leases because of the low price of natural gas is because I know for a fact that a number of offshore production facilities that are producing gas are operating at a loss right now because of the low price of gas. They're basically just staying put because it's cheaper than the costs associated with leaving, that's the only financial motivation to stay. Given that, I assume that people are in no rush to begin new offshore natural gas production.

Yes, I totally agree the Obama release from the SPR made no sense given the global supply. It was purely cosmetic.

There are cases in which a previous president may have overreached in environmental protection- although again, none I can recall under Obama.

And there will always be cases in which environmental groups successfully challenge projects, but again, Obama's administration has nothing to do with these and couldn't really do something even if it wanted to. Those challenges are based on federal environmental statutes. So your problem here is not with Obama. It's with the laws- most of which have been on the books for at least a quarter century- and the courts' application of those laws.

Incidentally, the number and effectiveness of these challenges is often wildly overstated. Don't get me wrong, environmental groups bring a TON of these. But they are usually heard and ruled on very quickly because the environmental groups request injunctions and those matter are expedited. There just aren't a lot that stick and cause major headaches for leasing.

Yes, I have issues with the way the law is put together, but we are talking past each other here a bit too. That Obama is keeping the current rate of issuing leases more or less the same is part of the problem. To get out of dependence on foreign oil, we have to do better than the status quo. We have to become more reliant on natural gas as well. The supply is there. Obama could take a leadership role on pushing for using natural gas for transportation. It isn't that hard to build the infrastructure. The pipelines already exist. All we need are distribution points.

 

[bueno]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

 

[bueno]

A huge compromise of a bill was offered by Obama

This is incorrect. He never officially offered any plan. He was going to accept Boehners "Grand Bargain", but when he heard that the Gang of Six was offering a higher tax increase in their plan he ditched Boehners.

They were officially working towards a compromise before Boehner walked out due to him not being able to compromise at all on any level of increased revenue. That single stance his party took prevented meaningful action from taking place on debt reform. The republicans screwed the pooch and overplayed their hand.

Taxes weren't raised. Big win for fiscal conservatives.

Big win for tea partiers, big loss for the rest of the country. The opportunity and the political will was there, but for poor reasons, they decided to derail negotiations, take their ball, and go home.Now it's Obama and the democrats turn to show these tea party guys how governance should be done, since the tea partiers have shown themselves as being incapable of making decisions in the best interest of the country.

Not raising taxes is in the best interest of the country, my Keynesian friend.

 

[timschochet]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

Stimulus package: good decision, poorly executed (though I was hoping that the 300 million in tax cuts would spur the economy more than it did.)Healthcare reform: poor decision, though not nearly as catastrophic as some claim, but I don't like it.Extending Bush tax cuts: good decisionKilling Osama: Great job, deserves creditDebt Crisis: Poor tactics, but probably achieved as good a result as can be expected given the opposition.

 

[bueno]

What's funny to me is how muddled our views of our presidents are, largely based on how well the economy is doing, which is largely NOT something the president can control, especially during his first 2 years in office. Second 2 years you begin to see some policies taking hold, and certainly after 8 years you've made a big impact.But the disapproval of "Obama" right now is so intermingled with dissatisfaction with the economy that it's silly to put it all on Obama. A lot of the initiatives he's had control over have done well. Pushed health care reform, consumer credit reform, financial reform (although all were watered down from their most effective state), done good things for LBGT community, got Bin Laden on a gutsy LEADERSHIP call, made another gutsy call with the pirates early on in administration, seems like Libya call is working out so far, major speech in Cairo made an impact on the region, willing to compromise hugely on debt deal but intransigent tea party republicans nixed the deal in order to score political points...In such a rough political climate, with a tough economy, he's done a lot of good. Sure, he could've done better, but by and large I'm pleased with how he's done considering the climate and economy he inherited.

Michelle, is that you?

 

[bueno]

Overall, I give him a B+, graded on a curve.The curve being the TERRIBLE economy he inherited and has been struggling to improve.

Welcome back, adonis, haven't seen you in a while.

So you have no problem with the amount or the target of any of the spending that has happened under Obama's watch?

I'm certainly concerned about the level of debt we have right now. I will be much more concerned if in a year or so we're not making significant progress towards reducing it.

How we doing here?

It's not our current debt that I think is a problem, it's the future increases and projections of future debts that I'm worried about, and the drivers of such debt. Right now, any new debt issued is almost free money, the interest rates are so low. 10 year bonds for only a percent or two? That's CRAZY cheap. Especially when we have a demand problem that could be stimulated by further government spending on projects that improve our long term viability (infrastructure, etc). Borrow cheap now, and pay it off over the next decade.Our long term debt problem STILL remains a big problem for me. Obama was on his way to proposing cuts near 4 trillion dollars, but was denied by the house tea party republicans. Sure, i'm disappointed more hasn't been done, and I'm hopeful that our long term debt situation is resolved soon, but our short term problems need to be corrected and can be corrected now, and the sooner we do that, and get our economy producing more jobs again, the better shape we'll be in long term (coupled with debt reduction measures).But clearly, there are two periods of time to look at regarding debt -short term and long term. Short term, with borrowing so cheap and a need for an influx of money to spur on demand, it'd be silly not to borrow and improve our country, putting people to work and encouraging demand to increase, rather than to go into austerity mode. Didn't work for Japan, won't work for us.

What people like you fail to mention is that the 4 trillion dollar cuts are over ten years. That is totally meaningless, because future Congresses and administrations aren't bound by Obama's promises. Anything short of complete overhaul of our entitlement programs is just putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[adonis]

What's funny to me is how muddled our views of our presidents are, largely based on how well the economy is doing, which is largely NOT something the president can control, especially during his first 2 years in office. Second 2 years you begin to see some policies taking hold, and certainly after 8 years you've made a big impact.But the disapproval of "Obama" right now is so intermingled with dissatisfaction with the economy that it's silly to put it all on Obama. A lot of the initiatives he's had control over have done well. Pushed health care reform, consumer credit reform, financial reform (although all were watered down from their most effective state), done good things for LBGT community, got Bin Laden on a gutsy LEADERSHIP call, made another gutsy call with the pirates early on in administration, seems like Libya call is working out so far, major speech in Cairo made an impact on the region, willing to compromise hugely on debt deal but intransigent tea party republicans nixed the deal in order to score political points...In such a rough political climate, with a tough economy, he's done a lot of good. Sure, he could've done better, but by and large I'm pleased with how he's done considering the climate and economy he inherited.

Michelle, is that you?

Stat posts 100's of negative articles in this topic and conservatives like yourself don't bat an eye.However, I post an opinion contrary to the typical sentiment in this thread and I'm called Michelle. It's sad to see how far conservative discourse has fallen. I guess it's not terribly surprising in a party that embraces leaders who reject basic scientific concepts, and who hold positions of extreme unwillingness to compromise (all in debate raising hands if they'd reject any deal based on VERY modest increased taxes, 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases i think). It's a sign of the times, so thanks bueno for raising yours in the air and waving it proudly.

 

[bueno]

Libya seems like it's going to end up a success. So Obama deserves some credit for this.

Overthrowing a dictator is one thing. Replacing him with a good government is totally different. Must be nice to play a minor role and get major credit though.

 

[bueno]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

Stimulus package: good decision, poorly executed (though I was hoping that the 300 million in tax cuts would spur the economy more than it did.)Healthcare reform: poor decision, though not nearly as catastrophic as some claim, but I don't like it.

Extending Bush tax cuts: good decision

Killing Osama: Great job, deserves credit

Debt Crisis: Poor tactics, but probably achieved as good a result as can be expected given the opposition.

1. Stimulus didn't work, was not properly targeted and used mainly as a reward for supporters. F2. Healthcare reform F

3. Extending Bush tax cuts - okay, I think a good idea, but tax reform is required B-

4. Killing Osama. I will give him credit for making the decision, however, it has pushed Pakistan into the Chinese sphere even more. We are in the process of losing an ally albeit an unreliable one, but one we need to pursue goals in Afghanistan. So I have to downgrade to A-

5. Debt crisis - Keynesian economics gets a failing grade overall F

Then let's look elsewhere:

6. Jobs creation: F

7. End war in Iraq. We still have 50,000 troops there last I checked, including Special Forces F

8. Closing Gitmo F

9. Ignoring US bankruptcy laws F

10. Ignoring immigration laws F

11. Reducing regulation

12. Energy policy - what energy policy? F

13. Overall leadership skills, including inspiring confidence. F

 

[bueno]

What's funny to me is how muddled our views of our presidents are, largely based on how well the economy is doing, which is largely NOT something the president can control, especially during his first 2 years in office. Second 2 years you begin to see some policies taking hold, and certainly after 8 years you've made a big impact.But the disapproval of "Obama" right now is so intermingled with dissatisfaction with the economy that it's silly to put it all on Obama. A lot of the initiatives he's had control over have done well. Pushed health care reform, consumer credit reform, financial reform (although all were watered down from their most effective state), done good things for LBGT community, got Bin Laden on a gutsy LEADERSHIP call, made another gutsy call with the pirates early on in administration, seems like Libya call is working out so far, major speech in Cairo made an impact on the region, willing to compromise hugely on debt deal but intransigent tea party republicans nixed the deal in order to score political points...In such a rough political climate, with a tough economy, he's done a lot of good. Sure, he could've done better, but by and large I'm pleased with how he's done considering the climate and economy he inherited.

Michelle, is that you?

Stat posts 100's of negative articles in this topic and conservatives like yourself don't bat an eye.However, I post an opinion contrary to the typical sentiment in this thread and I'm called Michelle. It's sad to see how far conservative discourse has fallen. I guess it's not terribly surprising in a party that embraces leaders who reject basic scientific concepts, and who hold positions of extreme unwillingness to compromise (all in debate raising hands if they'd reject any deal based on VERY modest increased taxes, 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases i think). It's a sign of the times, so thanks bueno for raising yours in the air and waving it proudly.

You're welcome Michelle. Tell your man to introduce some concepts for long term entitlement reform instead of just creating more costs for us and maybe I'll give you an attagirl.ETA: Got any positive articles to post, or just your own delusional opinions? Your guy has been a disaster.

 

[TobiasFunke]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

Stimulus package: good decision, poorly executed (though I was hoping that the 300 million in tax cuts would spur the economy more than it did.)Healthcare reform: poor decision, though not nearly as catastrophic as some claim, but I don't like it.

Extending Bush tax cuts: good decision

Killing Osama: Great job, deserves credit

Debt Crisis: Poor tactics, but probably achieved as good a result as can be expected given the opposition.

1. Stimulus didn't work, was not properly targeted and used mainly as a reward for supporters. F2. Healthcare reform F

3. Extending Bush tax cuts - okay, I think a good idea, but tax reform is required B-

4. Killing Osama. I will give him credit for making the decision, however, it has pushed Pakistan into the Chinese sphere even more. We are in the process of losing an ally albeit an unreliable one, but one we need to pursue goals in Afghanistan. So I have to downgrade to A-

5. Debt crisis - Keynesian economics gets a failing grade overall F

Then let's look elsewhere:

6. Jobs creation: F

7. End war in Iraq. We still have 50,000 troops there last I checked, including Special Forces F

8. Closing Gitmo F

9. Ignoring US bankruptcy laws F

10. Ignoring immigration laws F

11. Reducing regulation

12. Energy policy - what energy policy? F

13. Overall leadership skills, including inspiring confidence. F

You asked a question, and he answered it. Your laughable subjective "grades" (ignoring immigration laws? Really? What grade do you give his predecessors, a Z?) don't change that. I also liked "reducing regulation." Talk about a fundamental lack of understanding of government. Reducing regulation is a goal? For who? Which regulations do you want stricken?

If you want to bring your subjective nonsense to the party, it fairly easy to make him look like the worst president ever. Just like I could make up subjective nonsense that makes him look like the best president ever, or I could make up subjective nonsense that makes Reagan look like the worst president ever. None of it changes the fact that you asked about his accomplishments and you got an answer.

 

[adonis]

What's funny to me is how muddled our views of our presidents are, largely based on how well the economy is doing, which is largely NOT something the president can control, especially during his first 2 years in office. Second 2 years you begin to see some policies taking hold, and certainly after 8 years you've made a big impact.

But the disapproval of "Obama" right now is so intermingled with dissatisfaction with the economy that it's silly to put it all on Obama. A lot of the initiatives he's had control over have done well. Pushed health care reform, consumer credit reform, financial reform (although all were watered down from their most effective state), done good things for LBGT community, got Bin Laden on a gutsy LEADERSHIP call, made another gutsy call with the pirates early on in administration, seems like Libya call is working out so far, major speech in Cairo made an impact on the region, willing to compromise hugely on debt deal but intransigent tea party republicans nixed the deal in order to score political points...

In such a rough political climate, with a tough economy, he's done a lot of good. Sure, he could've done better, but by and large I'm pleased with how he's done considering the climate and economy he inherited.

Michelle, is that you?

Stat posts 100's of negative articles in this topic and conservatives like yourself don't bat an eye.However, I post an opinion contrary to the typical sentiment in this thread and I'm called Michelle.

It's sad to see how far conservative discourse has fallen. I guess it's not terribly surprising in a party that embraces leaders who reject basic scientific concepts, and who hold positions of extreme unwillingness to compromise (all in debate raising hands if they'd reject any deal based on VERY modest increased taxes, 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases i think).

It's a sign of the times, so thanks bueno for raising yours in the air and waving it proudly.

You're welcome Michelle. Tell your man to introduce some concepts for long term entitlement reform instead of just creating more costs for us and maybe I'll give you an attagirl.ETA: Got any positive articles to post, or just your own delusional opinions? Your guy has been a disaster.

It's like I'm back in middle school reading this reply. You call me Michelle again to get under my skin, attempt to demean me, say I need to post an article to back up my opinion, and then you give your opinion without posting any article. I'll spend a bit of time looking here to find some legitimate news articles that might sway you.Keep up the good work bueno.

 

[bueno]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

Stimulus package: good decision, poorly executed (though I was hoping that the 300 million in tax cuts would spur the economy more than it did.)Healthcare reform: poor decision, though not nearly as catastrophic as some claim, but I don't like it.

Extending Bush tax cuts: good decision

Killing Osama: Great job, deserves credit

Debt Crisis: Poor tactics, but probably achieved as good a result as can be expected given the opposition.

1. Stimulus didn't work, was not properly targeted and used mainly as a reward for supporters. F2. Healthcare reform F

3. Extending Bush tax cuts - okay, I think a good idea, but tax reform is required B-

4. Killing Osama. I will give him credit for making the decision, however, it has pushed Pakistan into the Chinese sphere even more. We are in the process of losing an ally albeit an unreliable one, but one we need to pursue goals in Afghanistan. So I have to downgrade to A-

5. Debt crisis - Keynesian economics gets a failing grade overall F

Then let's look elsewhere:

6. Jobs creation: F

7. End war in Iraq. We still have 50,000 troops there last I checked, including Special Forces F

8. Closing Gitmo F

9. Ignoring US bankruptcy laws F

10. Ignoring immigration laws F

11. Reducing regulation

12. Energy policy - what energy policy? F

13. Overall leadership skills, including inspiring confidence. F

You asked a question, and he answered it. Your laughable subjective "grades" (ignoring immigration laws? Really? What grade do you give his predecessors, a Z?) don't change that. I also liked "reducing regulation." Talk about a fundamental lack of understanding of government. Reducing regulation is a goal? For who? Which regulations do you want stricken?

If you want to bring your subjective nonsense to the party, it fairly easy to make him look like the worst president ever. Just like I could make up subjective nonsense that makes him look like the best president ever, or I could make up subjective nonsense that makes Reagan look like the worst president ever. None of it changes the fact that you asked about his accomplishments and you got an answer.

And I disagreed with the answer. In fact, Tim pretty much damned with faint praise in his response to me.

 

[bueno]

What's funny to me is how muddled our views of our presidents are, largely based on how well the economy is doing, which is largely NOT something the president can control, especially during his first 2 years in office. Second 2 years you begin to see some policies taking hold, and certainly after 8 years you've made a big impact.

But the disapproval of "Obama" right now is so intermingled with dissatisfaction with the economy that it's silly to put it all on Obama. A lot of the initiatives he's had control over have done well. Pushed health care reform, consumer credit reform, financial reform (although all were watered down from their most effective state), done good things for LBGT community, got Bin Laden on a gutsy LEADERSHIP call, made another gutsy call with the pirates early on in administration, seems like Libya call is working out so far, major speech in Cairo made an impact on the region, willing to compromise hugely on debt deal but intransigent tea party republicans nixed the deal in order to score political points...

In such a rough political climate, with a tough economy, he's done a lot of good. Sure, he could've done better, but by and large I'm pleased with how he's done considering the climate and economy he inherited.

Michelle, is that you?

Stat posts 100's of negative articles in this topic and conservatives like yourself don't bat an eye.However, I post an opinion contrary to the typical sentiment in this thread and I'm called Michelle.

It's sad to see how far conservative discourse has fallen. I guess it's not terribly surprising in a party that embraces leaders who reject basic scientific concepts, and who hold positions of extreme unwillingness to compromise (all in debate raising hands if they'd reject any deal based on VERY modest increased taxes, 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases i think).

It's a sign of the times, so thanks bueno for raising yours in the air and waving it proudly.

You're welcome Michelle. Tell your man to introduce some concepts for long term entitlement reform instead of just creating more costs for us and maybe I'll give you an attagirl.ETA: Got any positive articles to post, or just your own delusional opinions? Your guy has been a disaster.

It's like I'm back in middle school reading this reply. You call me Michelle again to get under my skin, attempt to demean me, say I need to post an article to back up my opinion, and then you give your opinion without posting any article. I'll spend a bit of time looking here to find some legitimate news articles that might sway you.Keep up the good work bueno.

Welcome back. Missed you during the mid-term elections.

 

[TobiasFunke]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

Stimulus package: good decision, poorly executed (though I was hoping that the 300 million in tax cuts would spur the economy more than it did.)Healthcare reform: poor decision, though not nearly as catastrophic as some claim, but I don't like it.

Extending Bush tax cuts: good decision

Killing Osama: Great job, deserves credit

Debt Crisis: Poor tactics, but probably achieved as good a result as can be expected given the opposition.

1. Stimulus didn't work, was not properly targeted and used mainly as a reward for supporters. F2. Healthcare reform F

3. Extending Bush tax cuts - okay, I think a good idea, but tax reform is required B-

4. Killing Osama. I will give him credit for making the decision, however, it has pushed Pakistan into the Chinese sphere even more. We are in the process of losing an ally albeit an unreliable one, but one we need to pursue goals in Afghanistan. So I have to downgrade to A-

5. Debt crisis - Keynesian economics gets a failing grade overall F

Then let's look elsewhere:

6. Jobs creation: F

7. End war in Iraq. We still have 50,000 troops there last I checked, including Special Forces F

8. Closing Gitmo F

9. Ignoring US bankruptcy laws F

10. Ignoring immigration laws F

11. Reducing regulation

12. Energy policy - what energy policy? F

13. Overall leadership skills, including inspiring confidence. F

You asked a question, and he answered it. Your laughable subjective "grades" (ignoring immigration laws? Really? What grade do you give his predecessors, a Z?) don't change that. I also liked "reducing regulation." Talk about a fundamental lack of understanding of government. Reducing regulation is a goal? For who? Which regulations do you want stricken?

If you want to bring your subjective nonsense to the party, it fairly easy to make him look like the worst president ever. Just like I could make up subjective nonsense that makes him look like the best president ever, or I could make up subjective nonsense that makes Reagan look like the worst president ever. None of it changes the fact that you asked about his accomplishments and you got an answer.

And I disagreed with the answer. In fact, Tim pretty much damned with faint praise in his response to me.

Well since you asked what made it "mediocre," faint praise is a perfectly fine response.But if you want to take that opportunity to say "I Hate Obama" and then support your position with unsubstantiated nonsense instead of objective, rational arguments, then I suppose you're in the right thread!

 

[bueno]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

Whathas he done that qualifies him for mediocrity?

Stimulus package: good decision, poorly executed (though I was hoping that the 300 million in tax cuts would spur the economy more than it did.)Healthcare reform: poor decision, though not nearly as catastrophic as some claim, but I don't like it.

Extending Bush tax cuts: good decision

Killing Osama: Great job, deserves credit

Debt Crisis: Poor tactics, but probably achieved as good a result as can be expected given the opposition.

1. Stimulus didn't work, was not properly targeted and used mainly as a reward for supporters. F2. Healthcare reform F

3. Extending Bush tax cuts - okay, I think a good idea, but tax reform is required B-

4. Killing Osama. I will give him credit for making the decision, however, it has pushed Pakistan into the Chinese sphere even more. We are in the process of losing an ally albeit an unreliable one, but one we need to pursue goals in Afghanistan. So I have to downgrade to A-

5. Debt crisis - Keynesian economics gets a failing grade overall F

Then let's look elsewhere:

6. Jobs creation: F

7. End war in Iraq. We still have 50,000 troops there last I checked, including Special Forces F

8. Closing Gitmo F

9. Ignoring US bankruptcy laws F

10. Ignoring immigration laws F

11. Reducing regulation

12. Energy policy - what energy policy? F

13. Overall leadership skills, including inspiring confidence. F

You asked a question, and he answered it. Your laughable subjective "grades" (ignoring immigration laws? Really? What grade do you give his predecessors, a Z?) don't change that. I also liked "reducing regulation." Talk about a fundamental lack of understanding of government. Reducing regulation is a goal? For who? Which regulations do you want stricken?

If you want to bring your subjective nonsense to the party, it fairly easy to make him look like the worst president ever. Just like I could make up subjective nonsense that makes him look like the best president ever, or I could make up subjective nonsense that makes Reagan look like the worst president ever. None of it changes the fact that you asked about his accomplishments and you got an answer.

And I disagreed with the answer. In fact, Tim pretty much damned with faint praise in his response to me.

Well since you asked what made it "mediocre," faint praise is a perfectly fine response.But if you want to take that opportunity to say "I Hate Obama" and then support your position with unsubstantiated nonsense instead of objective, rational arguments, then I suppose you're in the right thread!

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

 

[bueno]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

We did just go over it. I can't see how you could give Obama anything but a failing grade on energy policy. He controls the largest fleet of vehicles on the planet though - you think Chu could put together a plan to convert them (except military vehicles) to natural gas for example? You think maybe they could be educating people on the advantages of converting to CNG, or maybe pressuring the auto companies they bailed out to help promote and advertise that conversion? Would that not be leadership that is lacking today?What has been done except releasing petroleum from the strategic reserve that didn't need to be released? Just maintained the status quo - which isn't good enough.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

Obama likes to use tax credits to shape his subjects' behavior. Take cash for clunkers for instance. Instead of cash for clunkers how about a tax credit for people who install CNG fueling stations in their homes and purchase a CNG vehicle? That could make an actual difference instead of handing out free money and driving up the cost of the used car market.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

We did just go over it. I can't see how you could give Obama anything but a failing grade on energy policy. He controls the largest fleet of vehicles on the planet though - you think Chu could put together a plan to convert them (except military vehicles) to natural gas for example? You think maybe they could be educating people on the advantages of converting to CNG, or maybe pressuring the auto companies they bailed out to help promote and advertise that conversion? Would that not be leadership that is lacking today?What has been done except releasing petroleum from the strategic reserve that didn't need to be released? Just maintained the status quo - which isn't good enough.

I agree with you on the CNG, although I will point out that changing government vehicles over to CNG would cost money, and a certain political party has been hammering Obama relentless every time he proposes spending a single penny. Were it not for that political climate he would have a lot more freedom to act. So there's plenty of blame to go around there.Otherwise, this is just more tired rhetoric. I ask what you'd have him do, and the only specific answer you give me is on a minor issue on which we both agree. After that you just go back to the same old tired answer devoid of any specifics. That's telling, I think.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

Obama likes to use tax credits to shape his subjects' behavior. Take cash for clunkers for instance. Instead of cash for clunkers how about a tax credit for people who install CNG fueling stations in their homes and purchase a CNG vehicle? That could make an actual difference instead of handing out free money and driving up the cost of the used car market.

Sounds great. You want to start calling off the dogs on the deficit so that changes like this are viable? Obama's the president; the legislature is the one that makes law. There's no reason for him to propose something he knows the legislature will shoot down. So if you want a change like this, vote out the deficit hawks who are using "out of control spending" as an excuse to reject any initiative regardless of its actual impact on the deficit.

 

[bueno]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

We did just go over it. I can't see how you could give Obama anything but a failing grade on energy policy. He controls the largest fleet of vehicles on the planet though - you think Chu could put together a plan to convert them (except military vehicles) to natural gas for example? You think maybe they could be educating people on the advantages of converting to CNG, or maybe pressuring the auto companies they bailed out to help promote and advertise that conversion? Would that not be leadership that is lacking today?What has been done except releasing petroleum from the strategic reserve that didn't need to be released? Just maintained the status quo - which isn't good enough.

I agree with you on the CNG, although I will point out that changing government vehicles over to CNG would cost money, and a certain political party has been hammering Obama relentless every time he proposes spending a single penny. Were it not for that political climate he would have a lot more freedom to act. So there's plenty of blame to go around there.Otherwise, this is just more tired rhetoric. I ask what you'd have him do, and the only specific answer you give me is on a minor issue on which we both agree. After that you just go back to the same old tired answer devoid of any specifics. That's telling, I think.

I am betting that conversion would pay for itself pretty quickly, especially if it was phased in - how many new vehicles has the Obama administration purchased? This is not the minor point you think it is - it is a major opportunity to lead. So, what grade to you give Obama on energy policy - try to answer without the ad hominem arguments. We both respect each other too much for that (I think).

 

[bueno]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

Obama likes to use tax credits to shape his subjects' behavior. Take cash for clunkers for instance. Instead of cash for clunkers how about a tax credit for people who install CNG fueling stations in their homes and purchase a CNG vehicle? That could make an actual difference instead of handing out free money and driving up the cost of the used car market.

Sounds great. You want to start calling off the dogs on the deficit so that changes like there are viable? Obama's the president; the legislature is the one that makes law. There's no reason for him to propose something he knows the legislature will shoot down. So if you want a change like this, vote out the deficit hawks who are using "out of control spending" as an excuse to reject any initiative regardless of its actual impact on the deficit.

The dogs like lower taxes though. It is an opportunity to lead. He's not taking it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Yeah, I like doing that - mainly because I'm not going to write a thesis for each of the above points. We are all familiar enough with the details. But feel free to pick one and we can discuss. start with energy policy. What has he done for us? Where are the green jobs? Where is the green energy? Gasoline prices are high and our refinery capacity is full. We have a glut of natural gas, but no policy to encourage using it over dirty forms of fossil fuels. Show me where he is not failing on energy policy. That's one we both know pretty well. And damning with faint praise doesn't raise him to the level of mediocrity.

We just did this at length- I'm not sure why you want to do it again.Suffice to say, I favor free market solutions on energy. I'm not sure what the government should be doing that it's not already doing, other than maybe educating people about converting to CNG, but that's a minor point (the government role in educating the population, not CNG itself). But I suppose I'm not a radical left-wing socialist like you, asking the government to solve our problems for us.

Obama likes to use tax credits to shape his subjects' behavior. Take cash for clunkers for instance. Instead of cash for clunkers how about a tax credit for people who install CNG fueling stations in their homes and purchase a CNG vehicle? That could make an actual difference instead of handing out free money and driving up the cost of the used car market.

Sounds great. You want to start calling off the dogs on the deficit so that changes like this are viable? Obama's the president; the legislature is the one that makes law. There's no reason for him to propose something he knows the legislature will shoot down. So if you want a change like this, vote out the deficit hawks who are using "out of control spending" as an excuse to reject any initiative regardless of its actual impact on the deficit.

Yeah, too bad Obama wasted all that money on such a useless give away like cash for clunkers when he could have used it to actually make a difference. His fault, not mine, that he put himself in to this mess.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am betting that conversion would pay for itself pretty quickly, especially if it was phased in - how many new vehicles has the Obama administration purchased? This is not the minor point you think it is - it is a major opportunity to lead. So, what grade to you give Obama on energy policy - try to answer without the ad hominem arguments. We both respect each other too much for that (I think).

I don't know about it paying for itself.My grade? Maybe B minus. There have been minor mistakes- I'd like to see him push CNG more, like we both said. But I think he's been very good at striking a balance on fossil fuel production (you can tell because both extremes are upset) especially after the BP spill. He's also pushed domestic natural gas production qas as a big part of our future, which I think is wise, and despite what you seem to think his administration has gotten out of the way of fracking for the most part, which is good- I wish he'd encourage the states on it a little more forcefully, but that's a very minor point and most of the states are doing just fine with it. I also like Chu. There have also been a number of smaller scale things that have happened on the regulatory level (mostly with respect to the electricity grid) that I won't bore you with. Some I like, some not.

 

[bueno]

I am betting that conversion would pay for itself pretty quickly, especially if it was phased in - how many new vehicles has the Obama administration purchased? This is not the minor point you think it is - it is a major opportunity to lead. So, what grade to you give Obama on energy policy - try to answer without the ad hominem arguments. We both respect each other too much for that (I think).

I don't know about it paying for itself.My grade? Maybe B minus. There have been minor mistakes- I'd like to see him push CNG more, like we both said. But I think he's been very good at striking a balance on fossil fuel production (you can tell because both extremes are upset) especially after the BP spill. He's also pushed domestic natural gas production qas as a big part of our future, which I think is wise, and despite what you seem to think his administration has gotten out of the way of fracking for the most part, which is good (I wish he'd encourage the states on it a little more forcefully, but that's a very minor point and most of the states are doing just fine with it). I also like Chu. There have also been a number of smaller scale things that have happened on the regulatory level (mostly with respect to the electricity grid) that I won't bore you with. Some I like, some not.

I remember an article criticizing Obama for the number of vehicles he added to the government fleet. I'm not criticizing him for doing that, but if they were CNG, there would be minor added cost, right? The operating costs of said vehicles would be less than the operating costs of gas vehicles, given the difference in price between the two products. Not to mention that CNG is more environmentally benign.Well, the EPA is going after fracking - not sure how adversely they will affect that technology. I hardly see him as supportive of the technology.Chu strikes me as pretty academic. I remember his comment about how much energy we would save if all flat roofs were painted white. Of course, anybody flying into LAX can look down and see that it is already the case there. Not sure that would be such a good idea in northern climes though, where maybe a black roof could help heat a building. Not that it is a bad idea - just not one that would help given it is already the case. I just don't think he has done anything substantive in this arena.We could go through other issues, like why we still have Special Forces troops in Iraq and why is Gitmo still open, but I suspect you will give him higher grades overall than I did.Minor regulations are just that - minor. A better metric might be how many plants have converted from coal to natural gas, how many nuclear plants have been approved (I know about the Japan thing but nuclear is still a viable option), and some metric on increasing energy efficiency in government buildings - leading the way. Not sure what that metric would be. The "green jobs" failures documented by another poster is certainly a negative.

 

[FavreCo]

I want to know why it has taken 2.5+ years to realize there is an employment issue and to come up with a 'jobs plan'. What were these clowns doing for 2.5 years? Butt####ing each other?

 

[Statorama]

Stat posts 100's of negative articles in this topic and conservatives like yourself don't bat an eye.

Let's be fair, I get a ton of flack for my posts.But to also be fair, this is a thread where both the good and the bad are supposed to be posted.

 

[adonis]

I want to know why it has taken 2.5+ years to realize there is an employment issue and to come up with a 'jobs plan'. What were these clowns doing for 2.5 years? Butt####ing each other?

My guess is that the political climate in washington for the past few years, post stimulus has been unbelievably ANTI-any additional spending proposals. The public and the opposition were firmly united behind a wall of NO more borrowing and deficit spending.It's my guess that Obama will make a case that we need new initiatives to create jobs, and he's willing to take the case to the American people that further borrowing is necessary...and that comes at the conclusion of trying things the other way, trying to find common ground with republicans, trying to work together...now he realizes that they simply won't work with him, so he's going to take his case to the public and see how it goes.Again, just a guess based on things i've read, heard and imagined. Oh, and it's funny that a lot of people saying the kind of thing you're saying now, were the same people who said that the government shouldn't have bailed anyone out. Have cake + eat cake.

 

[bueno]

I want to know why it has taken 2.5+ years to realize there is an employment issue and to come up with a 'jobs plan'. What were these clowns doing for 2.5 years? Butt####ing each other?

My guess is that the political climate in washington for the past few years, post stimulus has been unbelievably ANTI-any additional spending proposals. The public and the opposition were firmly united behind a wall of NO more borrowing and deficit spending.It's my guess that Obama will make a case that we need new initiatives to create jobs, and he's willing to take the case to the American people that further borrowing is necessary...and that comes at the conclusion of trying things the other way, trying to find common ground with republicans, trying to work together...now he realizes that they simply won't work with him, so he's going to take his case to the public and see how it goes.Again, just a guess based on things i've read, heard and imagined. Oh, and it's funny that a lot of people saying the kind of thing you're saying now, were the same people who said that the government shouldn't have bailed anyone out. Have cake + eat cake.

The problem is that the stimulus didn't create jobs. It made money for the investing class - that was it. Then people started complaining about the increasing gap between rich and poor. Well, if you do something that benefits investors and doesn't create jobs for the working class, what do you expect?

 

[adonis]

I want to know why it has taken 2.5+ years to realize there is an employment issue and to come up with a 'jobs plan'. What were these clowns doing for 2.5 years? Butt####ing each other?

My guess is that the political climate in washington for the past few years, post stimulus has been unbelievably ANTI-any additional spending proposals. The public and the opposition were firmly united behind a wall of NO more borrowing and deficit spending.It's my guess that Obama will make a case that we need new initiatives to create jobs, and he's willing to take the case to the American people that further borrowing is necessary...and that comes at the conclusion of trying things the other way, trying to find common ground with republicans, trying to work together...now he realizes that they simply won't work with him, so he's going to take his case to the public and see how it goes.Again, just a guess based on things i've read, heard and imagined. Oh, and it's funny that a lot of people saying the kind of thing you're saying now, were the same people who said that the government shouldn't have bailed anyone out. Have cake + eat cake.

The problem is that the stimulus didn't create jobs. It made money for the investing class - that was it. Then people started complaining about the increasing gap between rich and poor. Well, if you do something that benefits investors and doesn't create jobs for the working class, what do you expect?

Yet you likely support tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...also decreases in the capital gains tax. You do realize that a big chunk of the stimulus was tax cuts, and that tax cuts largely increase the amount of money the investing class has. Except when that happens due to GOP policy, you hear about how they're the ones who "create jobs" and we need to free up capital for them to use it to start companies or hire more employees. Yet when Obama does it, "It made money for the investing class - that was it."

 

[BoneYardDog]

The stimulus was another obama fraud, unless you consider 400K a job, a success...

Sorry did not include the jobs "saved"...

 

[tommyboy]

buy your iPhone "Obama Clock" app here http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=445326700&mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D6

cost is 99 cents.

features:

-approval rating

-public debt

-unemployment pct

-nat'l gas prices

-nat'l home prices

-days/hours left till his term ends

currently #1 reference app on ITunes

thank me later

 

[Daywalker]

What would the Republicans have done differently then what Obama has? The healthcare reform act? Perhaps. That's a losing issue for Republican's. So many who even have healthcare having problems affording it due to corporate profit's and doctory pay. Doctor's gonna retire? Ha. Just reduce the cost of education like any decent society would. People in Europe aren't rioting against their healthcare. They are rioting to protect what they have.

Thank god I will live to see the day where we have enough brown people to vote lock and stead similarly as all the old white people who vote against their best interest. Don't you know it's coming? It's the sound of inevitability. Yes, move to another country. We don't want you.

Can't wait. Twenty years might have some interesting debates.

 

[BoneYardDog]

What would the Republicans have done differently then what Obama has? The healthcare reform act? Perhaps. That's a losing issue for Republican's. So many who even have healthcare having problems affording it due to corporate profit's and doctory pay. Doctor's gonna retire? Ha. Just reduce the cost of education like any decent society would. People in Europe aren't rioting against their healthcare. They are rioting to protect what they have.Thank god I will live to see the day where we have enough brown people to vote lock and stead similarly as all the old white people who vote against their best interest. Don't you know it's coming? It's the sound of inevitability. Yes, move to another country. We don't want you.Can't wait. Twenty years might have some interesting debates.

Yeah can't wait for that twenty year look ahead time... We will be living like a 3rd world country by then, because 100% of every dollar brought in will go towards paying the interest on our debt...Of course you and your brown people will not notice the difference, because that is what they are used to. Glad to see you have such high aspirations for your family... I know I can hardly wait...How did this obama thread fall all the way to page 6???