Thank You President Obama!!!

[barn32]

Current Gas Prices in Las Vegas

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5973/gaspricesvegas122612.png

[delayjf]

What specific action did Obama do to warrent your praise?

[Tom]

And then why was it up over $4 a gallon not too long ago?
Did you get on his case for doing that? :lol:

Looks like it was about $1.61 when Bush left office.....Thank you Mr. Bush.

[kingfin66]

And then why was it up over $4 a gallon not too long ago?
Did you get on his case for doing that? :lol:

Exactly

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf


Why I don't strive to live as long as scientifically possible. My vision of the sorry ass future captured pretty damn well.



(*threw this in a thread that wasn't getting a lot of action to avoid making a new one or being accused of voyaging off-topic in an existing. I can blame part of this hatred of the future on Obama if I try hard enough, so technically, I'm in the right thread.)

[Some_One]

That price is still less than a buck per litre, in Europe it's 2.5X I've seen, of course you don't see anyone here driving hummers/suvs/minivans or other gas guzzlers. The 1.60/g price was only because the economy crashed and demand went to hell for a brief moment.

[Valuist]

Current Gas Prices in Las Vegas

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5973/gaspricesvegas122612.png

Speaking of Las Vegas, how's the unemployment rate there? Wanna thank him for that?

[MaTH716]

Oh, gas prices..............


I was hoping you were thanking him, cause he resigned. I guess, no such luck.

Isn't it awesome paying $2.99 a gallon and thinking you're getting a bargin? :rolleyes:

[barn32]

What specific action did Obama do to warrent your praise?He lowered the price of gas like a good president should.

[delayjf]

He lowered the price of gas like a good president should.

So he lowered gas prices via executive order?? Did he sign some law??
Exactly what did the President do to lower gas prices? Do you have a link that outlines what President Obama did? Sorry but I'm raising the BS flag on this one.

[cj's dad]

The inauguration will cost $100 million+ of which about 30% will come from private donations. Thanks for only spending $70+ M of taxpayers money to do something that could be done in the oval office at virtually no cost.

Thanks again jackass.

[HoofedInTheChest]

Try living in Canada, we are paying $4.74 a gallon.

[redshift1]

The inauguration will cost $100 million+ of which about 30% will come from private donations. Thanks for only spending $70+ M of taxpayers money to do something that could be done in the oval office at virtually no cost.

Thanks again jackass.

According to this article $300 million.

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/53030/obama-inauguration-to-cost-300-million/

Personally I'm leaning towards 500 million perhaps as high as 1 billion when the real truth comes out.

.

[Tom]

He lowered the price of gas like a good president should.
Then why didn't he put it back where Bush left it? :lol:

[tbwinner]

Liberals LOVED pulling this article (and similar) during the Prez Debates when Romney tried to put high gas prices against Obama, so here you go:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/gas-prices-theres-not-much-presidents-can-do-about-them-1C6525786


Gas prices: There's not much that presidents can do about them
When you pull up to that gas pump and nearly faint from how much it costs you to fill 'er up, you may be tempted blame the government for not doing enough to keep a lid on prices.

Resist the temptation. The truth is the global nature of the world's energy supply means that no president has much power over what you pay at the pump.

[iwearpurple]

He lowered the price of gas like a good president should.

And people like you are allowed to vote.

Did you learn the President's duties in school?

[Robert Goren]

And people like you are allowed to vote.

Did you learn the President's duties in school?There was a lot people here who very quick to blame the president when the gas prices went up. I think most of them are allowed to vote too. Did they learn the President's duties in school?

[Tom]

There was a lot people here who very quick to blame the president when the gas prices went up. I think most of them are allowed to vote too. Did they learn the President's duties in school?

hcap, Sec, the usual lib suspects.

[JustRalph]

Try living in Canada, we are paying $4.74 a gallon.

yeah, but there's no place to go................................



:lol:

[Valuist]

yeah, but there's no place to go................................



:lol:

There's always the Great Slave Lake. Ice fishing season is from September thru June.

[delayjf]

There was a lot people here who very quick to blame the president when the gas prices went up.
Probably had something to do with his policy towards drilling in the Gulf. But no where have I heard or read of any Obama policy that lead to oil prices dropping.

[hcap]

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/27/good_economic_news/1356627025908.png.CROP.rectangle3-large.png

So it looks like initial unemployment insurance claims have been cut almost in 1/2 since Obama has been pres.

November new home sales were up 4.4 percent month-on-month and 15.3 percent year-on-year in November. Importantly, sale prices were also up

Now if only the rethugs would stop blocking Obamas' job bill and shut up

[Tom]

What has that got to do with the thread topic?

[hcap]

What has that got to do with the thread topic?The thread is "Thank You President Obama!". Man, you have a short memory.

Probably due to all that anger you carry around. Maybe I should remind you about what happened on the 6th? :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/27/good_economic_news/1356627025908.png.CROP.rectangle3-large.png

So it looks like initial unemployment insurance claims have been cut almost in 1/2 since Obama has been pres.

November new home sales were up 4.4 percent month-on-month and 15.3 percent year-on-year in November. Importantly, sale prices were also up

Now if only the rethugs would stop blocking Obamas' job bill and shut up

So would you like to "own" the economy from this point forward, meaning if things go wrong Obama takes the blame, too? You can't take credit for the good and blame GWB for the bad. Which is it? You can't have it both ways, as hard as O tries.

[hcap]

That depends upon how cooperative the republicans in the house and those who filibuster in the Senate are.

[Tom]

The thread is "Thank You President Obama!". Man, you have a short memory.
Probably due to all that anger you carry around. Maybe I should remind you
about what happened on the 6th?

For GAS PRICES.....like every post has refered to.
Mybe you should read these threads before you O-bot them.

[hcap]

For GAS PRICES.....like every post has refered to.
Mybe you should read these threads before you O-bot them.
Hey, Froggy, oe more time Thank You are the first 2 words. President Obama, the last 2. Do you see "Gas" in the tittle? No you don't.

Remember Jim Ignatowsky on "Taxi"? My guess is that back uin the 60's you were a preppy smart liberal. That is until you started hanging around with Ted and the Dukes and their chemical road show. Think back to when brain sells were more than merely a topic in college biology :cool:

[Tom]

I love it when ignorance and arrogance combine.
Anything to get your daily Bot-trot in here.

[ArlJim78]

a better perspective. is this reason to celebrate?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/ICSA_Max_630_378.png

[hcap]

a better perspective. is this reason to celebrate?

Better perspective? Shows the exact same thing. Claims cut almost in 1/2.

[ArlJim78]

Better perspective? Shows the exact same thing. Claims cut almost in 1/2.
when viewed against a historical perspective it's weak. we're still at a high rate years after the recession. by the way, the big spikes come down all on there own once employers have shed enough workers. it has nothing to do with the president.

here is another one to thank Obama for. take a gander at the labor force participation rate. FORWARD!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2002_2012_all_period_M1 1_data.gif

[soupan]

when viewed against a historical perspective it's weak. we're still at a high rate years after the recession. by the way, the big spikes come down all on there own once employers have shed enough workers. it has nothing to do with the president.

here is another one to thank Obama for. take a gander at the labor force participation rate. FORWARD!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2002_2012_all_period_M1 1_data.gif


And you're going to compare this past recession to previous ones?
This was close to depression, and would have been without manipulation of interest rates and injection of capital into the system.
All ARTIFICIAL actions. When the Fed and US Gvt. take artificial action, there is a long term price to pay. Without it, you'd have catastrophe.

GWB BURRIED this country like no other president in modern history. Not even close.

In a way I wish Romney would have won the election. I would love to see him "create jobs" :lol: :lol: :lol: He would have fallen on his face big time.
You can only artificially "create" jobs..(as in creating Govt jobs).
Without true demand, there is no need to supply.
You need demand in mass to move an economy quickly, and without a middle class base (mass) it will be a long slow haul back.

[soupan]

So would you like to "own" the economy from this point forward, meaning if things go wrong Obama takes the blame, too? You can't take credit for the good and blame GWB for the bad. Which is it? You can't have it both ways, as hard as O tries.

Really Mike? How's about what GWB inherited from Bill Clinton compared to what Obama inherited from the idiots Bush/Chaney/Rove.

Recessions are cyclical, but the policies of a President could effect how bad a recession will be and how long it will last. There isn't much more the guy in the White House (or anyone) could do to straighten this situation more quickly.

[PaceAdvantage]

GWB BURRIED this country like no other president in modern history. Not even close.Actually, that distinction goes to Barney Frank and the Community Reinvestment Act boys...

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

[sammy the sage]

Repeal of Glass/Stegall in 98 by BOTH parties ENABLED all that followed....

[soupan]

Repeal of Glass/Stegall in 98 by BOTH parties ENABLED all that followed....

Very true.

The Govt should re-implement laws prior to and force banking institutions to scale down and sell off and limit their full branch status to , say 3 states.

Never happen though, as I said in another post, the BANKERS tell the politicians what to do, not vise versa.

[fast4522]

Repeal of Glass/Stegall in 98 by BOTH parties ENABLED all that followed....

I have been saying this all along, Clinton who this country so loved is the guy who signed its death. This was an orchestrated well planned attempt to implode our economy because without complete despair of our people a new world order can not happen. Like it or not, Adolf Hitler would have not ascended into a leader without the despair of the German people and the backing of money from bankers. Despair is the tool needed to hoodwink large segments of a country into believing anything. Even gun control that is in print is a carbon copy of you know who's from Germany. It almost seems that people do not understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

[lamboguy]

And you're going to compare this past recession to previous ones?
This was close to depression, and would have been without manipulation of interest rates and injection of capital into the system.
All ARTIFICIAL actions. When the Fed and US Gvt. take artificial action, there is a long term price to pay. Without it, you'd have catastrophe.

GWB BURRIED this country like no other president in modern history. Not even close.

In a way I wish Romney would have won the election. I would love to see him "create jobs" :lol: :lol: :lol: He would have fallen on his face big time.
You can only artificially "create" jobs..(as in creating Govt jobs).
Without true demand, there is no need to supply.
You need demand in mass to move an economy quickly, and without a middle class base (mass) it will be a long slow haul back.i think its the banks that burried this country. George Bush sat back and allowed the banks to rape us blind.

i know personally because i was the beneficiary of a Libor loan. i got a Libor loan in the amount of $500k. my loan is down to $380k now and i pay $555 a month in interest payments. the only reason i got the loan to begin with is because the banks rigged the rates so they could package my loan with other's and sell them for a big profit and stick the deficiency back to the government who in turn are the taxpayers here. in defense of George Bush, the same thing happens over and over again with the bankers, it took place when his father was president with the savings and load debacle. it happened under Carter and Reagan as well.

Bankers and large corporations are taking advantage of this great country all the time no matter who the president is. the government is bought and paid for by the bankers and large corporations. it is very evident with what is going on now with this cliff deal going on now. the bankers and corporations don't want to pay any taxes at all if they can get away with it and some do, while they benefit the most from what this country offers them. those are the people that use the roads, the sky and the military more than any other segment of this society, yet they want all of us suckers to pay for them. the jobs that they create are in nice places like MUMBAI and SHANG HAI.

[soupan]

Actually, that distinction goes to Barney Frank and the Community Reinvestment Act boys...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

I could care less what the Times writes. I don't read it and their journalists are overrated.

The facts are clear that giving mortgages to people who don't deserve them played a role in the housing crash.

But I never have a problem with politicians (right or left) finding ways or legislating to help ALL Americans better their lives (like through home ownership).

Problem is politicians are bad economists, and they implemented this program without reasonable limitations.
Secondly, the war in Iraq did far greater damage economically and was a total and complete waste of resources.

[soupan]

I have been saying this all along, Clinton who this country so loved is the guy who signed its death. This was an orchestrated well planned attempt to implode our economy because without complete despair of our people a new world order can not happen. Like it or not, Adolf Hitler would have not ascended into a leader without the despair of the German people and the backing of money from bankers. Despair is the tool needed to hoodwink large segments of a country into believing anything. Even gun control that is in print is a carbon copy of you know who's from Germany. It almost seems that people do not understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

Oh yes, it was Clinton who masterminded the fall of the American banking system.

You are so pathetic.

[soupan]

i think its the banks that burried this country. George Bush sat back and allowed the banks to rape us blind.

i know personally because i was the beneficiary of a Libor loan. i got a Libor loan in the amount of $500k. my loan is down to $380k now and i pay $555 a month in interest payments. the only reason i got the loan to begin with is because the banks rigged the rates so they could package my loan with other's and sell them for a big profit and stick the deficiency back to the government who in turn are the taxpayers here. in defense of George Bush, the same thing happens over and over again with the bankers, it took place when his father was president with the savings and load debacle. it happened under Carter and Reagan as well.

Bankers and large corporations are taking advantage of this great country all the time no matter who the president is. the government is bought and paid for by the bankers and large corporations. it is very evident with what is going on now with this cliff deal going on now. the bankers and corporations don't want to pay any taxes at all if they can get away with it and some do, while they benefit the most from what this country offers them. those are the people that use the roads, the sky and the military more than any other segment of this society, yet they want all of us suckers to pay for them. the jobs that they create are in nice places like MUMBAI and SHANG HAI.

Which is why I posted (on another thread) that the bankers control the politicians not the other way around.

Which then brings to light the stupidity on the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, grouping corporations as people.
They (banks and corporations) will continue to buy politicians and sway voters.

The outlook for this country is so rosy. Thank you Justice Scalia.

[fast4522]

Oh yes, it was Clinton who masterminded the fall of the American banking system.

You are so pathetic.

What can I say, I am not a globalist, and consider some folks subversive.

Let Europe collapse under its own infrastructure.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...But I never have a problem with politicians (right or left) finding ways or legislating to help ALL Americans better their lives (like through home ownership).

Problem is politicians are bad economists,...

You have to help me understand how you can be SO passionate about the role of one group in creating this particular element of the problem, and then just sort of wash your hands with this aspect of it as though bogus altruism through horrible policy justifies its failure.

I don't for one second believe that it was any one entity, party, policy, or theory that created our economic woes, but the federal policies that threatened to punish lenders that didn't ease lending standards was certainly a primary catalyst in my opinion. I don't see how that can be disputed or even merely downplayed just because it was allegedly to "help everyone".

You can't make a group of demographics more capable of owning something that costs a lot of money just by making it easier to get the loan, but impossible to pay it back. The banks realized that this was a sham from the gitgo and covered their asses, mainly because they are just a little sharper about economics than the guys writing policy in exchange for votes are. They figure out a way how to write loans to people that will never be able to pay them back, comply with the fed policy, and still insure themselves against the inevitable losses associated with writing those loans.

Of course, nothing about the policy actually worked well. More minorities got loans and homes, but so did low income whites, so the goal of changing the distribution of ownership across demographics wasn't very effective. Ratios didn't change much, there was simply a flood of bad loans, a subindustry created of fly-by-night operations that catered to servicing risky loans, and of course, a proliferation of securities that were doomed to collapse under the weight of these doomed loans because of their structure.

This is one of the textbook cases of how government repeatedly fails at trying to "fix" inequities in society or demographics through shortsighted legislation that merely sounds good. I wouldn't have a problem with government legislating ways for people to improve their lives either if they weren't downright awful at accomplishing the goal. And in this context, I don't know how you can rail loud and proud against one element of the crime and then give this disastrous element of it a pass because it was rooted in "good intentions".

[Tom]

In a way I wish Romney would have won the election. I would love to see him "create jobs" :lol: :lol: :lol: He would have fallen on his face big time.

How much you do not know is truly amazing!:lol:
And you are so proud of it, too.

Just winning would have started the ball rolling for job creation.
there are literally billions of dollars out their just waiting to be invested, but with all the democrat regulations and total uncertainty, it ain't gonna happen. No one is going to invest serious money and commit to hiring new people when the worthless congress can't tell anything for certain - they congress has achieved NOTHING in two years - nest week, employers do not even know how much money to take out for withholding!

[soupan]

How much you do not know is truly amazing!:lol:
And you are so proud of it, too.

Just winning would have started the ball rolling for job creation.
there are literally billions of dollars out their just waiting to be invested, but with all the democrat regulations and total uncertainty, it ain't gonna happen. No one is going to invest serious money and commit to hiring new people when the worthless congress can't tell anything for certain - they congress has achieved NOTHING in two years - nest week, employers do not even know how much money to take out for withholding!

Hey Dopey,

You keep forgetting. The guy with the trickle down and end gov't regulation theory LOST the election BY POPULAR and electoral vote.
The guy who won ran on a platform of raising taxes on certain income levels.
The American people either agree or disagree and vote accordingly.
When Obama won, those who voted for him expect him to do as promised.
Especially when it will only effect less then 2% of the population.

Now on the other hand, house republicans drank Grover's kool aid, pledging not to raise taxes. Not being willing to give in on 98% vs 2% will cause the ENTIRE economy and maybe world economy to take major steps backward and slip back into recession.
Ok...go and do that.

We'll see what happens in the next elections.
I've stated before, take 5-7% more of a wealthy persons income in taxes, his life won't change at all.
Take 5-7% of the guy earning $40-120k, and it could make a HUGE difference, including making mortgage payments on homes purchased that are still under water.

[Tom]

Your reply has zero to do with what I posted.
Again.

You live in Flori-DUH?
Did you vote in 2000?

Any idea who you voted for? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[ArlJim78]

let's get rid of these Bush tax cuts, after all they only benefit the wealthy.
we also need to let the payroll tax relief expire, then after that the other new Obamacare taxes will phase in, maybe an energy tax as well. when people have to actually pay for the big government that they claim is so important they might sing a different tune. most people who talk about how great government is do not expect to pay an additional dime for it. let those rich bankers pay for it right?

[fast4522]

Well we can always say next year will be better right?

[Tom]

We are at the cliff because democrats FAILED to do their jobs.

[PaceAdvantage]

Secondly, the war in Iraq did far greater damage economically and was a total and complete waste of resources.How much did it cost?

[PaceAdvantage]

Which is why I posted (on another thread) that the bankers control the politicians not the other way around.

Which then brings to light the stupidity on the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, grouping corporations as people.
They (banks and corporations) will continue to buy politicians and sway voters.

The outlook for this country is so rosy. Thank you Justice Scalia.Wait, I thought you said it was all George Bush's fault. Wasn't Scalia appointed by Reagan? :faint:

[RaceBookJoe]

Hey Dopey,

You keep forgetting. The guy with the trickle down and end gov't regulation theory LOST the election BY POPULAR and electoral vote.
The guy who won ran on a platform of raising taxes on certain income levels.
The American people either agree or disagree and vote accordingly.
When Obama won, those who voted for him expect him to do as promised.
Especially when it will only effect less then 2% of the population.

Now on the other hand, house republicans drank Grover's kool aid, pledging not to raise taxes. Not being willing to give in on 98% vs 2% will cause the ENTIRE economy and maybe world economy to take major steps backward and slip back into recession.
Ok...go and do that.

We'll see what happens in the next elections.
I've stated before, take 5-7% more of a wealthy persons income in taxes, his life won't change at all.
Take 5-7% of the guy earning $40-120k, and it could make a HUGE difference, including making mortgage payments on homes purchased that are still under water.

But here lies where I am leery. You can raise taxes as much as possible on the wealthy and it wont make a dent in the problems in this country. Then you get to what this government really wants..to raise taxes on everyone. just my opinion.

[Track Collector]

Now on the other hand, house republicans drank Grover's kool aid, pledging not to raise taxes. Not being willing to give in on 98% vs 2% will cause the ENTIRE economy and maybe world economy to take major steps backward and slip back into recession.
Ok...go and do that.

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp on the situation.

This entire financial cliff situation was allowed as a possibility because our nation has accumulated a very dangerous level of debt. If not addressed very quickly, we could suffer a financial collapse. Common sense tells you that you can not consistently spend more than you take in. When we reached our borrowing limit several months ago, folks agreed to not take a stand then, but to buy a few extra months of time to work on the issue. They originally set up a situation that would be so uncomfortable for BOTH sides that all our leaders would be forced to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution to address THIS DEBT SITUATION.

So my question to you and our liberal friends is .........where in the current negotiations is there any serious and significant steps to reduce our current debt level? Anyone who says that raising the taxes on the very wealthy is a significant step in this direction is simply uninformed. The amount of additional revenue gained from increasing the tax levels on the very wealthy is but a drop in the debt ocean.

The hard reality is that there will need to be significant spending cuts in order to get our financial house in order. The uninformed will see the current Republican position of not agreeing to tax increases as the wealthy as the reason for our fiscal cliff. The informed will see that the bulk of blame falls on Obama and the Democrats for failing to submit a plan with significant and meaningful SPENDING cuts.

Although the devil is in the details, the general overall plan of extending the tax cuts for everyone AND including meaningful and significant spending cuts would make for an excellent plan to address our nation's debt.

It beyond me how anyone can rationally blame the Republicans, yet fail to see the failures of Obama and Democrats to come to the table with a meaningful proposal to address the DEBT situation.

[fast4522]

Track Collector,

First you have to understand that we are not talking about someone who is genuine, or those who support him. Actions speak volumes!

[soupan]

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp on the situation.

This entire financial cliff situation was allowed as a possibility because our nation has accumulated a very dangerous level of debt. If not addressed very quickly, we could suffer a financial collapse. Common sense tells you that you can not consistently spend more than you take in. When we reached our borrowing limit several months ago, folks agreed to not take a stand then, but to buy a few extra months of time to work on the issue. They originally set up a situation that would be so uncomfortable for BOTH sides that all our leaders would be forced to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution to address THIS DEBT SITUATION.

So my question to you and our liberal friends is .........where in the current negotiations is there any serious and significant steps to reduce our current debt level? Anyone who says that raising the taxes on the very wealthy is a significant step in this direction is simply uninformed. The amount of additional revenue gained from increasing the tax levels on the very wealthy is but a drop in the debt ocean.

The hard reality is that there will need to be significant spending cuts in order to get our financial house in order. The uninformed will see the current Republican position of not agreeing to tax increases as the wealthy as the reason for our fiscal cliff. The informed will see that the bulk of blame falls on Obama and the Democrats for failing to submit a plan with significant and meaningful SPENDING cuts.

Although the devil is in the details, the general overall plan of extending the tax cuts for everyone AND including meaningful and significant spending cuts would make for an excellent plan to address our nation's debt.

It beyond me how anyone can rationally blame the Republicans, yet fail to see the failures of Obama and Democrats to come to the table with a meaningful proposal to address the DEBT situation.

First of all, do yourself a favor. Don't think for a single second that I'm misinformed about how our economy works.
My resume would startle you and your right wing girlfriends.
Trust me, I've walked the walk that most on this forum post about.

That being said, I'll be polite and agree that the fiscal house must be put back in order, (I was preaching that since the 90's) a house that was very much in order when GWB took office). But there is a HUGE (as in astronomical) difference between both sides on how to do it.

You want to tackle entitlements? Ok. First off, lets means test Social Security and Medicare. When you reach entitlement age, you have to submit your net worth and assets. If it's over a certain amount, you get nothing until you can prove your net worth has dipped below the threshold.
Would you go for that? (I know the answer).

Now stop being naive and think that democrats haven't come to the table with their ideas of how to move forward, because they have.

[soupan]

Wait, I thought you said it was all George Bush's fault. Wasn't Scalia appointed by Reagan? :faint:

Stick to your computer administrator skills, you got burried in the last debate with me.

[elysiantraveller]

You want to tackle entitlements? Ok. First off, lets means test Social Security and Medicare. When you reach entitlement age, you have to submit your net worth and assets. If it's over a certain amount, you get nothing until you can prove your net worth has dipped below the threshold.
Would you go for that? (I know the answer).

I'm pretty sure that was the GOP platform last cycle bud... but I don't want to keep you from walking...

zlxETNyPb_M

[PaceAdvantage]

Stick to your computer administrator skills, you got burried in the last debate with me.I'll take my chances and stick around with you for a little while longer. After all, I have a pretty good sense I've seen your kind before.

[PaceAdvantage]

My resume would startle you and your right wing girlfriends.
Trust me, I've walked the walk that most on this forum post about.Considering you could invent anything and nobody would know the difference, I'm going to agree with you here. :lol:

[Track Collector]

Now stop being naive and think that democrats haven't come to the table with their ideas of how to move forward, because they have.

Help me out here.

With regard to the current fiscal cliff situation, and other than raising taxes on the very wealthy (which we know adds very little to the amounts needed to attack our high debt problem), what are some of these other ideas that the Democrats are proposing?

[Robert Goren]

How much did it cost?I wish we could get an answer for that, but unfortunately nobody knows what the final cost will be in dollars and cents. We still have veterans of that war who need medical and financial help. Some will need it for the rest of their lives. We know how many brave soldiers were killed and how many were injured physically, but mental injuries are still appearing. Then there are children of those who serve over there, some lost a parent, others have parents who can not even toss a football with their kids. It will be decades before we know what the cost will be in just money. We are still taking care of WWII vets, so we don't even have a final tally that war yet. We will never know what cost will be in changed lives.
My dad served WWII and was able to work for about 10 years after the war, then his war injuries started to flare up and he became disabled until he died about 10 years below his life expectancy. How many of these Iraq war vets will there be like him? Some many questions and so few answers when it comes to the cost to America for the Iraq war.

[Tom]

My resume would startle you and your right wing girlfriends.

I bet it would! :lol::lol::lol:

[Tom]

Help me out here.

With regard to the current fiscal cliff situation, and other than raising taxes on the very wealthy (which we know adds very little to the amounts needed to attack our high debt problem), what are some of these other ideas that the Democrats are proposing?

They have a comprehensive plan....

1. Tax the rich.
2. Tax them again.
3. Tax them again.
4. Blame Bush.

[mostpost]

How much did it (The Iraq War) cost?
According to this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost between $3.7 and $4.4 trillion. Or almost half the increase in the National debt since that time. All for nothing.

[rastajenk]

Not for nothing. By the way, what would be cost of doing nothing 10 years ago? It could dwarf your Reuters estimates.

[Tom]

All for nothing?
The why do we still have troops over there?

mostie is saying Obama, in the face of fiscal disaster, is spending money for nothing overseas.

[rwryley]

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

It seems too many adopt positions that reflect who that "like" and who they "dislike" rather than what would really amount to sound economic policy. My conservative friends seem to still cling to the notion that all social welfare or social safety net spending is a waste and thus should be the first target for spending cuts. Seems based more on the idea that they simply consider most of the beneficiaries spongers on society. A myth that can be easily disproved.

Be that as it may, one form of "safety net" spending that can be cut immediately is to give the government the ability to negotiate Medicare and Medicaid drug costs. The Veterans administration already does this. But, since the GOP (and many Dems too) have been bought off by "big pharma," this hasn't happened. Would be a huge money saver.

Democrats have proposed cuts in defense spending. Republicans supported a budget that includes no cuts, but increased defense spending even on projects the Dept of Defense doesn't even want. That seems far from "fiscally responsible."

The far-right seems committed to preserving the Bush tax cut for the top 2% along with everyone else. The only rationale I've heard is two things. First, it really won't generate that much revenue by eliminating it, and second, it will deter the so-called "job creators" (the GOP's clever name for this group) from creating new jobs. Given the lackluster job-growth under Bush (particularly when compared to the Clinton era stats) it seems pretty clear the cuts for the top 2% didn't stimulate much growth.

Frankly, I have yet to meet a business person who sits back and says "gosh if taxes go down 2% the first thing I'm gonna do is create more jobs." That's a fantasy. Businesses expand because they see more customers with money willing to buy what they sell, not because Uncle Sam let them pay a couple points less in taxes. Spending that tax break on expansion without some sane reason to expect that your less wealthy customers are ready to spend more in a nonsense.

The other argument - that going back to Clinton-era taxes won't generate enough or dent the deficit that much, is absurd. It amounts to "well, if it doesn't solve the whole problem, let's not do it at all." That's just stupid.

Consider the following. During the Bush years the US fought two wars and put the cost of both on a credit card. The so-called "fiscal conservatives" - for the first time in US History - borrowed the total cost of both wars and never raised taxes to cover the cost one cent.

In fact, they never even included the cost of the war on their federal budget calculations. The deficit caused by "war spending" never showed up in federal budget calculations until Obama included it in budget numbers as it should have been all along. Then, of course, the right blamed Obama for the exploding deficit.

On top of this no one really talks about the long term costs of providing health care to veterans injured in those wars. It's a huge number. Not exactly "social" spending on slackers.

During the Bush years a huge tax cut was adopted without any offset in spending. During the Bush years an expensive prescription drug plan was added to Medicare without a plan to recover the cost. More "vote buying" deficit spending supported by Bush and most of his "fiscal conservative" pals along with some vote hungry Democrats.

Think about it. Cost of two wars, lost revenue from Bush tax cut, new prescription drug plan all exploded - and continue to increase federal deficit and debt. And now the GOP followers get bent out of shape because some want to restore taxes on the top 2% to what they thrived under during the Clinton years. These are not what one might call positions based on principles.

I recommend the following as one possible solution to this mess. Probably one both parties would reject, but one that just might work. Washington is not known for thinking outside the box.

The People's Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)

[hcap]

Makes sense to me :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

It would.
We are not living in the Clinton years.

[hcap]

It would.
We are not living in the Clinton years.We will be :lol:

[hcap]

Unless according to the idiots at Drudge...........

Stir it up good. Guys Inhale deeply Only a matter of time until you
gents start another revival meeting thread on this "NEW" conspiracy :eek:

http://aka-cdn-ns.adtechus.com/apps/173/Ad0St3Sz170Sq0V0Id21968045/300x250_Obamas-3rd-Term_Conspiracy_black-on-white.gif

Hey Fast, don't forget to secure all tin foil beanies, and fill us in on how the Bilderbergers are involved. Remember to orient all beanies north/south to improve reception, and face west while standing on the left leg. There are other curiously anatomical recommendations, but in case any kids are reading this, ..........Oh well. :)

[Jay Trotter]

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate. Nice, well thought out post. :ThmbUp:

[dartman51]

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

It seems too many adopt positions that reflect who that "like" and who they "dislike" rather than what would really amount to sound economic policy. My conservative friends seem to still cling to the notion that all social welfare or social safety net spending is a waste and thus should be the first target for spending cuts. Seems based more on the idea that they simply consider most of the beneficiaries spongers on society. A myth that can be easily disproved.

But, since the GOP (and many Dems too) have been bought off by "big pharma," this hasn't happened. Would be a huge money saver.




The People's Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)

Welcome to OFF TOPIC. Nice post, except for the fact that after your first paragraph, you proceed to do exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing. Simply pointing out why you believe the LEFT is right and the RIGHT is wrong. Same old same old. I guess what you mean by SOME DEMS, you mean Obama, since big pharma was against Obamacare until they had a meeting at the WH, then all of a sudden, it was OK. :ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

It seems too many adopt positions that reflect who that "like" and who they "dislike" rather than what would really amount to sound economic policy. My conservative friends seem to still cling to the notion that all social welfare or social safety net spending is a waste and thus should be the first target for spending cuts. Seems based more on the idea that they simply consider most of the beneficiaries spongers on society. A myth that can be easily disproved.

Be that as it may, one form of "safety net" spending that can be cut immediately is to give the government the ability to negotiate Medicare and Medicaid drug costs. The Veterans administration already does this. But, since the GOP (and many Dems too) have been bought off by "big pharma," this hasn't happened. Would be a huge money saver.

Democrats have proposed cuts in defense spending. Republicans supported a budget that includes no cuts, but increased defense spending even on projects the Dept of Defense doesn't even want. That seems far from "fiscally responsible."

The far-right seems committed to preserving the Bush tax cut for the top 2% along with everyone else. The only rationale I've heard is two things. First, it really won't generate that much revenue by eliminating it, and second, it will deter the so-called "job creators" (the GOP's clever name for this group) from creating new jobs. Given the lackluster job-growth under Bush (particularly when compared to the Clinton era stats) it seems pretty clear the cuts for the top 2% didn't stimulate much growth.

Frankly, I have yet to meet a business person who sits back and says "gosh if taxes go down 2% the first thing I'm gonna do is create more jobs." That's a fantasy. Businesses expand because they see more customers with money willing to buy what they sell, not because Uncle Sam let them pay a couple points less in taxes. Spending that tax break on expansion without some sane reason to expect that your less wealthy customers are ready to spend more in a nonsense.

The other argument - that going back to Clinton-era taxes won't generate enough or dent the deficit that much, is absurd. It amounts to "well, if it doesn't solve the whole problem, let's not do it at all." That's just stupid.

Consider the following. During the Bush years the US fought two wars and put the cost of both on a credit card. The so-called "fiscal conservatives" - for the first time in US History - borrowed the total cost of both wars and never raised taxes to cover the cost one cent.

In fact, they never even included the cost of the war on their federal budget calculations. The deficit caused by "war spending" never showed up in federal budget calculations until Obama included it in budget numbers as it should have been all along. Then, of course, the right blamed Obama for the exploding deficit.

On top of this no one really talks about the long term costs of providing health care to veterans injured in those wars. It's a huge number. Not exactly "social" spending on slackers.

During the Bush years a huge tax cut was adopted without any offset in spending. During the Bush years an expensive prescription drug plan was added to Medicare without a plan to recover the cost. More "vote buying" deficit spending supported by Bush and most of his "fiscal conservative" pals along with some vote hungry Democrats.

Think about it. Cost of two wars, lost revenue from Bush tax cut, new prescription drug plan all exploded - and continue to increase federal deficit and debt. And now the GOP followers get bent out of shape because some want to restore taxes on the top 2% to what they thrived under during the Clinton years. These are not what one might call positions based on principles.

I recommend the following as one possible solution to this mess. Probably one both parties would reject, but one that just might work. Washington is not known for thinking outside the box.

The People's Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)
although this entire post is riddled with nonsense let me just point out the error with the highlighted portion.
did Bush fund the wars through supplemental funding bills and not in his budget? yes

did this cause the cost of the wars to not show up in the deficit? no.
the deficit is calculated based on all actual government spending not simply what was in the budget.

all of the Bush era deficits INCLUDED the costs of the wars.
Obama's very large spike in deficit had nothing to do with putting the cost of the war in the budget. It has everything to do with the stimulus package which was passed in 2009 and every year since Democrats have refused to offer any budget (not exactly responsible or principled) and instead run the government on continuing resolutions which has allowed them to codify the "one time stimulus" into every years spending. that is why every year since the stimulus was passed we have had $1.2 trillion deficits.

Obamas deficit is double or triple Bush's even though the Iraq war is over.
many people run around repeating this silly "war on a credit card" talk and erroneously believe that this somehow hid the cost of the wars. It didn't.
The Sandy relief bill wasn't in any budget either, is that another one we put on the credit card which won't effect the deficit? come on.
Before offering plans the fist step is to understand the problems and know the facts.

[rwryley]

First of all Bush did NOT include the cost of the war in his budgets. Go look at the President's budget submission from 2004 through 2009 and you will NOT find it.

Second, while the cost of the war was funded through supplemental funding bills those bills authorized expenditures for the war but DID NOT raise a penny of additional revenue to cover that cost. Therefore the credit card metaphor is entirely correct. That spending added to the deficits and national debt. Regardless of which war it is or which president (Bush or Obama) the costs of wars add significantly to the debt each year.

The argument that funding the war with a supplemental appropriation bill (without finding "new money" to pay for it) does not add to debt, reflects the stupid mentality that created this mess. I am not ignoring the fact that many, many Democrats supported this hoax too. But, to blame it entirely on Obama is fraud. And to act outraged about it now is an even bigger hoax.

It is true that annual budgets have not been adopted in recent years and that the government has been funded by continuing resolutions. However it is not true - actually it's an outright lie - to say that the Democrats have "refused" to offer a budget. The Obama administration - specifically the Treasury Department - every single year has submitted a budget proposal to Congress. That Congress didn't act on it is another story.

For a few of those years I think it was both GOP leaders - O'Connell and Boehner - who made it quite clear their singular goal was to defeat Obama and part of that plan gave us the most "do nothing" Congress in memory. Their strategy was to block everything. Even two years ago when Obama and Bohener actually appeared to have struck a long term deal (the so-called "grand bargain") it was the Republican caucus (specifically Paul Ryan and his followers) who blew it up. Not because it was bad policy, but because they didn't want Obama to get credit for anything. I can assure you there were parts of that deal that liberal Democrats would have hated. But in the end, most would have reluctantly supported it. Can't say the same about the GOP's Ryanista wing.

Let's be clear about something in this discussion over national debt and budget priorities. No one I know honestly believes you can balance the budget and reduce deficits without both cutting spending and raising taxes. That means conservatives will have to grow up and give up the notion that we can simply cut our way out of massive debt. It's not going to happen. If you continue military spending increases, cut social spending AND cut taxes even more, and you believe that that formula will reduce debt and the deficit you are a total fraud.

Likewise, liberals are going to have to confront the reality that we need to cut social spending over the long haul to get out of the debt hole. Cuts should be targeted to do the least harm to the most needy. But, everyone is going to have to "give" something.

For me the bottom line is simple. If two hard-headed Irishmen like liberal Tip O'Neil and conservative Ronald Reagan could find ways to compromise and put the country first, the people elected today should be able to do the same thing.

But, when you have some pretty conservative wackos to the far right who are willing to blow things up because they think they are "morally" right, or have some notion that their philosophy is just the way things must be or else, there is no basis for compromise.

It's a pretty sad day when the Republican Speaker of the House can't even bring his own plan up for a vote because a tiny minority of about 35-50 (out of 241) of his party colleagues have jumped ship on him. That speaks louder than almost anything I could say.

[rwryley]

I don't think it's ever been a secret that the Administration cut a deal with Big Pharma by agreeing that Medicare and Medicare would not try to negotiate for lower prescription prices.

But don't blame that exclusively on Obama. Fact is many Democrats in Congress - perhaps most -hate it. Given what happened to Hillary Clinton twenty years ago, it was an effort to remove one high powered source of opposition. Actually the bigger concession was the mandate requiring everyone to get coverage.

I have been nothing short of amazed by conservatives hypocrisy over the Obamacare issue. The basic proposal and the general outline of the plan was actually not Mitt Romey's but came out of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank years ago and was supported by many Republicans.

Amazing how a basically "Republican" idea - a fairly creative one at that - becomes a communist plot to take over health care in American when proposed by a Democrat.

[HUSKER55]

that is called politics :D

[elysiantraveller]

But, when you have some pretty conservative wackos to the far right who are willing to blow things up because they think they are "morally" right, or have some notion that their philosophy is just the way things must be or else, there is no basis for compromise.

It's a pretty sad day when the Republican Speaker of the House can't even bring his own plan up for a vote because a tiny minority of about 35-50 (out of 241) of his party colleagues have jumped ship on him. That speaks louder than almost anything I could say.

The exact same thing is happening on the left though. Plenty Liberal lawmakers have made it clear that they would rather go over the cliff than slash benefits. Boehner, despite probably being the best statesmen in this whole ordeal, has a extremely shitty job.

Don't kid yourself, the President is just as bad at rallying his party.

[Tom]

So, in essence. Blame Bush.
How refreshing. :rolleyes:

hcap, if we go back to Clinton's tax rates, we should also go back to his spending.

[rwryley]

Trust me, Obama has some wackos on the left to deal with but they would not be able (and I don't think they would want to) to sandbag the President the way the the Repubs far righties did to the Speaker.

No doubt Boehner has a tough job. I don't envy him. But calling him a statesman seems like a bit of a stretch.

The great thing about America is that amidst this debate about 8:20pm tonight attention in D.C. will shift to NFL football. There will be Rs and Ds cheering for both squads who are on decidedly different sides right now in the political debates. If we could only bring such a "cooperative" spirit inside the capitol when work resumes Monday.

[elysiantraveller]

Trust me, Obama has some wackos on the left to deal with but they would not be able (and I don't think they would want to) to sandbag the President the way the the Repubs far righties did to the Speaker.

You are crazy.

The media doesn't report it the way they do for Boehner but they sand bag him all the time.

How many of Obama's budgets have been put before a vote?

That job's bill sure got rammed through quick too... :rolleyes:

HCR was a easy push too... :faint:

The media doesn't talk about it but the President is terrible at unifying his party.

[Tom]

Obama has not been a leader at any point in all of this.
He has has done nothing but throw roadblocks and change the deal every time. When Boehner offered the exact same plan that Pelsoi had offered up earlier, it was not even going to get a vote.

Now the big jerk in the WH is demanding and up or down vote if, in effect, the repubs do not cave in. Where the hell was this jerk when the senate refused to vote on over 40 bills the House sent? There has not been an ounce of compromise by the dems - not a single instance where they have given a thing. So screw them.

This is 100% the fault of the dems - read my lips - 100%.

[rwryley]

Obama has not been a leader at any point in all of this.
He has has done nothing but throw roadblocks and change the deal every time. When Boehner offered the exact same plan that Pelsoi had offered up earlier, it was not even going to get a vote.

Now the big jerk in the WH is demanding and up or down vote if, in effect, the repubs do not cave in. Where the hell was this jerk when the senate refused to vote on over 40 bills the House sent? There has not been an ounce of compromise by the dems - not a single instance where they have given a thing. So screw them.

This is 100% the fault of the dems - read my lips - 100%.

And when the going gets a tad tough we have to resort to calling the President a "jerk." That really adds to constructive discussion.

Send me a list of the 40 bills you're talking about. Fact is, the GOP has an unwritten rule (so called Hastert Rule) that any bill that doesn't have at least a majority of the Republicans in the House in favor of it won't get a vote even if a bi-partisan majority of Dems and Repubs are willing to pass it. That's about as dictatorial as it gets and undemocratic to boot. Don't lecture us on who is at fault. There's enough of that blame to go around.

Screwing the so-called "them" is screwing the country. Such a pity.

[rwryley]

You are crazy.

The media doesn't report it the way they do for Boehner but they sand bag him all the time.

How many of Obama's budgets have been put before a vote?

That job's bill sure got rammed through quick too... :rolleyes:

HCR was a easy push too... :faint:

The media doesn't talk about it but the President is terrible at unifying his party.

For the record I'm not crazy.

Second, given that O'Connell in the Senate was going to block consideration by demanding a sixty vote super-majority to consider the jobs bill and virtually any other bill advanced by the President, what's the point? The Dems may have a 53 to 48 majority in the Senate, but when the Rs demand 60 votes to even consider a bill your argument really has no credibility.

It's interesting that you Rs never seem to give the President any points when he joins with you guys to sell out the Bill of Rights on things like wireless wire tapping and torture. But suddenly, on the economic issues he's a fool, a jerk, to some even a socialist. And his supporters are crazy. Fascinating debate strategy. Oh, and when all else fails, blame the media.

[elysiantraveller]

Second, given that O'Connell in the Senate was going to block consideration by demanding a sixty vote super-majority to consider the jobs bill and virtually any other bill advanced by the President, what's the point?

Let me explain politics real quick for you...

If you want to really paint a party as obstructionist you put up legislation so the other party can shoot it down. It hurts them in the polls. It hurts them in elections. It hurts their unity as a party. When you have that opportunity you do it!

The Democrats can't do that because they have their own problems. They barely got HCR through after a year of working on it.

Both parties have their problems the biggest one being leadership. The rest of your post is just deflection.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Second, given that O'(Mc)Connell in the Senate was going to block consideration by demanding a sixty vote super-majority to consider the jobs bill and virtually any other bill advanced by the President, what's the point? ...

Two points to it that are serious enough that the "what's the point" theory doesn't wash with me as I've opined in other threads:

1) It's their job. Again, we have a litany of examples of "light" legislation that wasn't passed because of obstructionism. Apparently, there was a point to forwarding all of that legislation. Hundreds of bills that Republicans blocked. We get the line all the time when it makes that side of the case - "hey, we tried, but they wouldn't let us" - and as I've stated elsewhere, where is all of the major legislation that would have us in Ameritopia by now if it weren't for the fact that it was blocked. Several hundred bills and I've gotten two sincere replies and the best examples were bills that actually were passed. I hate being redundant, but surely we didn't have time to press on with all of those hundreds of bills for emergency radio subsidies and whatnot, but said, "ah hell" to the important ones.

2) And this is the one that actually counts, because it is a political argument. These nitwits are in the business of crafting great sounding legislation and then attaching crap to it that they know good and well will get voted down JUST so they can claim that the pretext bill was voted against by so-and-so. "John Dicklicker voted AGAINST our veterans getting blah blah blah" when the reality is that John Dicklicker voted against the rider that was going to pay for a cotton candy factory in Tibet. So, I don't REALLY buy into the theory that these vote hookers wouldn't press on with anything important because they know there's no point. There is SO much to gain politically by being able to attack your opponent for voting against something specific, that the whole "what's the point" theory just does not fly whatsoever with me.

I can avoid ranting redundantly on many of these recycled arguments, but that one grinds my gears for some reason. :D

[Tom]

And when the going gets a tad tough we have to resort to calling the President a "jerk." That really adds to constructive discussion.

The truth never hurts.

[rwryley]

Two points to it that are serious enough that the "what's the point" theory doesn't wash with me as I've opined in other threads:

1) It's their job. Again, we have a litany of examples of "light" legislation that wasn't passed because of obstructionism. Apparently, there was a point to forwarding all of that legislation. Hundreds of bills that Republicans blocked. We get the line all the time when it makes that side of the case - "hey, we tried, but they wouldn't let us" - and as I've stated elsewhere, where is all of the major legislation that would have us in Ameritopia by now if it weren't for the fact that it was blocked. Several hundred bills and I've gotten two sincere replies and the best examples were bills that actually were passed. I hate being redundant, but surely we didn't have time to press on with all of those hundreds of bills for emergency radio subsidies and whatnot, but said, "ah hell" to the important ones.

2) And this is the one that actually counts, because it is a political argument. These nitwits are in the business of crafting great sounding legislation and then attaching crap to it that they know good and well will get voted down JUST so they can claim that the pretext bill was voted against by so-and-so. "John Dicklicker voted AGAINST our veterans getting blah blah blah" when the reality is that John Dicklicker voted against the rider that was going to pay for a cotton candy factory in Tibet. So, I don't REALLY buy into the theory that these vote hookers wouldn't press on with anything important because they know there's no point. There is SO much to gain politically by being able to attack your opponent for voting against something specific, that the whole "what's the point" theory just does not fly whatsoever with me.

I can avoid ranting redundantly on many of these recycled arguments, but that one grinds my gears for some reason. :D

Minus the off-color lingo I can actually appreciate your point. That criticism applies to both sides.

It's also a two-way street and your point also applies to letting those who just want to gum up the works get away with it. I think Harry Reid's biggest mistake comes when Mitch McConnell announces his intention to pursue a fillibuster on some proposal, Reid pulls the bill. That's just wrong. If either party wants to pursue a fillibuster they should be required to plant themselves on the floor of the Senate and talk forever.

Sooner or later the public will see for themselves who are the real culprits that want to stall everything they don't like even when they don't have anything close to a majority.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Minus the off-color lingo ...

My apologies. When using ambiguous aliases in lieu of proper names in the context of referencing our fine elected officials, my fingers have a habit of getting right through the filter attached to what's left of my brain.

[rwryley]

Let me explain politics real quick for you...

If you want to really paint a party as obstructionist you put up legislation so the other party can shoot it down. It hurts them in the polls. It hurts them in elections. It hurts their unity as a party. When you have that opportunity you do it!

The Democrats can't do that because they have their own problems. They barely got HCR through after a year of working on it.

Both parties have their problems the biggest one being leadership. The rest of your post is just deflection.

I think I understand politics pretty well. Spent many years in it and understand the process. When the Rs marched lock-step and 100% refused to support virtually any form of health-care reform, Obama had no choice but to try to build sufficient support on his own side. In the end he did that. Something no other Democrat was able to do. Any criticism of him suggesting he lacked or the party lacked unity or leadership on the issue is just baloney. Whether you like it or not the bill passed. Case closed.

The idea that it is common practice to put up legislation that will get shot down by the other side is by no means a common strategy. What piece of legislation did the Dems or Obama propose that got shot down by the Rs? Specifically how were they hurt in polls or the election on what issue?

I have seen cases where parties play the referendum or ballot initiative game by putting on the ballot a question intended to bring out voters who typically support their candidates. But I can't remember an instance where a bill was proposed just to get the other side to vote against it and knock it down. But on second thought, maybe Boehner's "Plan B" was such a bill. He knew D's wold never accept it without teeing off large parts of their support. But then, if that was his plan, it failed miserably as he couldn't even get enough R support to bring it to the floor.

Frankly, the Republican fillibuster strategy has been used mostly against bills they knew had sufficient votes to pass if a vote were permitted. We have reached the point where virtually anything has to have 60 votes (not 51) to get considered. Hardly a fair "majority rule" process.

I see the real underlying problem right now not so much about leadership at the top of each party, but a determined minority of members married to ideology who think negotiating and compromise are bad things. Honestly, I see this far more coming from the farther shores of the ring wing than anywhere else. Just my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.

[PaceAdvantage]

According to this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost between $3.7 and $4.4 trillion. Or almost half the increase in the National debt since that time. All for nothing.No, no, no...now hold on there just a damn minute. The war in AFGHANISTAN has been deemed by you and your cohorts to be JUST.

So you can't count that cost.

I was simply asking about Iraq. That's the UNJUST war...or have you forgotten?

[PaceAdvantage]

Unless according to the idiots at Drudge...........

Stir it up good. Guys Inhale deeply Only a matter of time until you
gents start another revival meeting thread on this "NEW" conspiracy :eek:

http://aka-cdn-ns.adtechus.com/apps/173/Ad0St3Sz170Sq0V0Id21968045/300x250_Obamas-3rd-Term_Conspiracy_black-on-white.gif

Hey Fast, don't forget to secure all tin foil beanies, and fill us in on how the Bilderbergers are involved. Remember to orient all beanies north/south to improve reception, and face west while standing on the left leg. There are other curiously anatomical recommendations, but in case any kids are reading this, ..........Oh well. :)Why do you continue with this disingenuous nonsense? That is an ADVERTISEMENT at Drudge. Yet you make it out to be some sort of editorial content.

Please stop overextending yourself...you're gonna throw your back out one day...you'll thank me later.

[hcap]

Why do you continue with this disingenuous nonsense? That is an ADVERTISEMENT at Drudge. Yet you make it out to be some sort of editorial content.

Please stop overextending yourself...you're gonna throw your back out one day...you'll thank me later.Funny, you should mention it, I did throw my back out yesterday somewhere around the time I did my regular check of what new junk Drudge is pushing. :) Sort of like straining to see how bad an accident is while driving by and craning your neck when it becomes apparent just how horrendous the accident really was.

You know the reason Drudge posts adds like that one. Don't you?

[Tom]

You hurt your back jumping to conclusion and dodging the truth.:lol:

[dartman51]

No, no, no...now hold on there just a damn minute. The war in AFGHANISTAN has been deemed by you and your cohorts to be JUST.

So you can't count that cost.

I was simply asking about Iraq. That's the UNJUST war...or have you forgotten?

Try this one PA, I believe a little more accurate. :ThmbUp:
http://costofwar.com/

[PaceAdvantage]

Try this one PA, I believe a little more accurate. :ThmbUp:
http://costofwar.com/So the Iraq war accounts for less than 7% of the current total Federal Debt of this country? Relying of course on the most likely not-very-accurate numbers presented on that link you provided.

Good to know.

[dartman51]

So the Iraq war accounts for less than 7% of the current total Federal Debt of this country? Relying of course on the most likely not-very-accurate numbers presented on that link you provided.

Good to know.

I don't think the figure is off as much as you think. As you can see, the totals are still going up. According to the CBO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

Indirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[10][11]

People jumped on the 3 trillion figure, because some guy wrote a book about it and the Washington Post reported it. If you have more accurate figures, then show them. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

My point was not to dispute the actual number. My point was to show that this constant referencing of the Iraq war as some sort of major reason why this country is in a financial mess is easily refuted when it's seen that even by using your numbers, the war accounts for less than 7% of the total debt.

[barn32]

Meanwhile back at the pumps...

Thank you President Obama!

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2287/gaspricesvegas1113.png

[Tom]

You are a great example of why we are hopelessly in debt that we can never repay.

It is hard to imagine there are still simpletons around who think the president has anything to do with gas prices, but I bet you are one happy fella!

[JustRalph]

Still a dollar more than when he was elected

I'm sure he will get right on that

[fast4522]

There are those in the administration that want what we pay at the pump to be on par with Europe. The real issue with the debt is the amount of despair inflation will guarantee, inflation is in check right now just by circumstance much like the eye of a storm directly over you that will change rapidly. The amount of our debt we still can fix if there was will to do so, sadly we have monsters hellbent at the controls looking to slam the country into walls the likes of which we have never seen before. The key wording is sustenance, because under the current rate of spending there is no way to provide sustenance no matter how much you tax the rich. That being said it becomes obvious that the wall is the objective and the product is despair for complete control and takeover.

[soupan]

There are those in the administration that want what we pay at the pump to be on par with Europe. The real issue with the debt is the amount of despair inflation will guarantee, inflation is in check right now just by circumstance much like the eye of a storm directly over you that will change rapidly. The amount of our debt we still can fix if there was will to do so, sadly we have monsters hellbent at the controls looking to slam the country into walls the likes of which we have never seen before. The key wording is sustenance, because under the current rate of spending there is no way to provide sustenance no matter how much you tax the rich. That being said it becomes obvious that the wall is the objective and the product is despair for complete control and takeover.

Control and takeover?? By Whom??? Obama? The Democrats?

With the ability to manipulate global interest rates,, you won't see any significant inflation until the economy turns enough to ease rates.
That ain't happening soon.

[soupan]

There are those in the administration that want what we pay at the pump to be on par with Europe. The real issue with the debt is the amount of despair inflation will guarantee, inflation is in check right now just by circumstance much like the eye of a storm directly over you that will change rapidly. The amount of our debt we still can fix if there was will to do so, sadly we have monsters hellbent at the controls looking to slam the country into walls the likes of which we have never seen before. The key wording is sustenance, because under the current rate of spending there is no way to provide sustenance no matter how much you tax the rich. That being said it becomes obvious that the wall is the objective and the product is despair for complete control and takeover.

Please name who in what administration that want us to pay at the pump what Europe pays.

You know everyone bitches about taxes here in the good ole' USA but the reason those prices are high in Europe is due to the taxes associated with gas per litre.

Now, shall we talk about the VAT drain on the average citizen overseas?

If we would ever have instituted a VAT type tax years ago, the states wouldn't be able to tax the way they tax and they'd just be bitching to Washington about not getting their fair share back in return.
So which way do you want it? State Tax or Feds?????

(Neither is not an option, unless you want no cops, firemen, teachers, etc)

[riskman]

The only reason the United States is able to service this current level of debt is that the low interest rate on government debt (now below 2 per cent) keeps debt service payments to a manageable $300 billion per year. There are estimates the national debt could hit $20 trillion in a few years. What happens if the interests rates return to some semblance of normalcy, say 5 per cent. Interest payments on the debt would then run $1 trillion per year. This could represent almost 40 per cent of total federal revenues in 2012! The debt burden that the United Stated will face when interest rates rise presents a much larger "fiscal cliff." Unfortunately, no one is talking about that one. Is this something to be concerned about or will interests rates remain low and what circumstances would effect this-- higher or lower rates.

[Tom]

Please name who in what administration that want us to pay at the pump what Europe pays.


Obama - through his actions.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-02/news/bs-ed-oil-drilling-20120402_1_prices-oil-production-higher-gas

In September 2008, Steven Chu said to The Wall Street Journal: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" — and Barack Obama picked him to be secretary of the Department of Energy.

[soupan]

Obama - through his actions.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-02/news/bs-ed-oil-drilling-20120402_1_prices-oil-production-higher-gas

Tom..really,

This guy had to be misquoted or more likely, the point he was trying to make about America's energy thirst was twisted to make it seem like he truly wants gas prices to rise to European levels.
It looks like the rest of what he said was purposely omitted.

Anyone with any economic experience knows that just the size of this country alone and our distribution methods by tractor trailer would cripple our economy.

You need to make more realistic points.
NO ONE TAKES SHU'S STATEMENT SERIOUSLY (except you).

[soupan]

The only reason the United States is able to service this current level of debt is that the low interest rate on government debt (now below 2 per cent) keeps debt service payments to a manageable $300 billion per year. There are estimates the national debt could hit $20 trillion in a few years. What happens if the interests rates return to some semblance of normalcy, say 5 per cent. Interest payments on the debt would then run $1 trillion per year. This could represent almost 40 per cent of total federal revenues in 2012! The debt burden that the United Stated will face when interest rates rise presents a much larger "fiscal cliff." Unfortunately, no one is talking about that one. Is this something to be concerned about or will interests rates remain low and what circumstances would effect this-- higher or lower rates.

World interest rates now seem to be manipulated by Central Banks more then ever. As long as they stay in collusion, with everyone needing rates to move slowly for the markets to absorb, there wont be a problem.
Rates won't be allowed to move upward until world economies get considerably stronger.
Of course that's when we'll have to deal with the next problem:
INFLATION.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Tom..really,

This guy had to be misquoted or more likely, the point he was trying to make about America's energy thirst was twisted to make it seem like he truly wants gas prices to rise to European levels.

...

He's an extremely bright man, and Nobel winner, and he is definitely a very sincere believer in moving as far away from fossil fuels to alternative energy as possible, as soon as possible. Big, big advocate of the climate change movement. I admit that I've never heard the entirety of the context of his statements, but they aren't misquoted - I tend to believe that he actually would prefer to see a scenario where economic realities coerced people into moving towards nuclear and renewables and away from fossil fuels.

[fast4522]

Bilderburg Meeting 2012

Chairman

FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays plc
USA Ajami, Fouad Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
USA Alexander, Keith B. Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency
INT Almunia, Joaquín Vice-President – Commissioner for Competition, European Commission
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners
PRT Amado, Luís Chairman, Banco Internacional do Funchal (BANIF)
NOR Andresen, Johan H. Owner and CEO, FERD
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
TUR Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto President and CEO, Impresa; Former Prime Minister
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
FRA Béchu, Christophe Senator, and Chairman, General Council of Maine-et-Loire
BEL Belgium, H.R.H. Prince Philippe of
TUR Berberoğlu, Enis Editor-in-Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper
ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia
GBR Boles, Nick Member of Parliament
SWE Bonnier, Jonas President and CEO, Bonnier AB
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt
SWE Carlsson, Gunilla Minister for International Development Cooperation
CAN Carney, Mark J. Governor, Bank of Canada
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA; Chairman, El País
AUT Cernko, Willibald CEO, UniCredit Bank Austria AG
FRA Chalendar, Pierre André de Chairman and CEO, Saint-Gobain
DNK Christiansen, Jeppe CEO, Maj Invest
RUS Chubais, Anatoly B. CEO, OJSC RUSNANO
CAN Clark, W. Edmund Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group
GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice
USA Collins, Timothy C. CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
ITA Conti, Fulvio CEO and General Manager, Enel S.p.A.
USA Daniels, Jr., Mitchell E. Governor of Indiana
USA DeMuth, Christopher Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
USA Donilon, Thomas E. National Security Advisor, The White House
GBR Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc
ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus
USA Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Global Head of Growth Markets, Goldman Sachs & Co.
AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University
GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
CHN Fu, Ying Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
IRL Gallagher, Paul Former Attorney General; Senior Counsel
USA Gephardt, Richard A. President and CEO, Gephardt Group
GRC Giannitsis, Anastasios Former Minister of Interior; Professor of Development and International Economics, University of Athens
USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
ITA Gruber, Lilli Journalist – Anchorwoman, La 7 TV
INT Gucht, Karel de Commissioner for Trade, European Commission
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
USA Harris, Britt CIO, Teacher Retirement System of Texas
USA Hoffman, Reid Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
CHN Huang, Yiping Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University
USA Huntsman, Jr., Jon M. Chairman, Huntsman Cancer Foundation
DEU Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference; Global Head Government Relations, Allianz SE
RUS Ivanov, Igor S. Associate member, Russian Academy of Science; President, Russian International Affairs Council
FRA Izraelewicz, Erik CEO, Le Monde
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard
USA Karp, Alexander CEO, Palantir Technologies
USA Karsner, Alexander Executive Chairman, Manifest Energy, Inc
FRA Karvar, Anousheh Inspector, Inter-ministerial Audit and Evaluation Office for Social, Health, Employment and Labor Policies
RUS Kasparov, Garry Chairman, United Civil Front (of Russia)
GBR Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords
USA Kerry, John Senator for Massachusetts
TUR Keyman, E. Fuat Director, Istanbul Policy Center and Professor of International Relations, Sabanci University
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa Chairman, Koç Holding A.Ş.
DEU Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger Berger SE
INT Kodmani, Bassma Member of the Executive Bureau and Head of Foreign Affairs, Syrian National Council
USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
INT Kroes, Neelie Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
USA Krupp, Fred President, Environmental Defense Fund
INT Lamy, Pascal Director-General, World Trade Organization
ITA Letta, Enrico Deputy Leader, Democratic Party (PD)
ISR Levite, Ariel E. Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
USA Li, Cheng Director of Research and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
USA Lipsky, John Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University
USA Liveris, Andrew N. President, Chairman and CEO, The Dow Chemical Company
DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG
USA Lynn, William J. Chairman and CEO, DRS Technologies, Inc.
GBR Mandelson, Peter Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
DEN Mchangama, Jacob Director of Legal Affairs, Center for Political Studies (CEPOS)
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Group
USA Mehlman, Kenneth B. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
PRT Moreira da Silva, Jorge First Vice-President, Partido Social Democrata (PSD)
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
DEU Nass, Matthias Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
ESP Nin Génova, Juan María Deputy Chairman and CEO, Caixabank
IRL Noonan, Michael Minister for Finance
USA Noonan, Peggy Author, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc
USA Orszag, Peter R. Vice Chairman, Citigroup
GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Managing Director, Titan Cement Co.
NLD Pechtold, Alexander Parliamentary Leader, Democrats ’66 (D66)
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
NLD Polman, Paul CEO, Unilever PLC
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP
ISR Rabinovich, Itamar Global Distinguished Professor, New York University
GBR Rachman, Gideon Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Rattner, Steven Chairman, Willett Advisors LLC
CAN Redford, Alison M. Premier of Alberta
CAN Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
DEU Reitzle, Wolfgang CEO & President, Linde AG
USA Rogoff, Kenneth S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University
USA Rose, Charlie Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
USA Ross, Dennis B. Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
POL Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
NLD Rutte, Mark Prime Minister
ESP Sáenz de Santamaría Antón, Soraya Vice President and Minister for the Presidency
NLD Scheffer, Paul Professor of European Studies, Tilburg University
USA Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
FRA Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group
USA Shambaugh, David Director, China Policy Program, George Washington University
INT Sheeran, Josette Vice Chairman, World Economic Forum
FIN Siilasmaa, Risto Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nokia Corporation
USA Speyer, Jerry I. Chairman and Co-CEO, Tishman Speyer
CHE Supino, Pietro Chairman and Publisher, Tamedia AG
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital / Thiel Capital
TUR Timuray, Serpil CEO, Vodafone Turkey
DEU Trittin, Jürgen Parliamentary Leader, Alliance 90/The Greens
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
FIN Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG
INT Vimont, Pierre Executive Secretary General, European External Action Service
GBR Voser, Peter CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
GBR Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company
CAN Wright, Nigel S. Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
USA Yergin, Daniel Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group
Rapporteurs
GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist
GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

[Tom]

Just got my first paycheck with the reduced net.
Thank you, President Obama, you rat-kissing bastard.

[NJ Stinks]

Just got my first paycheck with the reduced net.
Thank you, President Obama, you rat-kissing bastard.

Too bad Republicans in Congress were so preoccupied with the estate tax and the OTHER 2%. Otherwise, I'm sure they would have fought to keep THIS 2% reduction in Social Security payroll taxes. :rolleyes:

[dartman51]

Tom..really,

This guy had to be misquoted or more likely, the point he was trying to make about America's energy thirst was twisted to make it seem like he truly wants gas prices to rise to European levels.
It looks like the rest of what he said was purposely omitted.

Anyone with any economic experience knows that just the size of this country alone and our distribution methods by tractor trailer would cripple our economy.

You need to make more realistic points.
NO ONE TAKES SHU'S STATEMENT SERIOUSLY (except you).

I don't believe he was misquoted.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfPbMklrJE

[iceknight]

The inauguration will cost $100 million+ of which about 30% will come from private donations. Thanks for only spending $70+ M of taxpayers money to do something that could be done in the oval office at virtually no cost.

Thanks again jackass. There is NO need for an inauguration because he is just continuing his term. Agree with you 100% on this.

[rastajenk]

Premature excitation on the part of the original poster:

Gas prices to rise in 2013 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/04/gasoline-prices-starting-to-rise-again/1810175/)

"The celebration is over,'' says Patrick DeHaan, senior energy analyst at gasbuddy.com, which operates 250 North American price-tracking websites. DeHaan expects prices to rise another 35 cents a gallon through early April before peaking at about $3.95 a gallon

[Valuist]

Thank you Mr. President for these 37 points:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/37-statistics-which-show-how-four-years-of-obama-have-wrecked-the-u-s-economy

[JustRalph]

Thank you Mr. President for these 37 points:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/37-statistics-which-show-how-four-years-of-obama-have-wrecked-the-u-s-economy

Don't worry........they want to put him on Mt. Rushmore

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'd like to see President Obama put on Mount Rushmore - and then shoved off!

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'd like to see President Obama put on Mount Rushmore - and then shoved off!

You didn't really think that one through...

http://images.hollywood.com/site/dumbo_flying.jpg

[Tom]

Damn, you ARE good! :lol::lol::lol:

You didn't really think that one through...

http://images.hollywood.com/site/dumbo_flying.jpg

[rastajenk]

It's all going as some have foreseen; and hoped for! Nothing redistributes the wealth as quickly as gas spikes. Thanks, Mr. President

AAA reports biggest sudden increase in years (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/284081-aaa-four-week-gas-price-increase-largest-in-over-three-years)

Average nationwide prices were $3.75 per gallon Tuesday, the highest on record for the calendar day.

[Tom]

Couple the higher gas prices with the 2% tax increase every working American saw January 1, thanks to Obama, and we are worse off than last year.

Thank you, Barry.