Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

Not wanting tax increases is "so far right"? Wanting federal government spending equal to or less than revenues is "so far right"? And so it goes..., if I and others are "so far right", you can label it however you like - the problem you face is what are you going to do? I know what I am going to do, fight for those things I believe in..and so it goes.

You/Democrats/Liberals can compromise if you guys want. If your principles involve compromise offer a few up. Here is one, make permanent the Bush tax rates, and I will stop asking for those rates to be made permanent. You get your compromise and I get the Bush tax rates. sounds like a win - win.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM ---

and a 90% re-election rate! So much for those polls. My guy in Congress is o.k., your guy is...(fill in the blank with the description of choice).

When my Congress person stands firm and is unwilling "to cave" to liberal demands, he will have my unyielding support - I don't care if you don't approve. Congressional approval polls are of no value, Obama and the lamestream media play them up for their own reasons - grounded in diversion type tactics.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM ---

I recently paid $2.99 per gallon in South Carolina, there are places in California where the cost is $4.

When global oil production is close to capacity, prices are more subject to higher volatility due to short-term blips in demand. Same for oil refinery capacity. capacity issues are manageable, and with proper management stability can be achieved.

Alternatives can compensate for short-term capacity issues in oil and gas. Alternatives are managable....etc.....etc.

We need a comprehensive energy policy that addresses the needs for stable economic growth. We do not have to be victims of "global markets" in oil.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM ---

Then enjoy.

 

No tax increase, no compromise! Your way or no way!

Ten dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of tax increases on the rich? Fuck, NO! (Grover Norquist would be proud!)

It makes me almost long for the days of Ronald Reagan who understand the need to compromise (on taxes, social security, regulations, etc) for the greater good.

Thank you for making my point, Ace, on how extreme your position really is.. Enjoy the Tea Party while it lasts!

 

Obama has done many things militarily and diplomatically that I support. If you read my posts involving Obama they mostly involve his domestic economic policy positions, and his lack of conviction. The irony is that if militarily and diplomatically he acted in a manner consistent with how he ran to get elected I would have issue in this area as well. Who would have thought Gitmo would still be operational?

Also, I have no objection to issues like gay marriage or gays openly serving in the military. On those issues I actually thought he would have shown more leadership sooner.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM ---

I want the most efficient tax rates, why don't you? So yes, my way. It like, why settle for what is wrong?

Show me the proposal. If the proposal simplifies the tax code and flatens the rates, i would support that. I am clear on what I want. Impliment the cuts first, simplify the tax code, and then let's look at the rates for needed increases. There is no room for compromise regarding how I want to address the issue. Now that as a given, what to stop you from matching your wants with mine? Is it your unwillingness to move?

I don't hide my views. And, we will see what happens with the Tea Party, if most and growing numbers of Americans want to move in your direction the Tea Party will fade, otherwise it won't. We know what is at stake.

 

The Republicans can ignore the "spoiled brats" when they want to and they did today by passing the $100+billion transportation/infrastructure bill that will ensure continued funding for existing highway/infrastructure construction jobs (which would have expired tomorrow creating potential significant job loss) as well as creating as many as 1 million new constructions jobs over the next few years.

The vote in the House was 373-52, (with all the NOs being Republicans and Tea Party types led my Michelle Bachmann) and 74-19 in the Senate (all NOs Republican). It is a bi-partisan bill that was achieved through compromise - Democrats accepting streamlined environmental reviews and funneling more of the funds through the states (to give Republican governors the opportunity to take credit) and the Republicans backed off of their extreme offset provisions.

It also has provisions included to prevent a doubling of interest rates on new student loans which would have expired tomorrow as well.

This is how Congress should work, leaving the extremists on the sidelines.

 

I expect an increase turnover due to Tea Party candidates winning.

When a commodity reaches a level of scarcity due to demand far exceeding supply (one cause of this condition would be a capacity problem) prices begin to reflect factors outside of normal supply and demand resulting in heightened price volatility. For example in the oil industry there is an expected geopolitical risk premium in the price of oil - when oil production is near capacity levels, this premium increases. Why? At capacity levels any small or big geopolitical problem that might impact oil supply could have a devastating impact on those purchasing oil - there is a tendency to want to hedge or even hoard in this circumstance.

Historically this is not true. People, communities, societies often make short-term sacrifice or incur up-front costs for long-term benefit. In some cases it is done not knowing there will be a long-term benefit. Kennedy selling the nation to go to the moon comes to mind. Americans took this on and supported it not knowing if it could be done or if there would be any benefit other than national pride.

I used quotes because of the rhetoric involving US dependency on foreign energy sources when we could and should be energy independent. I think your post spoke of "global markets" - I think our views on this concept differ.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM ---

True, it is not difficult to put a spoiled brat in his/her place. I am amazed Obama or others have such a difficult time with it. Wouldn't you prefer a President who could get on the phone, like Lyndon Johnson, and get some stuff done. Why can't you admit Obama was not ready to be President? And why can't you admit Obama's style interferes with his ability to get stuff done?

I know when I go into a negotiation I am going to be tough, I am going to be an ass, I am going to be "in yo' face" arrogant (and i always give my wife fair warning in advance so she can avoid being embarrassed by my behavior, but she does love it when I save a few bucks here and there or otherwise get what we want) - you seem to take the position that I should just kneel and "kiss the ring" or something - what is that about?

One final thing on compromise - there is a fine line between compromising and being a fool. How about you compromise first!

 

I know I am on the edge of you taking some trivial point out of context - I hope you take that into consideration here.

Speculation or excessive speculation is outside of normal supply and demand. On the supply side a supplier can manipulate the market to create an emotional response or speculation in a market and drive up sales or prices. In Marketing 101 there is the lesson of the grocer who has an abundance of canned peas, they don't sell on day one. Then he places a restriction - limit two per customer, and he sells out on day two. This is outside of normal supply and demand. On the demand side, consumers can manipulate the market creating speculation in obvious ways outside of normal supply and demand forces - the Dutch Tulip Bubble of 1637 is the first most widely known account of this. In normal healthy markets we would not experience wide swings in supply or demand

It is true with oil and gas, I don't dispute that.

Oil production is subject to capacity. When production is near capacity levels adding new capacity takes time and investment - capacity can expand in a orderly fashion or it can expand in a erratic fashion. This is controllable. Transporting and refining has the same issues in this regard and are also controllable. Sustained and consistent economic growth is best achieved when the supply of energy and pricing is stable and predictable. I doubt you disagree.

My point is that a leader like Kennedy sold his vision and people bought into it. No President has sold the US public on wind, solar or other truly innovative alternative energy plans. When we get a leader who can make the case we will see progress at a much faster rate. I disagree with your premise that we won't be willing to make the sacrifice.

I was born in 1960 and was 9 years old when we landed on the moon. I do not recall a crisis of identity, superiority/inferiority or fear of the Soviets. I remember almost everything coming to a stop as we watched Armstrong take those historic steps. And I remember Tang as the greatest drink in the world and was devastated to learn it was not created for the space program - it was like being told Santa Clause...

I expect the US to lead.

I know that a commodity like oil is fungible, so is water but there is no global market for fresh drinking water. The water that I drink from my faucet has nothing to do with the water you drink from yours. So should it be with energy. I envision a world where a persons in Africa, New York, or Australia have sustainable sources for all of their energy needs without dependence on others - perhaps micro-markets rather than global markets. What is your vision, more and bigger concentrated sources of energy that get distributed by some centralized source? Again, I think our views of "global markets" differ.

 

Romney's fund raising is going through the roof so in a way he's won on this issue too. The interesting part I see is he's now getting donations from small donors and not just ultra wealthy and corporations. This has lit a fire under the right.

 

If Romney keeps the focus on this issue, he will have to explain repeatedly how he supported a federal mandate (and urged Obama to include a mandate in an op ed he wrote) in 2009.



I dont think he wants that out there or taking the focus off of jobs/economy (which is his only hope to attract the swing voters in the center.

 

I see differences between "speculation" and "investing" or "hedging". I would not stop a person from "speculating" in a market, but if "speculation" becomes a dominate or materially influential factor in a market - I believes it is disruptive to normal market operations and has mostly negative market consequences.

Yes. If a market more or less gets hijacked by speculators, it is best to wait it out or use hedge positions to manage the volatility brought on by speculation.

There have been long periods of time with relatively stable oil/energy prices. When these conditions have been true we have seen greater industrial production and greater gains in living standards.

Have you been to the Hoover Damn?




How about Niagra Falls?



Sexy comes in many forms. What we lack is visionary leadership in this era.

 

The Republican visionary energy policy


--- merged: Jul 26, 2012 4:15 AM ---
Or the sexier (?) version



2012 -- new bodies, same old vision.

 

No it isn't. Your question depends on one's perspective. It is a given that there is uncertainty. However, in many cases what is uncertain has limited possibilities. For example, for where I am there is uncertainty concerning tomorrows weather - but given what I know (knowledge - historical patterns, recent patterns, known record highs and lows etc.), it is simple for me to plan for the possible outcomes. for tomorrow I will be prepared for high temps in the range of 80 to 100, possible rain. From a long term point of view, I have purchased insurance for fire/wind/hail, I have drainage to minimize the exposure to flood, I have trimmed trees, etc, etc, etc.

Is your perspective based on simply being a victim to circumstance? Or que Sera Sera?

Majority of the 20th century prior to 1970.

Yes.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM ---

Oil is abundant, cheap and efficient. We need to maximize the use of this resource while making incremental improvements to environmental consequences and as we develop other sources of energy. I think this more accurately reflects the Republican party vision. What is the vision of your party?

 

Just as a point of fact, the abundant and cheap oil is still benefiting from federal subsidies to the tune of $4 billion/year and has been for nearly 100 years.



Just another example of government helping business.

But isn't 90+ years of help enough?