*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

Page 2 of 8  


had actually pulled the plug or if that route hadn't been permitted in the first place. What happened was they okayed everything and then at the last minute they put it off only to study it and get a report back immediately after the election. WHen my politicians screw me for political gain, I at least expect them to respect my intelligence and at least TRY to not make it so blatant.
That's

issue. We'll see if they use it successfully in November.
W

employed (g). It would have employed a bunch of welders and earth mover operators, etc., that are not otherwise employed. Sorta surprised at this since it was a whole bunch of union jobs that were trashed.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Maybe I'm too gullible, but the hullabaloo about the pipeline from the environmentally concerned (that's my take) made sense to me. If that is really untrue, let's find out. For now, doing stripmining and cooking the rocks to eventually get syrupy gooey oil that apparently is quite corrosive, that is not something that should be undertaken lightly. And that OK you talk about, that was hanky panky between the pipeline company and the State Dept, for chrissake. So, it was right to put a stop to the process and reconsider things.

I had the impression that the republicans thought they could get a quick campaign issue out of it, but apparently the democrats were able to turn the tables.

The jobs issues were apparently very dependent on one's views. The calculations on the numbers of jobs varied from a few thousand to 100's of thousands. Given that how you count them and how you calculate dependent jobs is an art for devils, I don't pay that much attention to what is said. I understand that pipeline construction is rather specialized, so it is almost sure that local unemployment won't be helped much. Do I care about the specialized jobs? Perhaps not as much as I should.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've been following this for a while, and the Keystone folks were using some pretty strong-armed tactics that raised the ire of many. In an attempt to do it as fast and cheap as possible, they generated a large amount of their own troubles. Leahy's office says:
<<"I commend the President for standing up to strong-arm tactics that are intended to politicize this issue, short-circuit the environmental review process and force an arbitrary deadline. This inherently dirty tar sands project would be a wasteful diversion from the cleaner and more sustainable energy future and energy security that are so important to our country and our economy. "The first Keystone pipeline has ruptured many times already. Even when it was obvious that this blighted tar sands project posed unacceptable risks to American's health and safety, the oil companies' defenders in Congress were all for it. Then, when they could no longer ignore its threats to a vital Midwestern aquifer, they said it was all about jobs. Now they are gearing up to smother any meaningful review at all. That would compound the travesty.">> Source: http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?idb0F2280-5370-4F20-BB3B-B410D8AE7396

(-: When it became clear that the Keystone project crossed vital aquifiers, the big rush to the finish line suddenly slowed down. Not because Obama "dictated" it, but because people in the states that depended on those aquifiers for their livelihood wanted to know the real risks. After the way "fracking" was fast-tracked people started worrying about the impact on their water supply BEFORE the project started. You can live without oil, but not without clean water.
http://syracusefan.com/threads/rush.19557/page-7 says:
<<For the record, Transcanada's own consultant has stated the pipeline will reduce gasoline costs 4 cts on average and parts of the country (midwest) will actually see higher prices (they benefit from the bottleneck causing lower prices there). The big beneficiary of Keystone is Canadian oil producers, not Americans. Here's a story with a handful of Republicans against Keystone. Seems odd for a small government republican-type to support a non-US company trampling American's eminent domain rights.>>
The rest of the page reprints one of the many articles I read about how pushy Keystone, a HOME GUY NATION'S COMPANY!!!! (-" has been with American citizens.
<<TransCanada's 'Pushy' Keystone Builders Rile Oil-Friendly Texans 2012-03-02 05:01:00.20 GMT By David Mildenberg and Jim Efstathiou Jr. March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Oil-loving Texans have joined environmental activists to oppose TransCanada Corp.'s planned Keystone XL pipeline, upset over what they call strong-arm tactics used to run the conduit across their land. . . . "It's complicated," Jane Kleeb, founder and executive director of Bold Nebraska, said in an interview. "You start to get into people's cultural and historical ties to their land. They don't get and they don't agree with a private company, let alone a foreign company, seizing American land.">>
People from HOME GUY'S COUNTRY, seizing American land for a project that's going to benefit mostly Canadians. What happened to Republican concerns for property rights? For *American* jobs?

Partisan economics. "How much is 2 plus 2?" "How much do you *want* it to be?"

Pipeline jobs will probably go to Canadians working for or contracted to Keystone. The right is so desperate to create some sort of issue with the pipeline they don't even care who profits from it. It's "drill, baby, drill" all over again. Fortunately there are enough super-toxic Superfund cleanup sites left to remind us that businesses have been well-known to leave some very serious messes behind them as they skip away whistling the "Can't touch me" bankruptcy song. Then who gets to pay? Joe Taxpayer.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd much rather see Newt elected. He's the "Contract with America" guy. I think he's much more conservative than the Massacussets liberal who pushed national health care in the liberal state of Mass.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Following a similar scenario, I expect you'll see a substantial decline in the price of oil the minute Romney is elected. We could have as much oil in ANWR as Saudi Arabia, but until we go look, no one will know. Romney and the Republicans want to find out. Obama and the Dems could care less.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From your point of view (if I understand it), you're probably right. We'll find out soon (by June) what the SCOTUS thinks. As far as the "Contract with America" is concerned, politics when done right, should allow compromise. Since that abomination of a contract is mostly used as a straightjacket or as blackmail to stick to a far right of center point of view, you're shit out of luck to get governance. Wouldn't it be better to compromise and get the budget deficit under control?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How well has "compromise" worked? That "compromise" where the Republicans agree to some of the Democrats wasteful spending in exchange for some of their own, is precisely what's gotten us to where we were when Bush left office. Since then, spending has exploded far worse, by 40%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just keep harping on expenditures that started with Bush's TARP. See where that gets you. Unemployed yet?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's look at Bush's TARP. It was NOT spending, and never will be despite your lib attempts to characterize it as such. It was a LOAN program under Bush. TARP was expanded under Obama to include equity investment in the likes of GM. Of the $700bil authorized, as of today only about $70bil is still at risk. The rest has been PAID BACK, with interest. ALL the money from the banks in particular, has been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST. And as the govt sells off the remaining stock, etc, that it still owns, it's likely the net cost to the taxpayers will be very little or even zero.
And TARP existed in 2008/2009. Why do you libs keep harping back to that? It's now 2012 and the govt is running deficits north of $1Bil a year. Why is spending TODAY still 40% higher than it was in 2007?
Why are you libs so damn dumb?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have no answer. I laack the details.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"
in

...and EVERY penny has been again spent (the deficit did not go back down).

...because "It's George Bush's fault!" ...no matter what "it" is.

16 years of public education, followed by a career working for the government.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You were in an area where it was only management, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Uh, no, of course not. The Republicans have plans for budget and deficit control. We've seen the Democrats plan in action.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure you'll think this is just propaganda, but they must have gotten the data somewhere ... <http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/obamas-spending-record - more-conservative-than-reagans.html>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does that source possibly include their ass? Typical lib nonsense. I can give you scores of real data from real documented sources. Facts like federal spending grew 40% from 2007 to 2011. None of that has any impact on you. At the most, you say you don't know all the fact.
But some lib crackpots puts up some crap with no source, nothing, and you buy it. Go figure. You show me where Reagan increased spending by 40% in 4 years. Put up or shut up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NO, I am NOT in any way responsible for hight gas prices, moron!
In

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Reaganomics may not have appealed to socialists, but it was totally effective in producing prosperity.
Where, in the Constitution, does it give the Prez the power to decide which companies succeed or fail?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
The Republicans have no plan for deficit reduction. Many still cling to the Reaganomics which has been completely discredited by economists.
Obama's problem is that he inherited an economy in a severe recession, on the brink of depression, and brought it back from the edge. This required spending to prevent banks and key industries from collapsing.
Can you imagine what the GOP would be saying about Obama if he had allowed GM and Chrysler to go under?!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where, in the Constitution, does it give any branch of government power to spend tax payer money to keep any bank, or industry from collapsing?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
This required spending to prevent banks and key industries from collapsing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which unfortunately is some conglomeration of crap. They are comparing 8 years of Reagan to the current less than 4 of Obama.
Let's look at the real data. From 1980 to 1984 the federal budget grew by 9.7% in real dollars under Reagan. Under Obama, it's grown by 19%. In 1984, the deficit was Those are the hard numbers. Don't believe me, go look up the actual numbers yourself instead of relying on some fluff piece of crap journalism.

The Republicans have had many plans for deficit reduction through decreasing spending. Paul Ryan had one such plan. He was promplty villified by Obama in person, in public. So much for bipartisanship. There was also plans for deficit reduction presented to Obama by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Remember them? They were appointed to reach a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficits. Obama received their report and never mentioned it again. I guess on the positive side, at least he didn't villify them too.

Which is a lie. The money was LENT to the banks and all the money LENT to the banks has been paid back with interest. Of the rest of the $750bil of TARP money that was authorized to be lent out or invested, only about $75bil still remains at risk. The rest has been paid back. This also was way back in 2008/2009. So, it obviously has NOTHING to do with the current spending and borrowing orgy. How much longer are you lib whiners and apologists going to keep blaming the financial crisis of 2008?
You brought up Reagan for comparison. After he was elected, I never saw him whining about how everything was still Jimmy Carter's fault. He was left with a mess that included high unemployment, double digit inflation, Tbonds at 18%, and the prime rate at over 20%. Yet by this time in his presidency, those economic policies you don't agree with had produced a booming economy. We had month after month of 300,000 to 400,000 jobs created. One month, we hit over a million. Inflation was busted and coming down sharply.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do, your liberal solution to dealing with Japanese aggression would have been what? To continue to supply them with material so that they could kill more people, conquer more territory?
And what exactly would your solution be with Iran and Syria today? No trade sanctions, just send them a cake?
>Actually, as we see with gas prices the entire *world*

What sanctions have had anything to do with oil prices? Iran is still shipping as much oil as ever.
>If we want to stop Iran from building a bomb, a

Of course whenever we do that, libs like you show up bitching about how wrong that is too.

And how exactly does one do a "forced inspection"?

It's pretty much what DID happen in Iraq, but you libs opposed it.
>but instead we decided to

So, we should have done what exactly? Left the country in chaos? How does that square with your above alleged concern for the poor innocent civilians that suffer under mere sanctions?


Obviously it's too complex for you because you can't grasp the basics or form consistent positions. And of all the informed opinion in the world, your the only one that considers the problem of Iran simple.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 12:02pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Gas was about 15 cents more a gallon during part of the Bush administration than it is now. Does that mean that Bush wanted high energy prices too? Or should we chalk it up to his incredible incompetence like most other things he did?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.