are the reason I ran for office."



http://www.weeklystandard.com/...-i-ran-office_610041.html

Nice sentiment. When he starts pandering to the people who voted for him, instead of the people who will never vote for him, that might mean something.

Obama was voted in to change things and people feel the only thing that changed was him.

Is pretty common, a single person can't change the whole game, to do that all the people need to get involved.

Not to mention that those that DO want to change things get taken out of the way before they become a problem.

Obama is the worst president this country has ever had.

Not really the worse.

Also you could say he got elected under traitorous waters as a single mistake on his part would had sent the world towards an spiral of fluff.

The problem is that he didn't do much either about the situation either.

No one wants to be responsible for the fluff fes that is sure to happen sometime soon, and I don't think anyone elected on the next term will do much either.

He walked into a situation where half the country expected him to fail and the other half did everything they could to help him fail. One man can't make a difference.

What got Obama elected was the fact that he had a plan to fix our economy. McCain and Palin both admitted they didn't know fluff about economics, or how to fix the problem Bush Jr. created.

While Bush was in office, several things were done that shouldn't have been allowed. Banks were deregulated, and were allowed to engage in predatory loaning, adjusting rates on loans and mortgages that made it to where those who owed the money were literally at the mercy of the banks. This also facilitated the housing market as real estate developers borrowed large amounts of money to build housing sub-divisions. And with the real estate developers, banks and mortgage companies all pushing
for home ownership, a lot of people jumped for it.

These are the same sharks who will tell you just how easy it is to get financing, adjustable rate mortgages, fixed rate mortgages, home equity lines of credit, no payments down for a certain amount of time deals and whatnot. And had the economy not began to go to fluff during the time all of this began it wouldn't have affected so many people, the problem is Congress bent to the whims of corporate arm-twisting to have some laws and regulations changed, repealed, or vaguely worded enough to allow them to conduct business on their terms... and they all took full advantage of it.

What is needed are people in Congress who are up to taking on the monumental task of putting those regulations back in place and if done properly, within a decent amount of time real economic recovery can begin. Because if nothing is done, these corporations will continue to abuse the system until the problem is nearly impossible to fix.

Also, because of the recession, banks refused to loan money out to businesses be they multi-million dollar corporations or small local businesses. And as a result jobs were lost as these businesses had to cut back on their costs by closing locations, lay-offs, or moving overseas. Those who couldn't afford to do the same went out of business or filed bankruptcy, like a few of our auto companies, banks and investment firms did.

THe problem with the system is that americans expect the entire system to be fixed in the 4-8 years that a president it taking office.


Then after those 4-8 years, another president comes in with completely different ideals and values and changes everything that the prevoius president did. Then everyone is wondering what the hell happened like they are too stupid to realize it. Gawd.

It takes many more years the fix the fundimental issues in the US, way more then 4 or 8.

I am happy with Obama because he is ATLEAST trying to to work on having everyone agree to the same thing. In this retrospec atleast MAYBE the next president might follow the same path so that the issues that are being worked on can continue being worked on.


*end rant*

I'm glad I'm not American... Seriously. Most conservatives I talk to from there sound half retarded. The last three republican presidents have fluffed that country up almost beyond repair. Then procede to blame the problems they created on their democrat predecessors. It really sucks cause I can see the same trend starting with Canada and our conservative government.

I on occassion refer to Obama as "President Wish It Think It" as he wishes it were and thinks that it is, so it must be. I don't expect the next US President to fix the problems, I just expect them to not make them any worse.

The real issue is that the federal government is the problem. Unless and until the states take back the power that is rightfully theirs through constitutional convention or otherwise undermining the power that the federal government has garnered, the problem will continue.

What needs to happen via amendment:

1. Removal of the federal government to defense, diplomacy, treasury functions (including the federal reserve), and directly interstate issues (no saying that because an intrastate purchase impacts interstate commerce means it's an interstate issue).
2. Election of US Senators through state legislatures. (Legislatures should by 3/4ths majority vote of their entire legislature be able to recall senators.)
3. Curtail federal interference in other state issues.

far too much regionalism there. There is such a thing as national interests, which require national policy. Defense is definitely one of them. Monetary policy doesn't HAVE to be, and a more regional-istic approach would have its benefits (regional economies would have more flexibility to react to asymmetric shocks). The problem is that you can't really obtain those benefits unless you have a separate currency for every state as well. Transaction costs remove any viability of that option.

I'm just glad the $787 billion stimulus worked and created jobs...

I'm also glad he gave hundreds of millions of dollars to shady solar companies that move out of the country and go bankrupt.

I'm also glad that his reckless spending programs are causing massive deficits.

I'm also glad he let the missile defense in europe go.

I'm also glad that he won't let us put a pipeline in from canada, canada please sell us your oil we want it!

Requiem watches Fox News.

I think he writes for fox news lol

Clearly everything done by one person will have nothing to do with those who came before them. Thats logic right there ;)

not you, uhm the other 99%

Requiem:

1. http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/...yment-may-2011-jobs-data/

2. The DOE has been making speculative co-investments with private investors for a long time (back before solar, they did plenty in the gas world too) and not all succeed. The private investors also lost their shirt. DOE's track record overall is not bad.

3. Spending was way up and revenue down under Bush, which caused not only higher deficits but also a massive recession requiring stimulus (see #1).

4. Me too, looks like we agree on one less high-cost boondoggle.

5. He has not shut down that project. The project's original environmental impact statement failed to address the routing of the pipeline through the Sandhills region and was blocked by opposition by local people/government in Nebraska. Or do you believe the federal government should railroad right over local community interests?

America has all the fuel we need to be energy independent. Problem is it's all coal -- so if one is serious about energy independence, they by necessity should be seriously in favor of electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure.

Yes we have natural gas and oil, but it's peanuts compared to what Canada, Russia, the mideast, etc. already have.

US shale gas reserves are prettty abundant, on par with Canada's I believe?

The US has obscene amounts of shale gas. I don't know how much Canada has but we have enough for energy independence.

I hope we also have obscene amounts of extra water around, to replace the water in the aquifers that have been ruined by fracking.

I hope so too. Archaic would know about that better than me. I just know how to find the damn stuff. I don't think we should be dependent on it =P

why are all the scientists correct about global warming and wrong about the dangers of fracking?

USA has a lot of oil, natural gas, and coal. We are the 3rd largest produce of crude in the wold and we are not allowed to tap into all our sources for oil.

The world cost of oil is artificially driven up by cutting supply.

Don't get me wrong I'd love clean energy somehow but with our current technology oil is much better. We are probably 100 years from making a good enough solar or other power sources up to par and more of an option, large scale.

I disagree completely. I think we could be 100% solar in 20-30 years if we made it our business. It would not be easy or necessarily the option that makes sense, but it (an alternative like solar) is definitely an option well before then.

No way man! You show me the technology and capabilities to reach that level in 20-30 years... Give me some kind of material fact other than your opinion :)

Do you really think companies/ scientists are holding back if we are there yet?

My opinion is based on what dozens of people in the oil industry have told me as well as a fair amount of my own research on the topic. There is no way I have the time to write some small dissertation on the topic to convince you. I trust my estimate much more than your 100 year estimate ;)

And to answer that - "yes"

I don't think the technology is being held back - just the implementation. It is not cost effective to go to solar now relative to fossil fuels and ultimately we know that cost effectiveness is what runs things.

I agree with you there that cost effectiveness does have a huge impact on it. But sure if you want to throw out your estimate I'll throw out mine ;)

Also I was talking about 100% change not just a portion of our energy needs, but meh you obviously have your own opinion and I have mine. I will admit my 100 years was out of my ass but the point is we are a long ways from being completely solar for all our needs.

Besides if Opec was smart they'd keep the oil cost just low enough to not give an incentive to purse other means as you pointed out cost effectiveness drives a lot of decisions.

Most of the estimates I hear are that we have about 50 more years of oil. This is OPEC's chance to get money. People recognize the need to move on to other technologies, however it makes sense for them to wait for front-runners to develop before investing too heavily alternatives.

fluff

According to the most recent update from the Canadian National Energy Board (update just released yesterday). Canada has approximately 680 Tcf (trillion cubic feet) of Proven Natural gas reserve, and 178 Billion barrels of proven oil reserve with 343 Billion barrels of "ultimate potential" oil reserves.

The estimates keep going up btw. So in 50 years it will likely still be 50 years. I read up on it somewhere for a project last year but I'm not going to go find it again :P Basically when it gets too low they do more explorations and find more. Obviously it has a limit but the basic idea is for them to panic everyone and drive prices.

Obama shouldn't be running for his office. the Secret Service is letting people get close enough to take pot shots at him there.

There is no way it is as low as 50 years, based on current known reserves and current consumption (and currently forecasting consumption growth), We should have well over 100 years before we run dry.

locket, they are continuously looking for more. By "they" I mean people like me. =P

And I decided that the best way to settle this would be to google "how much oil is left" and look at the first result.

Which is this

http://www.greenbang.com/...ch-oil-is-left_16795.html

And it says 44 more years =P Honestly if it were 60 that would validate what I said. Regardless, we have less oil than what you guys apparently think we do ;)

(no, I am not saying some website citing some guy who I have never heard of is the ultimate authority on this...)

And let me clarify, since H4 said "before we run dry". I mean before it is no longer economically viable.

y'all are pushing down the effects that anthropogenic global warming is capable of by stating that we don't have enough fuel to maintain the increases in greenhouse gases that we're supposed to experience.

Burning coal and natural gas will provide plenty of greenhouse gas. Don't worry.

Detmer: is that figure accounting for the impact of innovation on the economic viability of projects?

I didn't read most of this:

nightshade:
What got Obama elected was the fact that he had a plan to fix our economy.

the fact he was the farthest thing from bush had nothing to do with it, really?

*been drinking so reading comprehension would likely fail anyways..*

and i watch fox news, and they call it far more fairly then i ever saw cnn or bbc that i got for FREE for years, and had to pay for reasonable news coverage in fox.

juliet huddy of course helps their cause

Obama's problem is that the OWS protesters know that he took more wall street money than any other politician, Republicans included. There's no way they will vote for him. No way they'll vote for any Republicans either (even though Ron Paul would actually represent them fairly well).

i doubt they are well informed at all, rockman. i know this, because i watch fox news. i stopped watching cnn, so i don't know if wolf or anderson dropped this knowlege.

they are, after all, anarchists supporting big government (this *might* be fox news influenced :P)

For the link I provided - nfi. For the general 50 years number, yes. of course innovation rates change over time in unforeseeable ways... but obviously any estimate is just that.

anarchists that support big government eh.

Some of them are indeed idiotic enough to believe that. And Fox News is idiotic enough to not know what an anarchist is.

you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. i don't think i've ever not been willing to admit when i was wrong? well, certainly on things i've been led to believe.

I'm listening, and i don't mean this facetiously at all...

(and yes, martian, all the vowels in a row with y at the end :P)

"And Fox News is idiotic enough to not know what an anarchist is."

hah, fox news could say the same for you. you however would be willing to spend a thousand words attempting to disproving them. fox news doesn't give a fluff what you think :)

Fox news could very well say the same about him. I wouldn't put it past them in the least :P