Mr. Ambien Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 What are YOU smoking?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Not allowing new well leases, speculation in the market, and the devaluation of the American dollar under Obama's term has severely impacted price of oil. Because of ethanol mandates, the price of gasoline is being affected in part by the cost of corn, which has skyrocketed, and the shuttering of oil refineries, and not allowing new refineries to be built, affect the price. Heck, even Obama preventing the pipeline to send bitumin (bitumin is about $30.00 a gallon cheaper) from Alberta to the Gulf Coast hurts. And end of the day, real people are struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Not allowing new well leases, speculation in the market, and the devaluation of the American dollar under Obama's term has severely impacted price of oil. Because of ethanol mandates, the price of gasoline is being affected in part by the cost of corn, which has skyrocketed, and the shuttering of oil refineries, and not allowing new refineries to be built, affect the price. Heck, even Obama preventing the pipeline to send bitumin (bitumin is about $30.00 a gallon cheaper) from Alberta to the Gulf Coast hurts. And end of the day, real people are struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Some good stuff called reality: Which potentially offered aid to people who were defaulting or at risk of defaulting.. not foreclosures. http://www.usnews.co...ree-trade-deals Bush made Obama sign that free trade agreement. That must be some good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Not allowing new well leases, speculation in the market, and the devaluation of the American dollar under Obama's term has severely impacted price of oil. Because of ethanol mandates, the price of gasoline is being affected in part by the cost of corn, which has skyrocketed, and the shuttering of oil refineries, and not allowing new refineries to be built, affect the price. Heck, even Obama preventing the pipeline to send bitumin (bitumin is about $30.00 a gallon cheaper) from Alberta to the Gulf Coast hurts. And end of the day, real people are struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 My point was the welfare programs here in the US are far too generous, and that those who work cannot afford that generousity anymore. And the rolls have grown with Obama at the watch, especially over the last two years. According to the labour stats today, almost 89-million people do not work in the US, about 1-4 on the dole, true unemployment is 14% and with underemployment factored makes that number jump to 21%. Another issue: minimum wage is 3.00 an hour less here. Yes the price of gas here in Louisiana is about 3.89 a gallon when just ten years ago it was .89 a gallon on a Labor Day weekend. And when you are talking sixty bucks a week or more just to go to work, that is over $3,000 a year. Also, over the past four years the average family income is down $4,000. So there is seven grand out of working people's pockets. Not to mention that most places have frozen wages and have not provided a cost of living increase, and the price of all goods has increased due to market forces. But one thing has not changed, the marginal tax rates. And in some states, those rates have gone up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Wow Try, just try looking at the bigger picture of what CAUSED those things (at least the one's that are "factual"). I have no delusions that Obama will solve your countries problems (he doesn't have the power and he'll be fighting Rebublicans, his own short-sighted/corrupt Dems and far too powerful lobbyists to truly "fix" anything). But given that your two options are him or the far, FAR worse (unless you're a rich, old white man anyway) Republicans, the decision is easy. Then again, electing the Republicans might just expedite the needed revolution of your country. Perhaps that is the best route, like ripping off a band-aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 And I don't care for either Obama or Romney's "personality". It's irrelevant to the job at hand. What I do know is there needs to be a serious overhaul of things, and it requires a mindset of getting out of one's comfort zone of switching between "one or the other" and thinking it's doing something useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 could it be that things are worse than they should be because the GOP stalled every/almost every vote???? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI-JZTzYUQY 1000 years of darkness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Some good stuff called reality: Which potentially offered aid to people who were defaulting or at risk of defaulting.. not foreclosures. http://www.usnews.co...ree-trade-deals Bush made Obama sign that free trade agreement. That must be some good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Reality?? And that's right, he tried to intervene even before it got to foreclosure....oh the inhumanity!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-x Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 If I was an american I would not want to vote repbulican after the whole bush thing..... Plus I think hating on homosexuals went out of style a century ago. Obama it is. (edit: typo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm guessing all the people in this thread saying "Obama and Romney are exactly the same!!1!" are too young to remember the 2000 election? Quick refresher for everyone: it was between Al Gore and George W. Bush. A whole lot of people like you were running around saying that there was no difference between the two candidates. As a result, a lot of people voted for a 3rd party candidate, and as a result of THAT Bush won the election. Bush was the worst president since the Civil War. He started two wars, crashed the economy, turned a surplus into a deficit, gutted environmental regulations, appointed radical conservatives to the Supreme Court, prevented research on stem cells, ignored climate change etc., etc, He created the whole mess that Obama is desperately trying to fix. Gore probably wouldn't have created any mess. So, I know you're all young, but try to learn some history before you give your opinions about the election. Pretending that Democrats and Republicans are the same was literally catastrophically stupid in 2000, and its just as stupid today. The only reason you should even consider voting for a 3rd party is if you're okay with having a repeat of the Bush years. Of course, Ron Paul isn't even a good candidate in a vacuum. In fact he's terrible. His policies would completely dismantle the welfare state and basically push the country back to the 1700's. If you think support Ron Paul, I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to learn some history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Pardon? Obama along with Bush bail out the financials, bail out the automotive industry, people who made the most reckless choices to lend money to those who didn't deserve the loans, made cars people didn't want to buy, and didn't deserve to have their stupidity and failure rewarded, but didn't bail out people who foreclosed on their homes. Obama then signs free trade agreements with countries in Asia and South America that help export US middle class jobs overseas, while simultaneously signing subsidies to Walmart to hire part time low income jobs to offset that. What the frack are people smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm guessing all the people in this thread saying "Obama and Romney are exactly the same!!1!" are too young to remember the 2000 election? Quick refresher for everyone: it was between Al Gore and George W. Bush. A whole lot of people like you were running around saying that there was no difference between the two candidates. As a result, a lot of people voted for a 3rd party candidate, and as a result of THAT Bush won the election. Bush was the worst president since the Civil War. He started two wars, crashed the economy, turned a surplus into a deficit, gutted environmental regulations, appointed radical conservatives to the Supreme Court, prevented research on stem cells, ignored climate change etc., etc, He created the whole mess that Obama is desperately trying to fix. Gore probably wouldn't have created any mess. So, I know you're all young, but try to learn some history before you give your opinions about the election. Pretending that Democrats and Republicans are the same was literally catastrophically stupid in 2000, and its just as stupid today. The only reason you should even consider voting for a 3rd party is if you're okay with having a repeat of the Bush years. Of course, Ron Paul isn't even a good candidate in a vacuum. In fact he's terrible. His policies would completely dismantle the welfare state and basically push the country back to the 1700's. If you think support Ron Paul, I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to learn some history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Why do some people insist on blaming a third party for their group's downfalls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Let me guess, you're an angry Gore voter who blamed Nader for Dubya winning? That was a cute rant. Strange how the job market is still crap (crappy low income part time jobs replacing middle class full time jobs), the middle class gap and thus income gap in general is still widening, the primary beneficiaries of bailout money were shareholders and high up corporate douchebags given a golden parachute. The addition of toxic debt and long term interest to the federal government's books (to throw on top of the other interest pile that is going to surpass defence spending soon enough) was not worth the short term stupidity. Unfortunately people have become so accustomed to government interfering in the economy so much they don't know what a terrible intervention is.. and this was amongst the most catastrophic ones to go with bailing out the financials. No lesson learned, a larger debt.. yay pro middle class thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Why do some people insist on blaming a third party for their group's downfalls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm a Canadian. And it is simply an empirical fact that if Nader had not run, Gore would have been president. Google the state by state vote totals some time. As for the bailout... your paragraph was borderline incomprehensible gibberish. With interest rates as low as they are, there is zero reason why the federal government shouldn't be borrowing more money to intervene in the economy. It costs them literally nothing in the long run. And using that money to save hundreds of thousands jobs that otherwise would have disappeared entirely is one of the best uses possible. How anyone can be against the GM bailout while still pretending to be for the people is insane. Your use of terms like "toxic debt" and "long term interest" is completely erroneous and demonstrates that you pretty much have no clue what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Why do some people insist on blaming a third party for their group's downfalls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.