home

Obama's Triumphant "Compromise"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:40:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

His Saturday address:

A few months ago, I was able to sign a tax cut for American families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. Now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. And it’s my sincere hope that we can continue to come together as we face the many difficult challenges that lie ahead – from creating jobs and growing our economy to educating our children and reducing our long-term deficits.

President Obama is celebrating The Deal to extend the Bush tax cuts and cut spending on programs for the most needy in America. You have to be a little scared about what further triumphant compromises Obama has in store for us. What a disastrous Presidency.

Speaking for me only

< Republican Budget Plan to Kill Medicare Gets Vote Next Week | Who Won? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Triumphant "Compromise" | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Someone hand the man a fiddle: (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:00:22 AM EST
    Rome is about to start burning.

    Rome (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    has been burning for awhile now. It's going to start burning right out any day now.

    But on the upside, the longer Obama is in office the more hope for change people will have.

    Parent

    Upside??? (none / 0) (#82)
    by norris morris on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:12:31 PM EST
    You say Upside after Obama showed once again that he is a terrible negotiator, and caves when it gets too tough?

    Obama has said all along about the budget negotiations that he really thinks this is the legislative body's responsibility and "he'll come in at the end if he has to."  Duh.

    How cool. Obama hasn't the committment,energy,or principles to really lead and show his party what principles to fight for and back them up. The Bully Pulpit?  Obama only uses it so as to take credit for a faux win to cover his sorry capitulations.

    Hopey changey this is not. He is not a leader and isn't prepared,energized. or committed to fighting for real change.  Fighting for change is painful.  It also takes principled behavior we haven't noticed.

    Our war in Afghanistan? It's a loser that's costing us the Ranch.  We are asking the young to die for a phony unwinnable war as we're being gamed by Karzai and the corrupt group that are stealing our money and our young men and women's lives.

    Remember....Obama escalated this mess and hasn't a clue as to what to do nor has he explained his reasons for continuing this mess with 100,000 more troops as we lose,lose,lose.

    There is no upside here.

    Parent

    Snark (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    Your snark detector needs maintenance!

    Edger meant "hope for change" to something that isn't Obama.


    Parent

    Obama is comparable (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by dk on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    to Carter in terms of his ineffectiveness as a leader.  But I'm not sure if they are as compatible on the actual policies they espouse.  Was Carter so bad on policy?

    When I think of Democratic Presidents with awful policies, you have to go back further, IMO.  There were some Democrats who, while achieving great things, made awful policy mistakes, such as LBJ (Vietnam) or FDR (Japanese Internment Camps).  But to find a Democratic President as consitently bad, you might need to go back to the nineteenth century (James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland).

    Carter wasn't that bad (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by brodie on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    on policy in retrospect, but on some big issues like health care reform, he failed to deliver on a major promise, and Ted Kennedy didn't forgive him for it (along with the personal slights in private).

     JC was different from Obama though:  he was stubborn and unbending (more LBJ-like) and would go to war against pols from his own party -- such as Dem cong'l leaders -- who he thought had crossed him or who didn't understand that he, Jimmy Carter, was the one who was president and therefore would be calling the shots.

    Obama isn't criticized of course for being stubborn and unyielding or being at war with his own party's cong'l leaders, but for being too willing to yield to the other side, for trying a little too hard to be the great bipartisan reasonable Compromiser in Chief, with 75% towards the other side being his idea of a good compromise.

    The other major difference:  JC and LBJ both didn't have the ability to save their presidencies due to unlikable/untrustworthy personalities.  So far, Obama is above water with his party (so far) and with maybe half the public because of his positive personal qualities as much as anything else.  

    Unlike Lyin' Lyndon, Obama doesn't lie to them.  Disappoint them, yes, but not lie.  And unlike the sanctimonious Jimmy, Obama doesn't lecture them about how they need to be better citizens and a little more virtuous, like himself.

    Like Clinton keeping positive in the polls with a positive public assessment of his job performance that prevented impeachment from being successful, Obama is still (so far) above water and is probably roughly a 50-50 bet, or slightly better, for re-election.

    But this latest on the budget has many in his party base upset, yours truly included.  Another round of massive cuts for the less advantaged and another major cave to the Rs, and more of us will be darkly grumbling about a need for a type of change that the re-elect minded Obama probably wouldn't appreciate.

    Parent

    Woodrow Wilson (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    segregating the Federal workforce. Of course, in those days, the Democratic party actually did stand for segregation.

    Parent
    Also include Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    in list of Democratic Presidents with awful policies-"welfare reform", financial deregulation (that led to the stranglehold that the finacial sector has over the economy) and Iraq policy that set the stage for neocons to take our country to war in Iraq.
    If you do not like Obama's policies, you could not have liked Clinton's policies ("the era of big government is over").

    Parent
    Well, no. Bill Clinton raised taxes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    on the wealthy, paid the bills, got us out of debt with a projected savings account, kept us out of war, reduced the military and dumped more red ink vetoes in his last six years (with a Republican congress) than all previous presidents put together.  That is how a beleagured Democratic president successfully negotiates with the opposition Rs.

    And that's what heppened with welfare reform...far more successful than many will admit (welfare to work) and far less damaging than it woud have been if Clinton hadn't fought it at all.

    Financial deregulation was a mistake...a big one...but it's not as if Obama and the Dems couldn't have fixed that first thing in his term.  Why didn't they?  Gee...let's ask Chris Dodd!

    And Clinton wasn't wrong to say that 'the era of big government is over,' was he?  Except for the Pentagon, of course!

    Parent

    Clinton messed up (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    on a number of things.

    But on the biggest thing, tax policy he got it right.

    It amazes me folks do not understand how important tax policy is.

    Parent

    Yes...his messups were beauts... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    but his understanding of the basics of governing saved the day more often than not.  Tax policy always being the most important, of course.  Perhaps those years of experience as Arkansas governor did make a difference.

    The contrast between Clinton and Obama couldn't be greater.  I can't imagine Clinton doing 'the deal' ... much less giving them more than they asked for!  What the Hell...?

    Parent

    Who are you talking to (none / 0) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    I have consistently said that I disagreed with the Tax Deal.

    Parent
    I'm talking to you (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:20:06 PM EST
    You act like tax policy is akin to school uniforms.

    Parent
    Clinton got lucky with the (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    Cold War peace dividend, the Internet bubble and most of all.... Cheap Oil.

    Oil was around $16.00 1/99 and $22 1/01. It went as low as $12 in 12/98.. I can remember paying .97 cents per gallon.

    Link

    Unless Obama solves the current situation we will have another recession, but worse because people do not have the savings and/or the credit card balances to absorb the hit.

    But he won't. His base wants to save the world on the backs of the poor and he will try an oblige.

    Parent

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    It was all luck for Clinton :)

    Parent
    Yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    An enormous amount of money was put into science and engineering R&D spending during the Cold War.
    The PC was also invented in the late 1970s-early 1980s period. The Clinton Presidency benefitted from the cold war period tech spending, the invention of the PC and the end of the Cold War.
    Unfortunately Clinton was not far-sighted enough to continue the science and engineering spending which could be commercialized and lead to prosperity years after his term was over. He foolishly grew the financial sector at the expense of other sectors in the economy.

    Parent
    Even (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    if he had done that the GOP would have undone it during the Bush years so your point is really kind of moot on that account.

    Many of the R & D that is not being done today is because businesses don't want to spend money on something that does not have short term monetary rewards.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    "Many of the R & D that is not being done today is because businesses don't want to spend money on something that does not have short term monetary rewards."

    Exactly! This is why Federal spending on R&D as a percentage of GDP should not have been lowered during the Clinton years. But President Clinton was so caught up in the wonders of Reaganomics, Rubinomics and globalization, that he decided that the market would sort itself out (as far as R&D spending was concerned).

    Parent

    Clinton (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    was not a reagaonmics disciple like Obama is. R & D takes decades to come to fruition so like I said, even if he had done it, it would not have mattered because the GOP could have undone it in a N Y minute. It would have barely gotten off the ground before the axe came down so I don't really see where it would have made any difference.

    Parent
    Attitude (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    like yours is what is causing damage to the country. Clinton had 8 years to invest in R&D and tech manufacturing; unfortunately R&D spending as a percentage of the GDP decreased every successive year (except the last year) during his Presidency. During those 8 years, he could have made the case about why R&D spending was necessary from his bully pulpit, instead of making the case for smaller government, quick returns through the stock market, etc.
    You really do not know much about the role of R&D spending in generating economic growth. During the Clinton Presidency, various Asian governments started spending heavily in R&D and electronics manufacturing. This led to so much of our jobs getting offshored.
    Clinton gave you what you wanted. Instant gratification in "NY minutes". Instant gratification could be obtained by not trying to make anything in the USA (other than home building) and moving money around (growing the financial sector at the expense of other sectors). Now live with the results!

    Parent
    Good grief. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    Do you think any R & D would have survived the GOP for six years? Yes or no?

    I know somehow you guys blame Clinton for everything that had happened that's bad in this country. It's nuts. It's just like the GOP blaming him for 9/11.

    The all powerful Bill Clinton has somehow been controlling the strings to the country for the last 10 years despite being out of office.

    Parent

    Yes (Partially) (none / 0) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    Defense related R&D would have survived.
    In non-defense related R&D, even Reagan (whose policies I dislike) did more to keep semiconductor manufacturing (created SEMATECH when he thought that USA was about to lose the technology edge in this country to the Japanese) in this country, than Clinton did.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    it would not have. Anything Bill Clinton did good or bad the GOP wanted to eliminate once they got into power. They were just a bunch of knee jerkers.

    Besides, with the tax policy that Bush initiated and Obama has continued would have made it even EASIER to get rid of R & D.

    What you don't seem to understand is that none of this can even happen with the deal that Obama made.

    Parent

    Sematech? Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:21:20 PM EST
    In non-defense related R&D, even Reagan (whose policies I dislike) did more to keep semiconductor manufacturing (created SEMATECH when he thought that USA was about to lose the technology edge in this country to the Japanese) in this country, than Clinton did.

    That's what you've got?

    1)  Sematech was funded by the Department of Defense.

    It also later voted to drop government matching funds in order to shift focus from the U.S. semiconductor industry to the larger international semiconductor industry.

    Oops.

    Parent

    SEMATECH (none / 0) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    was funded by DoD because it was the only Govt agency that had sufficient funding to handle the dual technology objectives of the consortium. Dept of Commerce was considered, however it did not have the resources. The majority of US companies that were part of the original SEMATECH consortium made commercial semiconductor products.

    It is a fact that Federal R&D spending as a function of GDP dropped during the Clinton Presidency. It is also a fact that the Clinton Presidency ignored US manufacturing. They mistakenly reasoned that the US had entered a post manufacturing world. It is really stupid of you to dispute these facts.

    The reasons why I never engage with you are (1) you are ignorant about a lot of things (2) your fanaticism regarding the Clintons is similar to some in the GOP about Reagan. I have even seen ABG admit Obama's mistakes, but never seen you and Ga6th acknowledge that the Clinton Presidency had many faults. Both of you are brainwashed people.

    Anyways, I will return to ignoring you. Just wanted to set the record straight about SEMATECH.

    Parent

    Then "set it straight" (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    'Cause you still haven't.

    First, you cite Reagan's support for Sematech as an example of "non-defense related R+D" - a project that was specifically funded by the DOD - a project that dropped its govt. funding to shift its objectives from the U.S. semiconductor industry to the the international semi-conductor industry.

    Too funny.

    Then, you claim (with zero evidence) that "unfortunately R&D spending as a percentage of the GDP decreased every successive year (except the last year) during his (Clinton's) Presidency".  Of course, when confronted with actual facts that disprove your claim, you modify the claim to limit it to federal R+D money (still, with no evidence).  All of which conveniently ignore the fact that it is Congress that appropriates R+D funding and that Clinton's calls for further spending for science and technology  R+D were well-documented.

    But I do appreciate the irony in your calling others "ignorant" and "brainwashed".  From a guy who thinks that Sematech is an example of Reagan's superior efforts in "non-defense related R+D" ...

    .... that's funny stuff.

    Parent

    Actually, it's fact-free claims ... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    ... like yours that harm the country more than anything else by

    Clinton had 8 years to invest in R&D and tech manufacturing; unfortunately R&D spending as a percentage of the GDP decreased every successive year (except the last year) during his Presidency.

    Hard to know if this is accurate (given your lack of evidence), but this this source contradicts your claim:

    1999 - 2.79%: R&D as a share of the GDP, the highest percentage since 1967
    1998 - 2.67%: R&D as a share of the 1998 GDP
    1997 - 2.61%: R&D as a share of the 1997 GDP

    There are also a few problems with this statement:  1)  a POTUS doesn't get to decide (except perhaps by veto) how much money gets spent on R+D, particularly since most R+D in the US is private investment.  2)  Public R+D monies are appropriated by Congress 3)  Which party controlled the Congress during most of the 90's again? and 4)  The majority of public R+D money has traditionally been spent on defense/military spending, which was cut during the 90's.  In general, most progressives think less military spending is a good thing.

    BTW - Maybe you weren't paying attention, but those of us who were know that Clinton was "using the bully pulpit" to call for increased spending for science and technology programs, including a greater proportion of civilian projects rather than military projects.  In fact, it was a major priority for Clinton from the beginning of his presidency.

    If you're interested (heh), here's a summary of his early policy.  Here's a paper analyzing Clinton's science and technology proposals.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    Unfortunately Clinton was not far-sighted enough to continue the science and engineering spending which could be commercialized and lead to prosperity years after his term was over.

    So what "science and engineering spending" was it that Clinton cut?

    Try to be specific.

    Parent

    That's what I thought (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    Guess it's easy,...

    ... when you can just make it up.

    Parent

    You obvioulsy (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    have not been watching what Obama has been doing. They days of cheap oil are OVER FOREVER. It's never going to be cheap again. Done, finito, over. Move along and start working on alternative energy sources and quit whining about the price of oil.

    Clinton didn't get "lucky" he fought the GOP tooth and nail against most of their disastrous economic polices.

    Parent

    Clinton got lucky on the (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    three items I listed. He had nothing to do with them.

    And if you think this county can survive on $4.00 gasoline without a deep rescission or depression you are terribly wrong.

    As for the "alternative fuel" bit, I know of nothing currently or in the pipeline that will do much.

    You should also remember that despite what Obama thinks, there are millions who can't trade in their current vehicles for one that will increase their gasoline mileage a third. They are caught in a catch 22. And there are also millions that do not have access to public transportation.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    then we had better get prepared for another recession because oil is NOT going to get cheaper unless we nationalize the oil companies and make sure all the oil stays in the US. As long as it goes on the open market, it is going to be bid up.

    I realize there are millions of people that don't have public transportation or very little but even small towns have buses. If they work in another town, that doesn't help but a lot of people think that riding the bus is "beneath" them and will continue to whine about the price of gas.

    Parent

    Oil is not being bid up (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    That would be true if there is a shortage. There is no shortage.

    OPEC is forcing the price up and the speculators are helping. Change the law to where speculators must be able to receive what they buy and watch the price go down.

    And no. Small towns do not have buses. Many do not even have taxis. And in todays world, most people who live in a small town must drive to a larger town to find employment.

    And people complaining about the price of gas are no more whining than people complaining about "low" tax rates on the "rich."

    We have a problem. And the only solution we have is oil until we find a replacement. And we can't let the price cripple us in the meantime. We have been and remain too important as a force for good in the world.

    Parent

    I live in what you would call (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    a small town and it has bus service. My mother lives in a small town and it has bus service. There is bus service for my entire county as a matter of fact.

    Well, in a lot of ways I don't feel sorry for people when they whine about the price of gas. I'm old enough to remember the 70's and what happened then. We did not learn our lesson from that so while I don't like high gas prices I don't complain simply because what do you do when people won't learn a lesson?

    There really isn't a solution to the oil prices because no one today is going to regulate the oil and gas industry nor the speculators to change the equation. Until the cost of gas becomes extremely prohibitive will there be anything done about alternative energy. Can you imagine what would have happened if instead of going into Iraq, W had used that money to fund programs to find an alternative to gas? But nah, that would've been something he could have never imagined nor even wanted being an oil man himself and a failed one at that.

    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:06:34 PM EST
    There is no bus service where I live.  And even if there were, it wouldn't help me do my big biweekly grocery shopping much, or all the other errands I need to do around town.

    Just sayin'.  I'm honestly not sure what "lesson" rural people are supposed to learn.  The distances here are such that nobody -- trust me, nobody -- drives a single mile they don't absolutely have to, even when gas is/was relatively cheap.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    good for them that they're at least trying to conserve. People in GA don't do that. They just drive and drive and drive and then whine about gas prices.

    I guess we're lucky in my area that we do have a bus service.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:09:25 PM EST
    I think you are.

    It's simply not doable in rural areas unless the Feds pay for it.  The distances are too great and the population too small to support it.

    I don't personally have to live in the country and I'm able to work from a home office, so I can't honestly complain even with really high gas prices.

    But unless you want the rural parts of the country, and the genuinely small family farmers, to empty out and die, super-high gas prices aren't the solution you want to advocate for.

    And btw, it's not that people around here are consciously conserving gas on principle, it's just the practicalities of it.  Gas could go back to the 20 cents a gallon of my youth, and folks still wouldn't drive any more than they had to.  It takes too much time out of your life to get anywhere.  A trip up to "town" for groceries takes a minimum of 2 hours all told.  A little jaunt up to the hardware store and back is a good hour.

    None of us do that casually.  Would you?

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:30:23 PM EST
    What do you think the solution is to gas then? It's a finite resource and one day it is going to be gone.

    Parent
    I would think the answer to that would (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:15:32 PM EST
    be obvious.  Alternative energy/fuel sources, biomass heating, crash program on battery power, etc., not just for cars but big trucks and stuff like farm machinery.  What do you suppose the mileage is on a thresher?

    And by all means, make it as painful as possible for people to drive in cities and suburbs that are well served by public transportation through high excise taxes, closing off city streets to traffic, etc.  You could even go so far as to ban parking for anything other than a commercial vehicle with a special permit, as far as I'm concerned.

    But this idea of jacking up gasoline prices even further than they are now with punitive taxes, etc., is just the laziest of all possible solutions to a very complex problem.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:16:32 AM EST
    not advocating for high excise taxes. The problem I'm having is I'm not seeing us making any sort of moves away from gas as a country. I was just talking about the cost of gas becoming prohibitive on its own which could happen.

    Parent
    yep, yep (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    It's simply not doable in rural areas unless the Feds pay for it.  

    That's true.  And today's outlook is that everything has to turn a profit or it shouldn't be done.  The whole concept of investing to provide a needed service has been thrown out the window.  No more cost centers -- everything has to be a profit center.

    Amazingly, Baltimore has a free shuttle service with three limited routes that can get you to the most frequent destinations in the innermost city.  The buses are new, fairly frequent (if not always timely) and the service is used extensively by city residents.  I don't know how they managed to pull it off but hats off.

    I grew up in a community not quite as rural or remote as yours -- it was about a half hour drive, one-way.  Going into town was not a casual affair.  My parents made a major trip every Saturday to pay bills and buy groceries and other essentials.  

    In that area now, there are a fair number of small farmer's produce stands on the side of the road which didn't exist when I was a kid.  That helps to provide fresh produce without requiring a long drive.  We had a fairly large garden that took care of a lot of our produce needs.  But, holy cow, that took a lot of maintenance.  It soured me on gardening to this day, sadly.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:04:50 PM EST
    and good for Baltimore!

    My community is also about a half-hour drive to the nearest town that actually has a good-sized supermarket and all the rest, but if you're a good doobie and only go once a week or so, it takes you at least an hour, oftentimes more, to get all those errands done at various places that are spread out all over the place even in town.  (One stationery store with limited computer supplies here, one dry cleaner way over there, one branch of my bank over thataway, two good supermarkets, yay, but one liquor store on the outskirts, etc, etc, etc.)

    So replace that with a bus, it's going to be more than a hour round-trip travel time, and you'd either have to change to shuttle buses to get everything else done, and the amount of groceries you can bring home is way less than you need-- you'd end up spending the better part of a day, and you'd have to do it several times a week because you'd need to bring an army to carry home a week's worth of groceries for a family.

    There's a reason why folks in the country drive pickup trucks!

    And I do have a large produce garden and put up vast amounts of stuff from it for the winter.

    Parent

    Let me (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:18:40 AM EST
    reiterate what gyrfalcon has said:
    But unless you want the rural parts of the country, and the genuinely small family farmers, to empty out and die, super-high gas prices aren't the solution you want to advocate for.
     In fact, I live on one of those small family farms, and am surrounded by other small family farms.  If you like to eat, and want food prices to remain reasonable, I suggest that the continuing rise of gasoline and diesel prices will make food prices rise dramatically.  We will never have bus service out here, we're way too rural.  We do not jump in our cars and drive around to the "bright lights, big city" without a good reason, and we combine any errands we do to minimize mileage.  However, even if we had bus service, that's not going to get the farm work done; our tractors and other farm machinery are fueled by gasoline or diesel up here- we're not Amish.  If we stop plowing and planting and so forth and sell our farms, there will be much less food for the city dwellers, and whatever is left will skyrocket in price.  We have to get the food to the market, as well.  Even if you buy much of your food locally, those fruits, vegetables, and meat are not walking themselves to the local market.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    The Georgia 6th is north Atlanta.

    I don't think that is small.

    Try towns < 10K located 10-15 miles apart. The country is full of'em.

    Parent

    My mother (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    lives in one and she has bus service. We don't have service from Metro Atlanta despite what you might think. It a bus service that only serves the county I live in.

    Parent
    If you lived in Cherokee County (none / 0) (#71)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    I can see how that would apply to your conditions there.

    According to the Wiki, some of the 10K population cities in the GA6th have grown in recent years, to almost 20K in size, which would make sense for a location north of Atlanta and known for having a lot of commuters who work in Atlanta.

    Parent

    So it is metro county...of Atlanta (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    If you didn't have Atlanta to the south of you the county couldn't afford bus service.

    And your mom is fortunate. I know of exactly no small towns that have bus service and very few have taxi service.

    And that is a real problem for the elderly.

    Parent

    No, (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    it has nothing to do with Atlanta being south of us. It has everything to do with the county deciding that it was worthwhile to have bus service.

    Any town can do it but it's not a priority to some small towns because there's no "downtown" so to speak. They decided to do it here so that businesses could have more clients.

    The big thing here is now creating live and work communities so that people don't have to drive to work. It hasn't been as successful in the outlaying areas but it seems to be the new trend.

    Parent

    If you were not a bedroom burb of Atlanta you (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    would not have the tax base to afford many things. Bus service is one of them.

    And no. A small town of modest income people could not afford it. They would not have the tax revenue.

    Community "creation" has long been a "progressive" ideal. It has never worked and won't this time without massive societal destruction and change.

    Hmmmm.. Now who does that remind me of?

    Parent

    You obviously (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    don't know about the tax base here. The money in this county does NOT come from the tax payers. All the while the stimulus was being debated and the people here were screaming don't take it they were at the same time figuring ways to divvy up the money. You have to remember that Newt Gingrich was our congressional rep for many years and he was very good at bringing home the bacon all the while whining about government spending.

    Actually there are very successful live and work communities. Google Atlantic Station and you'll see one. So Atlantic Station is creating massive societal destruction. LOL. You're really out there.

    Parent

    AS is a minnow (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:53:38 PM EST
    in the ocean. I can take you to "neighborhoods" in Denver carefully crafted to meet all your needs. I can show you neighborhoods full of poptop mini mansions.. Nothing wrong with any of that except you get a better cross section of society in any small town where the banker's son goes to school with postman's daughter.

    My point was that it is too late to create a society that can exist with $4.00 and above gas......and the price increases in food, housing, utilities that $4.00 gas represents.....without expecting some massive societal problems.

    The feds can claim no/low inflation as a means to suppress salaries but real inflation is here and is high and getting higher.  

    Parent

    Too late? (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    it is too late to create a society that can exist with $4.00 and above gas......and the price increases in food, housing, utilities that $4.00 gas represents.....without expecting some massive societal problems.

    Well, massive societal problems are here.  Do we as a society adjust to that?  Or do we hold on to a pipe dream of cheap gas?

    As gyrfalcon has also pointed out, rural communities have different needs than urban communities.  If the urban communities cut their usage it would behoove us all.

    Frankly, I'm thrilled that I can now take the bus to work.  It's been years since that's been true.  And most of the buses are hybrids.

    Parent

    I'm gald you're thrilled (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    And when I lived in Littleton I took the bus to DIA and the train downtown. Loved it.

    When I retired and moved that no longer worked.

    The problem is that there are millions of us out here in fly over country that can't take a bus because there aren't any.

    And it is not just gasoline, but the cost of energy that gets factored into everything.

    And the body politic is becoming more and more unhappy. The Left dislikes Obama and the Tea Party is unhappy with the Repub leadership.

    And rural/small towns needs for transportation are the same as everywhere else.

    Parent

    people can carpool (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    if there's a lack of PT. People can learn to drive less, combine trips etc. I've been navigating the adult world without a car for 30+ yrs.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    But if you lived in a < 10K town about 15 miles from other towns you would be bumming a ride an awful lot. In fact, I'll increase the size to < 50K.

    And what your speaking of would drive a stake right through the economy's heart.

    Parent

    You live in cities and suburbs (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    Give me a break, please.

    Parent
    PT has not always been that avail or conven (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    to me. It has improved tremendously though over the past 20 yrs to the extent that I had quite a wide range of choices where to live. And I could have lived farther out in a smaller town (or even more rural) if I didn't need to be so close to family right now. I'm not suggesting that country/farmers and such should carpool or look towards PT at all. But folks going from towns to larger towns for work (as Jim talks about) could find solutions. And it's much easier to do ride sharing coordination these days with the internet. When I do start driving, I certainly don't plan on it becoming part of my daily lifestyle. For all the PT options we have around here, the amount of cars on the road is a tad frightening. I just don't see how they live that way (morning commute, OMG.) It's also a tad depressing how many jobs require you to have the ability drive and not rely on PT. Kinda funny since the smoothest way for me to get to the city is the ferry :P No road jams there . . . And even before gas started rising again, it's cheaper from where I'm at to ride the bus with free transfers and no bridge toll. The bridge alone is more than the bus fare now (2 bridges if I go to the city). HSR should help pull in more of the smaller towns etc into the mix here in CA.

    Parent
    I always loved (none / 0) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    how the word, "speculator" is tossed around by no-nothings.

    A "speculator," by one interpretation, is nothing more than an "investor." When you "invest" in a financial instrument you "speculate" that it will move in the direction you hope.

    Another interpretation is "gambler." The common, street thinking is that "speculators" are just wild-eyed gamblers throwing their money, willy-nilly,  into a market.

    Regarding oil, when a "speculator" buys a futures contract who do think sells him that contract?.........bingo!..another "speculator."

    That's the way markets work, Jim. For everyone who thinks something is going up, there's another someone thinking its going down.

    Speculators are getting a bad name.

    Now, if you mean "market manipulator," that's illegal, and a bird of a very different color.

    Parent

    A rose by anyother name (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    is a speculator....

    When some buys a futures contract on a product they can not take delivery of they are speculating they can sell it for the same or better price.

    When someone buys a stock they have a piece of a company. They can hold or sell irrespective of any time frame.

    While both represent a gamble the former is much more so than the latter.

    During 2008 some oil contracts were sold more than  25 times.

    The commodity markets, theoretically, exist to stabilize the price and allow producers to have a base price for their products. Cotton is now at a all time high. Soybeans is around $13. Corn is around $7. Farmers around here having been clearing fields that have lain fallow for decades in the belief that things will turn out good.

    Who knows.

    And I think speculation purely for speculation is bad.

    And I call them speculators and not roses.

    Parent

    It's your (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    Conservative crowd that's thrown roadblocks in front of mass transit, alternative energy, etc.

    Now you whine about high gas prices.

    It's your Conservative crowd that carries on the anti-tax jihad crippling any possibility of significant national commitment to developing the technology to get off oil.

    It's your Conservative crowd that opposes regulatory power that could put a halt to the speculation that's helping drive up gas prices.

    Parent

    You know, I put that claim (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    along with other Urban Legends.

    And please don't tell me about the Las Vegas to LA highspeed train. I mean that would have just solved soooo many problems. (sarcasm alert)

    I invite you to show some specifics.

    What you probably want is high gasoline prices to force people to do....what? Walk to work? That won't do it when you live 20 miles from your job.

    And I seem to remember it was Barney Frank to opposed Bush's plans to provide tighter regulation of Freddie/Fannie and was a strong contributor to the housing crisis.

    BTW - I am a social liberal who has opined several times in TL  that we need a single payer health care system based on the Medicare model.

    Parent

    People in this (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    country have NEVER had the savings to absorb any hit. We are the most marketed to society even known to man. Madison Avenue has been masterful at getting people to confuse needs and wants.

    We have an economy that is built on 2/3 spending by consumers.

    Parent

    as i said (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    and/or the credit card balances to absorb the hit.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:28:04 PM EST
    we have the credit card balances available but people are learning not to use them.

    Parent
    School uniforms! (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:00:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Do Your Homework (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by norris morris on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    Clinton did not start deregulation. This was the exclusive principle of Ronald Reagan. He hated unions. Deregulated air traffic control and anything he could get his hands on ASAP.

     The Republicans mantra is"destroy the Federal Government".  Yes so we become a third world country with no funds for public education and other programs that our demoratic ideals stand for. What is coming to us as we pay in our social security contributions with every salary we earn in our lifetime should never be called an "entitlement".

     We pay for our Social Security and the fund would be far more solvent if it hadn't been plundered by the pols who have been diverting these funds and actually stealing from what is actually an annuty fund paid for by the people.

    Reaganomics, trickle down, etc. are not ideas promoted by Bill Clinton.


    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    he said "the era of big government is over" but then later on instated SCHIP. Actions speak louder than words in the case of Obama and Clinton and you're not going to find many people in this country who are sympathetic to your beliefs w/r/t welfare.

    Parent
    Every economic policy is not about you (none / 0) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:02:23 PM EST
    The economic policies of the Clinton and Obama administration are the same. The only difference is that between the time of the Clinton and Obama administrations, "globalization" has established deeper roots (which is affecting the non-college educated white demographics in the United States more adversely than its has ever done).

    Parent
    You're (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    not dealing with reality. Tax policy is completely different under Obama. Obama is continuing Bush's economic policies minus the domestic spending.

    Parent
    Those foolish policies (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    will affect the college educated as well.

    Don't think for a minute that labor's loss will not be everyone's fate.

    Parent

    With oil at $110/bbl (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TJBuff on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    which probably will bring on recession 2.0, Obama thinks it's a victory to defecate on the economy with spending cuts?  

    WtF?

    WTF is Obama's message for (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    his up upcoming campaign. Must say I've been saying WTF regarding his presidency for some time now.

    Parent
    His message is (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:12:07 PM EST
    clearly, "I'm above the fray. I will compromise," leaving out the part that he'd compromise his grandmother if the GOPers stamped their feet at him.

    Parent
    he publicly called her (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by observed on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    Out as a racist, while she was still alive.


    Parent
    yes he did (none / 0) (#101)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    whether some people like it or not

    Parent
    He was more gracious (2.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    about it than most people would have been after what she said. Deal with it! I have no interest in relitigating the primaries.

    Parent
    really? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    I have no interest in relitigating the primaries.

    fooled me

    Parent

    you believe obama?? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by observed on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    More fool u.  

    Parent
    Look, how can you not see the (none / 0) (#112)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    difference between the public, documented behavior of Rev. Wright, on the one hand, and Obama's private, undocumented, unverified report of his grandmother's words from decades earlier?
    Even if Obama was telling what he thought to be the truth, memory over that length of time is not reliable; also, his grandmother was not in a position to respond, because of her health, and because she did not want to hurt his campaign.


    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    a disastrous presidency is right. Do you think he's going to make Carter look good?

    Remember when George Bush said (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    "Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay," and he got it?

    So what would you have done if president (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    with the same circumstances and exactly where would we be following your different path?

    List your actions and exactly what your actions would have accomplished realistically in contrast to where we are today.

    I weould never have done The Deal (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    Then when the negotiations started on the budget, tax cuts could have been on the table.

    The Deal is why this happened.

    Parent

    So what exactly (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    would have been the actual outcome to day following your path.  What can you say exactly what the head lines news would be this morning as compared to what they are following your path.

    Parent
    Less tax cuts for the rich (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    Less spending cuts for the poor.


    Parent
    The key word was realistcally (none / 0) (#12)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    You are assuming this ideal goal would have been accomplished without any resistance and if Obama would have followed your path this would be reality this morning.

    Parent
    You have no imagination (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    Stand up and say what you mean: There is just no way we possess the creative and intellectual ability to destroy these destructive and idiotic ideas and proposals.  That is the core of your argument.  Let me tell you something: when you make NO ATTEMPT to fight, no attempt to rhetorically annihilate the easily annihilated, then you are a coward and a failure because of you.  Obama chose not to fight, not to attack, he chose, yet again, to roll over to a bunch of people with the IQ of sand grains and the creative ability of chewed peice of gum.  

    So you REALLY think the currently nutcase and irrational Republican party cannot be taken on, huh?

    Call Stephen Colbert, he must have all the testicles when it comes to facing down pols.

    Such timidity, such fear, such cowardice.

    But both parties are dead, bought and paid for, and enemies of the people, that seems quite clear.

    Parent

    It's worse than that he rolled over; (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    he went along with it.  He's been saying all along that we had to get our fiscal house in order, that there was going to be sacrifice needed, that we had to stop spending, so the only thing that wasn't etched in stone was the amount.

    Honestly, all you have to do is go back to where he picked his economic team - and for that you can go back to the 2008 campaign.  Once we got to the transition, the signals got louder.  Weak stimulus - a perfect example of the action of someone who doesn't believe in the power of government to positively affect the economy.  He paid lip service to most Democrats and a long list of economists - and he started the "negotiations" by starting smaller, not bigger.

    Deficit Commission.  The freakin' Deal.  Frozen pay for federal workers.  A weak budget proposal.

    And to make it worse, almost no one in the Democratic Congressional caucus pushed back against the president's agenda and plans.  Those who did were never allowed to be heard on a wider basis - the media simply ignored them for the most part, framed the stories as if only the socialist loonies were not in favor of massive spending cuts.

    Yes, they are bought and paid for; the whole system has been corrupted and co-opted more than ever - and they're not going to change that.  Why would they - it works for them, and all their moneyed-elite pals.

    Somehow it has to be up to us, and unless and until we all just take to the streets, or go on strike, or something, it's not going to get better.

    It's a nightmare.

    Parent

    ALl the Dems had to do to avoid (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    the Deal was nothing, and let the tax cuts expire. This whole budget negotiaton of the last two weeks would have taken place the first two weeks in January, with Dems holding a lot more cards.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    You are the keeper of "realistic" now.

    Parent
    If he had (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    not done "the deal" back in December he would have been in a much stronger negotiating position.

    Parent
    It's a bummer morning here (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    I went into this KNOWING that everything would eventually be okay.  But Josh and friends wanted to get their weekend plans lined out and none of the parents were onboard for that after school yesterday.  Some parents who are DOD employees got a fulough notice yesterday.  We were all busy watching how this would go down.  Americans have a record lack of savings, and my husband said that many many people were just about losing their minds last night as they were leaving work.

    Okay, so this is seemingly over for now.  But there is a sourness to the day.  Josh got on the phone this morning trying to make some plans with friends but everybody just wants to sit home today.  He's bummed because of that, but they were bummed before he even called.  I wanted to go to a community yard sale that was on for today, but my husband didn't want to last night so we made no plan to go.  I don't want to go though today now that this thing is I guess over.  There is just a real sour feeling to all of this, they pushed everyone to the very edge...some people were in semi panic to full panic last night.  Now it is over and how it has affected all of us isn't feeling so great.

    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    but didn't Obama just extend everything for another week?

    Parent
    It would seem so (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    At this point it is difficult to be sure about any of it.  I  would personally feel more certain about life in general if the Democrats would just make it clear that they are going to fight or not fight cuz right now it feels like they are just perpetually jacking with us all.  They get pushed right up to the edge of a cliff and then they fight enough to get us all three inches of space to "avoid" being pushed over the cliff until the next Republican push.  It's no way to live, fight or don't fight so I know what I'm learning to live with.....fighting or not fighting.

    Parent
    MT, if you want to worry about something (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    worry about the fact that gasoline is now at $3.65..

    Parent
    Gee Jim (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    Who cares what gasoline costs when half of everyone we know and share an evironment with may not be able to afford food.  At this point I think maybe you can just piss off.

    Parent
    My, my Tracy (1.25 / 4) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    what did I do to deserve that??? Perhaps you need to understand that it is the cost of gasoline that is killing the economy and driving up the cost of food.

    Of course as the wife of a government employee the economy may not be as much of a focus item as it is for others.

    Parent

    Perhaps you need to understand (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    that what Bush and financial industry and the Iraq War did to our economy has destroyed it.  And gas is going up because it is a commodity and not a fairy tale like Wall Street is.

    Parent
    Oil is going up because the speculators (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:55:48 PM EST
    are watching us inviting them in to do as they please... No ANWR, no shelves, no oil shale... no crash program...

    Instead we borrow $2 billion from China so that Obama can give it to Brazil.

    And I would be pleased to regain the Bush economy of 11/2006 when the Demos gained control of both Houses while claiming that gasoline was too high and promising to reduce it.

    Parent

    Offshore drilling would have ... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    ... virtually zero impact on the price of oil.

    Jamie Webster, a senior consultant with PFC Energy, which tracks oil production and demand globally and whose clients are governments, including the United States., and oil and gas companies... "it wouldn't budge the market at all. We would still need to import gasoline; it would not have any impact. You wouldn't notice it at all."

    Same for drilling in ANWR.

    ANWR would add only 1 to 2 percent to the overall world oil supply, said Philip Budzig, who authored the report for the EIA. The report concluded drilling there would subtract anywhere from 41 cents to $1.44 per barrel of crude oil around 2025. That translates to a savings of just a couple pennies per gallon at the pump. Again, in 2025.

    As far as shale oil, no one is preventing oil companies from doing it.  BLM hasn't stopped issuing permits or leases.  The problem is that it's not economically viable with current technology.

    Still, companies struggle to find a way to charge more for oil shale than it costs to  extract.

    On a large scale, oil shale's not commercially viable," Curtis Moore, a representative of EIS Solutions in Grand Junction, said during an energy briefing hosted by the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce in April. "Most people agree it's 10 to 15 years out.

    But they're nice talking points.

    Parent

    Actually Bush's rescinding the EO forbidding (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    drilling on the Continental shelf is what broke the speculator's bubble in 2008.

    Care to guess how many new permits have been issued in the past 6 months or so?

    About 6 deep water and about 39 shallow water since 6/2010.

    Wow. I am underwhelmed.

    And again and again we hear that "drilling at X" won't do any good because it is too small or it will take too long....

    In WWII we had small gardens. Called'em "Victory Gardens."  And if you never start you will never get there.

    Most of these excuses come from people who are more concerned over the "environment" than cheap energy that will boom the economy. Perhaps $5.00 for a loaf of bread and $20 for a pound potatoes will get their attention.

    Parent

    They're not "excuses" (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    They're facts, unlike anything in your response.  They're also from people with actual ... ya know - expertise ... as opposed to somebody reminiscing about "victory gardens".

    1)  The govt. is still issuing leases and permits.  You're underwhelmed?

    That's a shame.

    1.  ANWR - even at maximum production - would have somewhere between zero and a negligible impact on the price of oil/gas.

    2.  Same for offshore drilling.

    3.  Oil shale is currently not cost effective.  It costs more to extract than it's worth.

    Facts are so inconvenient ... aren't they?

    Parent
    You keep making this claim (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    Actually Bush's rescinding the EO forbidding drilling on the Continental shelf is what broke the speculator's bubble in 2008.

    As usual, with zero evidence.

    BTW - Considering the fact that Bush's lifting of the ban was largely symbolic, given the federal law banning offshore drilling that remained in place, how is it that his symbolic lifting of the ban (which he sat on for 8 years until prices had skyrocketed) "broke the back of the speculator's bubble"?

    Any proof of this, or is it just a fairytale?

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    it is the cost of gasoline that is killing the economy

    While I agree that the price of fuel threatens our tepid improvement,what's killing our economy, what's really impoverishing the nation is the loss of manufacturing base, and that's just the biggest of the unrecognized elephants in the room.

    Parent

    When people have to put (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    $20 to $40 a week more into gasoline that is money that won't be spent for food, entertainment, new clothes, etc.

    Check your local sales tax receipts from non-fuel sales and see where that is going.

    Parent

    With (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    10.2% unemployment here in GA, gas prices aren't the problem. People aren't spending on those things either way. People aren't going out to eat not because of gas prices but because it's cheaper to eat at home. People are buying clothes but only what they need.

    The extra money for gas is probably coming out of the grocery budget.

    The real effect the gas prices have had here is that houses closer into the city haven't collapsed in price as much as the area that i'm in has. The whole market has collapsed but the further out you are, the worse the collapse.

    Parent

    Does the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    above excerpted paragraph remind anyone else of Bush and his statements w/r/t Iraq.  I guess Obama thinks that if he says it, it makes it so.

    Obama's Triumphant "Compromise" | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment