• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The private sector is doing fine."

Anyway, that's what I'd do and I think that this comment will be coming up during the election campaign and debates. Often. It'll be interesting to see how he handles it.
This is the real issue. Whether in reality the economy is doing fine or not, whether the private sector is doing fine or not, the President threw out enough fodder yesterday to fill the Republican advertising cannons from now until election day. I believe yesterday's gaffes will come up time and time again and will be one of the main themes in TV commercials from now until November. The guy did not help his reelection chances yesterday.
 
This is the real issue. Whether in reality the economy is doing fine or not, whether the private sector is doing fine or not, the President threw out enough fodder yesterday to fill the Republican advertising cannons from now until election day. I believe yesterday's gaffes will come up time and time again and will be one of the main themes in TV commercials from now until November. The guy did not help his reelection chances yesterday.

The economy is in recovery.

The GOP almost dealt a mortal blow to this economy and hence the USA.

Many are on record as wanting to reduce the federal government until it was small enough to drown in a bathtub - in other words, to disband the Union.

Of course they wrap themselves in patriotism as some sort of protective coloration.

Like all else they say, it's a lie.
 
The economy is in recovery.

The GOP almost dealt a mortal blow to this economy and hence the USA.

Many are on record as wanting to reduce the federal government until it was small enough to drown in a bathtub - in other words, to disband the Union.

Of course they wrap themselves in patriotism as some sort of protective coloration.

Like all else they say, it's a lie.
The charts point out something else about the Republicans. They complain the government is to big and blame the Democrats. Then when the government is reduced, increasing the unemployment rate, reducing public services and generally causes misery with the populace, they blame the government.

The bottom line is the misery felt in this country is a direct result of implementing exactly what the Republicans want.
 
...

As far as whether Obama has done anything to discourage investment, I don't see it myself.
You are not paying attention.

http://townhall.com/columnists/philkerpen/2012/06/09/a_senate_referendum_on_obamas_war_on_coal

In addition to War On Coal, no federal permits have been issued for oil exploration, natgas fracking is under attack, and corporations are scared of the unknowns in ACA.

I think that people aren't investing because they're worried about the economy. They're worried about Europe especially.
See ACA here again; also Dodd Frank.
http://finance.townhall.com/columni...watching_you_why_doddfrank_should_be_repealed

Obama is not the "radical leftist" that Newt Gingrich claims he is. He's actually quite business friendly.
Facts not in evidence except for loony lefties.

see also
http://finance.townhall.com/columni...obama_is_latest_surrogate_to_break_with_obama
 
Last edited:
In addition to War On Coal, no federal permits have been issued for oil exploration, natgas fracking is under attack, and corporations are scared of the unknowns in ACA.
Oh for crying in the dark. How many times must this nonsense be debunked? First off, of course fracking is under attack. It causes real harm to real people. Why the hell should it not be attacked? Perhaps fracking is a great idea overall. But we live in a democracy. Not a playground for the rich and powerful to get more rich and more powerful. People have a right to challenge anything that can cause environmental damage.

Now, oil production is up so that really isn't an issue. But, get something straight, America isn't owned by conservatives or oil companies. Other people have a stake in the country also and not everything good for the oil companies is necessarily good for America. Can you at least acknowledge that much? Why the demagoguery and silly appeals to consequences and emotive language? Stop arguing as if it is obvious that any limits on energy production is sinister. There are legitimate concerns and hand waving those away isn't going to help anything. Increased production of American oil isn't a panacea for anything.
 
Quoting this because I know some people this would most annoy have you on ignore and because this is a really good link that shows how the President's critics are FOS on this issue.

This is a good link, but what I don't like about those charts, is some go way back, say to the 1940s, and some only go back to 2009.

I makes me wonder why.
 
Charts comparing how the public and private sectors have done under Obama:

'Here's What's Really Happened To The Private Sector Under Obama'

The public sector part of that page is particularly deceptive. A lot of those charts only go back to 2009, masking prior increases in government, even though most of those private sector graphs went back much further. It's not like the data wasn't there either, the author cut off prior data to hide what's going on. That's warning bell #1 that the author isn't interested in the truth, but an agenda.

By that page's own admission, federal worker employment has actually been increasing, and that's what Obama has direct control over. State worker employment has dropped because a lot of states dug themselves into financial holes through profligate and unsustainable spending. State government growth is at a low, but note what is NOT shown: the size of state government, particularly in relation to the rest of the economy. If state government has grown to much in the past, then right now it should be at a minimum. Even more damning, though, is that state budgets were in fact increasing even as state employment dropped. Obviously somebody is doing something wrong in state government.

Other graphs are essentially meaningless. School construction, for example: the graph alone cannot tell us whether the drop is a good thing or a bad thing. We shouldn't be building schools we don't need, or spending more than we need to on the schools we do need. How much do we need? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone else here does either. The author certainly gives no indication, and I suspect he doesn't know either. As for other spending collapses (like roads and public safety), well, what the hell was the stimulus for, then? Wasn't it supposed to be for exactly that sort of thing? Evidently not, because that's not where the money ended up. If we accept the premise that these are the things the government needs to keep up spending on, then Obama's policies are demonstrably a failure.

Oh, and on the private sector job front, adding jobs isn't enough: the population keeps growing, so you can lose ground even while adding jobs. We haven't actually been making real progress on that front.
 
Is this Obamas "I voted for it before I voted against it" moment? Or does he have an even better one in store for us? With 5 months to go and hundreds of unscripted appearances before November, could Obama screw up worse than this?

Yes he can!
 
Is this Obamas "I voted for it before I voted against it" moment? Or does he have an even better one in store for us? With 5 months to go and hundreds of unscripted appearances before November, could Obama screw up worse than this?

Yes he can!
I seriously doubt he could screw up as much as Romney who changes positions almost daily.
 
Oh for crying in the dark. How many times must this nonsense be debunked? First off, of course fracking is under attack. It causes real harm to real people.
As we say here, cite. No study I've seen documents it does so. Maybe you buy methane coming from a faucet as related to fracking; I don't.

Why the hell should it not be attacked? Perhaps fracking is a great idea overall. But we live in a democracy. Not a playground for the rich and powerful to get more rich and more powerful. People have a right to challenge anything that can cause environmental damage.
You don't need to be rich and powerful to get in the game, although you will become so if you choose to.

Now, oil production is up so that really isn't an issue.
Not on federally controlled areas so yes it is an issue.

But, get something straight, America isn't owned by conservatives or oil companies. Other people have a stake in the country also and not everything good for the oil companies is necessarily good for America. Can you at least acknowledge that much?
No, I don't acknowledge that dem talking point. Our economy and our military runs on energy.

Why the demagoguery and silly appeals to consequences and emotive language? Stop arguing as if it is obvious that any limits on energy production is sinister. There are legitimate concerns and hand waving those away isn't going to help anything. Increased production of American oil isn't a panacea for anything.
I hope you and your buddies enjoy the coming increase in electricity cost plus the included upward effect on consumer goods costs.

As I've said the democrat plan in all contingencies is raise taxes and increase size of govt. That and hinder the private sector in all ways possible.
 
Last edited:
As we say here, cite. No study I've seen documents it does so. Maybe you buy methane coming from a faucet as related to fracking; I don't.
It's up to those who are fracking to prove this sudden change isn't linked to what they are doing. You don't get to play see no evil.

You don't need to be rich and powerful to get in the game...
Yes, you do. I don't have the money to drill or buy legislators.

Not on federally controlled areas so yes it is an issue.
No. It's not an issue. There is no default position that says we MUST increase drilling.
No, I don't acknowledge that dem talking point. Our economy and our military runs on energy.
Here we go. A.) We export oil. It's not as if we don't have enough to meet our needs. B.) It's not as if we are in danger of not being able to get oil from foreign sources. C.) We cannot increase production sufficiently to offset world prices.

I hope you and your buddies enjoy the coming increase in electricity cost plus the included upward effect on consumer goods costs.
We cannot lower prices through increased production. The best scenario for increased production is a rounding error of world production.

As I've said the democrat plan in all contingencies is raise taxes and increase size of govt. That and hinder the private sector in all ways possible.
Propaganda. And complete BS. Even when I was a passionate conservative I never bought into this ad hominem nonsense. A moments thought is all that is needed to know its a lie. It's not in the interest of Democrats who own businesses and private equity firms, etc., to hinder the private sector in all ways possible. It's not in many Democrats interest. Democrats are not communists. Most I know believe in capitalism (they tend to be Keynesian) Come on, be reasonable. When you engage in such ridiculous hyperbole you still any wind possible from your arguments.
 
It's up to those who are fracking to prove this sudden change isn't linked to what they are doing.

Is it now?

Granted the correlation between the two events should be heavily researched, but, you know, positive evidence and all...
 
Is it now?

Granted the correlation between the two events should be heavily researched, but, you know, positive evidence and all...
Yes, it is. At least I damn well think it ought to be. Why not? Correlation isn't proof but it's a damn good indicator that something may very well be wrong. Especially if there have been no problems with water contamination. Why shouldn't the onus be on the fracking companies to demonstrate that their operations are safe?
 
Yes, it is. At least I damn well think it ought to be. Why not? Correlation isn't proof but it's a damn good indicator that something may very well be wrong. Especially if there have been no problems with water contamination. Why shouldn't the onus be on the fracking companies to demonstrate that their operations are safe?

Sorry, I was being a bit trite about the whole proving a negative thing.
I do believe that, in situations like this, the onus should be on the industry to research their procedures to meet some reasonable standard of safety.
So, yes, they should probably be forced to cease fracking in the affected areas to research the phenomenon. It's possible that it was indirectly caused by their actions in some scenario they weren't expecting but, in the future, will have to keep in mind; in that case fracking could, otherwise, be perfectly safe.
 
Research

Source page 3

Which BTW, shouldn't even be necessary. If you want to drill for natural gas it's not up to those who you could potentially harm to prove it is harmful. It's your responsibility to prove that it is safe.
 
Sorry, I was being a bit trite about the whole proving a negative thing.
I do believe that, in situations like this, the onus should be on the industry to research their procedures to meet some reasonable standard of safety.
So, yes, they should probably be forced to cease fracking in the affected areas to research the phenomenon. It's possible that it was indirectly caused by their actions in some scenario they weren't expecting but, in the future, will have to keep in mind; in that case fracking could, otherwise, be perfectly safe.
Thanks, yes, it could be.
 

Back
Top Bottom