America's economy is failing to produce jobs, increase growth or raise confidence, and it will likely get even worse next year. Our federal government's spending has increased to $3.7 trillion this year from $2.98 trillion in 2008. Publicly held national debt is up by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, to about 63% percent of GDP from 40%, and is expected to reach 70% by 2012. Add in the unemployment rate, which has remained above 9.4% for over a year, and America is clearly failing economically.
Next January the economy will be further depressed by increasing tax rates. The top income tax rate will rise to 39.6% from 35%, and the phase-out of itemized deductions and personal exemptions will effectively lift the top bracket to about 40.8%. On New Year's Day the tax on dividends is scheduled to go up to 39.6% from 15%, and come 2013, ObamaCare will add another 3.8%.
Other bad public policies will further drag down the economy. ObamaCare will increase individual costs and expand the deficit. Failing energy policies, from Washington's inept response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to its effort to limit tapping America's oil supplies, will drive up our use of imported foreign oil beyond the current 67% of our country's oil consumption.
***
Add together all these increases in government regulation, spending and taxes and a dim employment outlook, and the result is a dramatic national decline in support of the White House, Congress and their administration of our national policies.
So what can be done to change America's policies and make our economy stronger? For one thing, we could elect a president with different thinking. Almost any Republican candidate would have that, and, as we will see in a moment, there is one obvious Democrat who would change our course too.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365482705270718.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond
Sentiment is growing, and the Clinton's will NEVER pass this opportunity up. While I would rather see a more conservative president in the next term, Hillary would certainly do a better job than President Obama. Chances are that she's already scrap-booking this article.
I said that two and a half years ago. I could of used the help on this forum back then.
Oh, look, it's the Wall Street Journal ignoring facts once again!
I was reading an article last night about how once someone is set in their opinion, providing contradictory facts usually merely serves to further cement the opinion. The WSJ is the epitome of that concept, although I prefer to believe that the underlying study was wrong and that people really do listen to facts and change their opinion to accommodate new information.
With James Carville the Clinton's point man coming out with the poll last week saying 55% of likely voters think President Obama is a socialist Hillary running for President could happen.
Here's a link: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama
Histrionics. If he weren't so ugly, one could think that Rupert suffered from Histrionic Personality Disorder.
WSJ is surprising anyone these days???
How could that be??
You do remember that Rupert Murdoch OWNS the Wall Street Journal, don't you?
Another outsider with undue influence on our internal affairs.
If it were Acorn, there would be wild, radical ravings of near psychotic volume and duration.
Nathan, sorry...that study was right. Just look at Oklahoma. Proof; when 97% of county commissioners were convicted, the people of the state re-elected many of them. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....
It's also no secret the Wall Street Journal wrote some of the dumbest and most reactionary editorials even before the Murdoch buyout. SSDD.
The Wall Street Journal news division is often cited for greatness. The editorial department, not so much.
Quote from: unreliablesource on July 15, 2010, 06:42:23 PM
With James Carville the Clinton's point man coming out with the poll last week saying 55% of likely voters think President Obama is a socialist Hillary running for President could happen.
Here's a link: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama
Carville is in full gear behind Hillary now, and even though he's a beloved liberal nut-job, he can dish a lot of damage when he wants to. The man has power and that's why people hire him as their behind the scenes pit-bull.
Funny how all of the old Clinton Guard within the current administration are starting to do and say things that damage the President.
Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and the current Democratic co-chair of President Obama's fiscal commission said Wednesday that the president's health care bill will do very little to bring down costs, contradicting claims from the White House that their sweeping legislation will dramatically impact runaway entitlement spending.
"It didn't do a lot to address cost factors in health care. So we've got a lot of work to do," said Bowles, speaking about the new health law, which was signed into law by Obama this past spring after a nearly year-long fight in Congress.
Bowles, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said health care costs are still going to "really eat us alive."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 15, 2010, 05:06:07 PM
I said that two and a half years ago. I could of used the help on this forum back then.
You were right. She was/is the better of the two. I will still never vote for her, but now I fear that there is no Republican (or certainly Libertarian) candidate strong enough to stand against her. The Tea Party has effectively fractured the conservative vote, and they will be effective in driving the mid-term elections, but they will only cause damage in a presidential race.
Hillary has been a victim of this administration, but has still acted with poise and grace. I think people already view her as presidential. If for nothing more than the ability to bite her tongue and hold her head up while those around her did stupid stupid things.
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100714/i/r2146359646.jpg?x=400&y=256&q=85&sig=R9Gk2em0jf345cIWfL9wlw--)
Quote from: nathanm on July 15, 2010, 05:55:46 PM
Oh, look, it's the Wall Street Journal I'm ignoring facts once again!
I was reading an article last night about how once someone is set in their opinion, providing contradictory facts usually merely serves to further cement the opinion. The WSJ is I am the epitome of that concept, although I prefer to believe that the underlying study was wrong and that people really do listen to facts and change their opinion to accommodate new information.
FIFY.
I've rarely, if ever seen you modify your opinion on here even when provided with strong contradictory evidence.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 10:06:40 AM
FIFY.
I've rarely, if ever seen you modify your opinion on here even when provided with strong contradictory evidence.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction. – Blaise Pascal
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 15, 2010, 05:06:07 PM
I said that two and a half years ago. I could of used the help on this forum back then.
I agreed. Even though she's caustic and has problems with conditional honesty (which politician doesn't?) I found Hillary a whole lot more predictable and palateable than President Obama. I think it's finally dawning on people who supported President Obama how little anyone really knew of him, and how little leadership experience he actually had. He's been a people's advocate and agitator, but never a leader of any sort.
I knew where the Clintons stood on issues, I knew they were capable of being pragmatic, and it's hard to argue that the Clinton Presidency was not a good eight years for most Americans. Other than his personal foibles, I think history will be kind to President Clinton.
You heard it first here: given a choice between Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin,
I'd vote for Clinton. We don't need someone else with no real leadership skills who is simply a talking point machine for others who are pulling their strings. Given a choice between Hillary or McCain I could have gone either way, McCain is a RINO in my book, at least I knew what to expect out of Hillary and I figured she would keep a realistic approach to Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt McCain would have extended the two conflicts as long as possible.
I'm curious how much different things could have been with the Obama Administration if they had taken the reigns at a time of better economic prosperity and less global conflict. Unfortunately, I believe his Presidency will be remembered with as much fondness as Bush II, Carter, and Harding.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 10:06:40 AM
strong contradictory evidence.
When you define evidence as unsourced speculation and rhetoric, I do indeed have an unwillingness to change my opinion in response to evidence.
Rwarn,
I won't argue that. It does seem like it has gotten worse - just my thought.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 10:18:11 AM
I agreed. Even though she's caustic and has problems with conditional honesty (which politician doesn't?) I found Hillary a whole lot more predictable and palateable than President Obama. I think it's finally dawning on people who supported President Obama how little anyone really knew of him, and how little leadership experience he actually had. He's been a people's advocate and agitator, but never a leader of any sort.
I knew where the Clintons stood on issues, I knew they were capable of being pragmatic, and it's hard to argue that the Clinton Presidency was not a good eight years for most Americans. Other than his personal foibles, I think history will be kind to President Clinton.
You heard it first here: given a choice between Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, I'd vote for Clinton. We don't need someone else with no real leadership skills who is simply a talking point machine for others who are pulling their strings. Given a choice between Hillary or McCain I could have gone either way, McCain is a RINO in my book, at least I knew what to expect out of Hillary and I figured she would keep a realistic approach to Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt McCain would have extended the two conflicts as long as possible.
I'm curious how much different things could have been with the Obama Administration if they had taken the reigns at a time of better economic prosperity and less global conflict. Unfortunately, I believe his Presidency will be remembered with as much fondness as Bush II, Carter, and Harding.
I would have to agree, with the exception that in a race between Clinton and Palin I would vote for Palin. Not because I support a Palin candidacy in any way, but because I know it would result more in the dismantling of bureaucracy and it would send a message to the Republicans, who will be in charge of congress at that time, not to repeat the big government actions of the past.
I think Palin would make a dreadful president, but she poses no threat to democracy. Hillary will want to take the failed ObamaCare system and reform it into HillaryCare II. She will however take control of border issues, and is less likely to push amnesty or stand in the way of business and commerce. I think she learned that lesson from Bill. The best thing he ever did was get out of the way and let the good times roll.
Let's find out who would be her vice-president first...she's going to resign half way through anyway, so you are really voting for VP.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 16, 2010, 01:08:42 PM
I would have to agree, with the exception that in a race between Clinton and Palin I would vote for Palin. Not because I support a Palin candidacy in any way, but because I know it would result more in the dismantling of bureaucracy and it would send a message to the Republicans, who will be in charge of congress at that time, not to repeat the big government actions of the past.
I think Palin would make a dreadful president, but she poses no threat to democracy. Hillary will want to take the failed ObamaCare system and reform it into HillaryCare II. She will however take control of border issues, and is less likely to push amnesty or stand in the way of business and commerce. I think she learned that lesson from Bill. The best thing he ever did was get out of the way and let the good times roll.
I read somewhere that over 300,000 federal jobs were eliminated under the Clinton administration.
I was always led to believe that President Bush II would be a fiscal conservative. I wound up being completely disappointed, but where this becomes a muddled issue is the fact that he was faced with unprecidented terrorist attacks and one natural disaster after another. Some things no other President had to face since, arguably, FDR on the dawn of WWII.
Palin supposedly having a conservative bent doesn't sway me considering our last President actully did have somewhat of a conservative pedigree and legacy and didn't live up to those expectations. I also don't think she's got a great fundamental understanding of government. Were it not for the McCain campaign lifting her out of total obscurity, she'd still be captaining one of the least populated states in the nation and relatively insulated from the goings on in Washington. I also have a problem with the way she simply quit her job last year for greener pastures. She can cite mounting legal costs, but that's just an excuse. It makes me doubt her capability under serious pressure. I admire the woman for many things, don't get me wrong. I simply find her pretty naive on policy and do not think she brings the sort of leadership skills necessary to lead our nation out of this funk. She also represents the more far right faction and I don't think that's any better than Newt would be.
Far left and far right only increase the partisan divide which is getting sharper and sharper. A more moderate candidate (anyone who doesn't think the Clinton WH wasn't moderate is smoking rope) like Hillary could actually get things done.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 01:28:06 PM
Far left and far right only increase the partisan divide which is getting sharper and sharper. A more moderate candidate (anyone who doesn't think the Clinton WH wasn't moderate is smoking rope) like Hillary could actually get things done.
Please stop saying reasonable things with which I agree. It's making me think a plague of locusts is about to descend on us. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 01:28:06 PM
I simply find her pretty naive on policy and do not think she brings the sort of leadership skills necessary to lead our nation out of this funk. She also represents the more far right faction and I don't think that's any better than Newt would be.
Far left and far right only increase the partisan divide which is getting sharper and sharper. A more moderate candidate (anyone who doesn't think the Clinton WH wasn't moderate is smoking rope) like Hillary could actually get things done.
I agree she is no President!!! But I disagree on the partisan divide. In the past when we have had a far right president and a far left congress we have actually been better off. No matter liberal or conservative, when both the president and congress agree on issues the tendency to grow government is too strong.
Bush with a republican "conservative" congress spun wildly out of control. The same is true of every president with a rubber stamp legislature and vise versa.
When we have a house divided we see real debate and we see all of the dirty little earmarks and tricks and games uncovered. Sure, fewer bills are passed, but those that are do not escape harsh and painful scrutiny. No 2,000 page bill would ever pass congress unread, if it faced a president ready to veto it.
No president would ever get away with issuing careless decrees, mandates, and moratoriums with a critical legislature.
I want every bill to be a bloody fight. I want bruised and beaten congress men and women, and a president with swards in his/her back. That's what produces legislation in the best interest of the people. Only when each of our representatives is required to fight for us, are we are served!
Since this thread is somewhat predicated on the idea that Obama is toxic at the moment, I think this is a good place to reference this poll, for what little polls are worth:
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/poll_americans_blame_bush_not.html
I find it interesting that more people blame Bush for the deficit than Obama, and that few people think McCain would have done a better job. Also interesting is that despite the hammering Obama has been getting on the issue, 51% of the people polled think that Bush handled Katrina worse than Obama has handled the BP blowout.
I think the public in general a lot more frustrated with Congress than they are with the President. (as is reflected by their relative approval ratings)
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 02:07:56 PM
Since this thread is somewhat predicated on the idea that Obama is toxic at the moment, I think this is a good place to reference this poll, for what little polls are worth:
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/poll_americans_blame_bush_not.html
I find it interesting that more people blame Bush for the deficit than Obama, and that few people think McCain would have done a better job. Also interesting is that despite the hammering Obama has been getting on the issue, 51% of the people polled think that Bush handled Katrina worse than Obama has handled the BP blowout.
I think the public in general a lot more frustrated with Congress than they are with the President. (as is reflected by their relative approval ratings)
Agree.
The problem is that little change has taken place. The same people report the economy as the number one issue for the president and it seems to have taken the back seat. They are frustrated with congress, and the president.
Blaming the old ghosts has no power now. People have begun to realize that you can Hope for Change or you can Work for Change and they are not seeing the work.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 16, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
they are not seeing the work.
They are blind, then. Whether or not you agree with the new policies, you can't deny that Obama has shoved quite a bit of stuff through the meat grinder of Congress. It may not be progress in the direction you personally would like to go, but it's not as if nothing has happened in the last year and a half.
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 02:33:47 PM
They are blind, then. Whether or not you agree with the new policies, you can't deny that Obama has shoved quite a bit of stuff through the meat grinder of Congress. It may not be progress in the direction you personally would like to go, but it's not as if nothing has happened in the last year and a half.
That is 100% accurate.
I think the President has pursued the exact Change he was looking for. I also think it is significantly different than what the people expected. On the campaign trail he always alluded to "Change" when discussing strengthening the economy, and he was very detailed when discussing regulation and new layers of government.
The word change was brilliant because it could literally mean anything, and it literally did. They fainted, cried, and laid themselves prostrate on the alter of Change. This man was not Bush, and that's what mattered. He had never led. He had never managed. He had no experience in anything but campaigning, and he became leader of the most powerful country in the world. It's a true Cinderella story, and I'm glad I was alive to see it happen.
The crystal carriage has since turned back into a pumpkin, and we are left with Change. Not the Change we Hoped for. Not the Change you Hoped for.
Yes, as you said "Obama has shoveled quite a bit of stuff."
Early expectations were that President Obama would drop Biden in the 2012 race and offer the position to Hillary.
Now it seems with the Carville machine in full gear against Obama and forces within his own administration working against him, Hillary is the logical hope for the party.
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 01:37:03 PM
Please stop saying reasonable things with which I agree. It's making me think a plague of locusts is about to descend on us. ;D
Kumbaya 8)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 16, 2010, 01:53:16 PM
I agree she is no President!!! But I disagree on the partisan divide. In the past when we have had a far right president and a far left congress we have actually been better off. No matter liberal or conservative, when both the president and congress agree on issues the tendency to grow government is too strong.
Bush with a republican "conservative" congress spun wildly out of control. The same is true of every president with a rubber stamp legislature and vise versa.
When we have a house divided we see real debate and we see all of the dirty little earmarks and tricks and games uncovered. Sure, fewer bills are passed, but those that are do not escape harsh and painful scrutiny. No 2,000 page bill would ever pass congress unread, if it faced a president ready to veto it.
No president would ever get away with issuing careless decrees, mandates, and moratoriums with a critical legislature.
I want every bill to be a bloody fight. I want bruised and beaten congress men and women, and a president with swards in his/her back. That's what produces legislation in the best interest of the people. Only when each of our representatives is required to fight for us, are we are served!
The difference is, people like the late Speaker of The House Tip O'Neill and President Reagan actually respected each other. I blame Newt Gingrich for the total erosion of respect between an opposing executive branch and Congress. He led the charge to use White Water (what a costly circle-jerk that ended in a hummer that was) to get back at Dems for Iran-Contra and Watergate and it was a poorly calculated move which I believe let to this erosion.
Bruised and beaten is one thing as a result of good debate. A total lack of respect amongst politicians and/or creepy collusion behind the scenes has led to a total disregard for their constituents.
Owebama will not know what hit him after the Clinton machine gets through with him....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 16, 2010, 03:58:11 PM
Owebama will not know what hit him after the Clinton machine gets through with him....
True Dat...
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 02:07:56 PM
51% of the people polled think that Bush handled Katrina worse than Obama has handled the BP blowout.
Worse is a relative term. Neither of them handled the situation well. Neither of them could have done a bunch more either. There was plenty of blame to go around with Katrina. I have to agree that Obama couldn't plug the well. Obama could have cleared the way for earlier responses to the spill much as Bush II could have greased some skids for rescue and recovery from the hurricane.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 03:59:06 PM
True Dat...
They said that also in 2008....
Jus' sayin'....
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 16, 2010, 10:38:31 PM
Obama could have cleared the way for earlier responses to the spill
How's that? Seriously, I don't see where the administration was in the way, except where it needed to be.
Edited to add: Look at me, using the past tense before the well is actually killed. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 11:11:44 PM
How's that? Seriously, I don't see where the administration was in the way, except where it needed to be.
Edited to add: Look at me, using the past tense before the well is actually killed. ;)
One that springs to mind is one of the barges or skimmers was kept in port for several days for not having enough life preservers for the crew. Why not get the life preservers and get it working again?
Why the delay in allowing sand berms to be built? Protecting something that will die anyway if the oil gets there?
Some help offered by foreign sources was not for free. Why did the administration not tell them to get helping, we will guarantee the money and figure out how to get it from BP later? It's not like we have a balanced budget. Protecting the jobs of the shrimpers and other fisherpersons has to be more important than a strip of concrete somewhere.
The administration could have cleared the red tape but perhaps these are the type things where you believe the administration should have been in the way.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2010, 09:07:36 AM
One that springs to mind is one of the barges or skimmers was kept in port for several days for not having enough life preservers for the crew. Why not get the life preservers and get it working again?
Why the delay in allowing sand berms to be built? Protecting something that will die anyway if the oil gets there?
Some help offered by foreign sources was not for free. Why did the administration not tell them to get helping, we will guarantee the money and figure out how to get it from BP later? It's not like we have a balanced budget. Protecting the jobs of the shrimpers and other fisherpersons has to be more important than a strip of concrete somewhere.
The administration could have cleared the red tape but perhaps these are the type things where you believe the administration should have been in the way.
Sources? You know, other than Glen Beck?
Quote from: swake on July 17, 2010, 09:19:03 AM
Sources? You know, other than Glen Beck?
Glen is on in the afternoon while I'm at work.
Sources proving these to be incorrect? Other that Huffington etc?
Quote from: swake on July 17, 2010, 09:19:03 AM
Sources? You know, other than Glen Beck?
Pick any newspaper or msm. Unless you've been in a cave for three months you've no doubt read and or heard about the agonizingly slow pace of bureaucracy which kept states from protecting their shorelines and industries.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2010, 09:07:36 AM
Why the delay in allowing sand berms to be built? Protecting something that will die anyway if the oil gets there?
In that particular case, because it was plainly obvious they'd be useless and get washed away the first time the wind got over a few miles an hour. So chalk up $350 million wasted.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 01:28:16 PM
In that particular case, because it was plainly obvious they'd be useless and get washed away the first time the wind got over a few miles an hour. So chalk up $350 million wasted.
Why hell, that's probably about 20 minutes worth of the Iraq war...
:o
Quote from: Hoss on July 17, 2010, 01:39:38 PM
Why hell, that's probably about 20 minutes worth of the Iraq war...
:o
Hey, didn't you hear, we got more people in Afghanistan than Iraq now.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 01:28:16 PM
In that particular case, because it was plainly obvious they'd be useless and get washed away the first time the wind got over a few miles an hour. So chalk up $350 million wasted.
Hurricane, sure but then you could blame Bush as an extension of the Katrina disaster. It could possibly protect against the usual afternoon thundershower. It might buy enough time to do something better. What happened to the liberal doing anything, even if it is wrong, is better than doing nothing?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 18, 2010, 09:36:51 PM
Hurricane, sure but then you could blame Bush as an extension of the Katrina disaster. It could possibly protect against the usual afternoon thundershower. It might buy enough time to do something better. What happened to the liberal doing anything, even if it is wrong, is better than doing nothing?
It didn't even take a thunderstorm to drown a bunch of construction equipment on Jindal's berms.
Have I ever said doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing? I thought that was a Bush thing.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2010, 02:45:36 AM
It didn't even take a thunderstorm to drown a bunch of construction equipment on Jindal's berms.
Have I ever said doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing? I thought that was a Bush thing.
Face it. The Feds dithered while states were ready to provide their own solutions.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 06:32:20 AM
Face it. The Feds BP dithered while states were ready to provide their own solutions posturing.
FTFY.
And I'm fascinated to read all of these folk who think that Hillary's actually going to challenge in 2012. I think that's just a fairytale (semi-obscure reference from 2008).
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 06:41:01 AM
FTFY.
And I'm fascinated to read all of these folk who think that Hillary's actually going to challenge in 2012. I think that's just a fairytale (semi-obscure reference from 2008).
LOL. I guess the fairytale is picking up serious steam.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/Afghan-war-may-be-key-to-2012-Clinton-candidacy-1001466-98710284.html
Her actions are becoming more presidential as he is withdrawing with each new failed attempt at leadership. For the last 18 months she's been in the back seat, now the spotlight is squarely on her.
Only time will tell, but her actions are bold.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 06:41:01 AM
FTFY.
And I'm fascinated to read all of these folk who think that Hillary's actually going to challenge in 2012. I think that's just a fairytale (semi-obscure reference from 2008).
BP didn't beach oil collecting barges looking for life jackets & fire extinguishers. BP didn't basically ignore outside offers for help regardless of cost from other countries, and BP didn't sit on it's hands while governors of Gulf states were coming up with viable solutions to protect their beaches and delicate wetlands.
An incumbent President facing opposition from within their own party is rare, but not unheard of, it happened to President Carter courtesy of Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1980. Carville being upset with the Obama Admin over the handling of the BP spill hasn't helped quell speculation. At this point it's obviously conjecture, but if November turns into a total blood bath I think you could easily see the Clintons try to wrest control of the party back.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 08:33:09 AM
BP didn't beach oil collecting barges looking for life jackets & fire extinguishers. BP didn't mull outside offers for help regardless of cost from other countries, and BP didn't sit on it's hands while governors of Gulf states were coming up with viable solutions to protect their beaches and delicate wetlands.
Puh-lease.
Oil has washed up on every state in the Gulf despite the "viable" solutions. If you can figure out how to stop oil from washing ashore from a 180 million gallon leak with dispersants, I'd sure like to hear it.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 08:51:16 AM
Puh-lease.
Oil has washed up on every state in the Gulf despite the "viable" solutions. If you can figure out how to stop oil from washing ashore from a 180 million gallon leak with dispersants, I'd sure like to hear it.
Uh, I think we are all aware of that, so you think the Federal response to this disaster has been adequate, then? There's a whole tourism and fishing industry that strongly disagrees with your assertion. I'm sure you would have thought the response to Katrina was terrific as well had it happened during the Obama Administration.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Uh, I think we are all aware of that, so you think the Federal response to this disaster has been adequate, then?
Adequacy is an utterly moot point. I'm willing to reluctantly concede that some problems are too big for anyone. It's the biggest oil spill in history. You have thousands of miles of shoreline that are affected.
This isn't like making an iPhone that periodically has connection problems, or a basic thing such as hauling food and water to a few thousand hurricane refugees that are collected in one area.
This is much bigger than either of those things. What would you have done?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 08:51:16 AM
Puh-lease.
Oil has washed up on every state in the Gulf despite the "viable" solutions. If you can figure out how to stop oil from washing ashore from a 180 million gallon leak with dispersants, I'd sure like to hear it.
You can't, any more than you can stop a hurricane, or plug a volcano.
The response by the administration is lacking because by all outward appearances it is not a priority. No matter how strong the effort may be. The President's primary job is to lead. Part of leading is gaining the confidence of your public. This is where the failure is, it has little to do with the actual response, and more to do with public perception.
The delay in addressing the disaster and the very strange illconcieved address to the American people caused a major leak of confidence. Compound that with 7 vacations, 20+ golf outings, dozens of fund raisers, private Whitehouse concerts and other distractions, the words "I will not rest until we plug the leak" rings a bit hollow.
The leak and the economy are not really that important. At least that's the sentiment we are getting from this President. He has other things, and other priorities he must get to first.
It's not a lapse in response, though that might exist. It's a lapse in leadership, and we are seeing it on multiple fronts.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 09:47:13 AM
Adequacy is an utterly moot point. I'm willing to reluctantly concede that some problems are too big for anyone. It's the biggest oil spill in history. You have thousands of miles of shoreline that are affected.
This isn't like making an iPhone that periodically has connection problems, or a basic thing such as hauling food and water to a few thousand hurricane refugees that are collected in one area.
This is much bigger than either of those things. What would you have done?
Executive orders.
The President should have removed any barriers devoted to cleaning up and containing the spill immediately. There should have been no waiting periods for permits to move sand around, no delays in deploying barges for USCG safety checks which could have been accomplished on-board as they were working, etc.
Actually, it's disputable whether or not it's the largest spill. Oil spills are not uncharted territory if you are implying that.
http://www.envirowonk.com/content/view/68/1/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38304778
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 10:57:38 AM
The response by the administration is lacking because by all outward appearances it is not a priority. No matter how strong the effort may be. The President's primary job is to lead. Part of leading is gaining the confidence of your public. This is where the failure is, it has little to do with the actual response, and more to do with public perception.
You can't say that, it's not fair. It was fair when President Bush was dealing with Katrina, but it's not fair now because it's "their" guy on the hot seat. Adequacy is now moot, have you not heard?
It is what it is. :-[
Saw an interesting video this morning (will try to get link later...) that showed two guys with bowls of water and some oil, with their idea on how to help clean up the spill. They used hay, spread on the surface of the water and it absorbed oil like one of those German magic clothes picks up Pepsi out of your carpet.
Did a very good job in the demonstration.
Now all we need is several hundred square miles of hay!
After it has soaked up the oil, bring it ashore and burn it in something like the Tulsa incinerator. Oh, yeah...another great idea of how to get rid of waste that was shut down by the city "Fathers". I'm sure it must be better to fill large holes in the ground with unprocessed trash rather than have a little pile of ash to deal with.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 19, 2010, 12:56:27 PM
Saw an interesting video this morning (will try to get link later...) that showed two guys with bowls of water and some oil, with their idea on how to help clean up the spill. They used hay, spread on the surface of the water and it absorbed oil like one of those German magic clothes picks up Pepsi out of your carpet.
Did a very good job in the demonstration.
Now all we need is several hundred square miles of hay!
After it has soaked up the oil, bring it ashore and burn it in something like the Tulsa incinerator. Oh, yeah...another great idea of how to get rid of waste that was shut down by the city "Fathers". I'm sure it must be better to fill large holes in the ground with unprocessed trash rather than have a little pile of ash to deal with.
Wow! Where have you been. They use hay bales. They also use straw booms and what they call waddles (basically nylon stuffed with hey).
The best thing I've seen is nylon fiber fill. It floats on the water but soaks up the oil. It's basically the stuffing in your sofa.
I personally think they should employ hashbrowns. I've never seen anything soak up grease like my wife's hashbrowns.
Yeah, I have seen the booms and all the structural items that are used to stop movement. This was a different technique - it is just spread around on the surface like a mat floating around to cover large areas. Was not localized "spot" method - cover entire gulf.
Also, don't need nylon - another oil base pollutant for this application - just plain old bermuda/fescue or what ever is readily available. (Marijuana?? Hey, if they used grass, then burn the whole thing in a boiler, could get a nice little contact buzz while making hot water!) Well, except for the toxic chemical part of it...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 19, 2010, 01:41:07 PM
Yeah, I have seen the booms and all the structural items that are used to stop movement. This was a different technique - it is just spread around on the surface like a mat floating around to cover large areas. Was not localized "spot" method - cover entire gulf.
Also, don't need nylon - another oil base pollutant for this application - just plain old bermuda/fescue or what ever is readily available. (Marijuana?? Hey, if they used grass, then burn the whole thing in a boiler, could get a nice little contact buzz while making hot water!) Well, except for the toxic chemical part of it...
Actually not true, you can powder the fiber fill, soak up the oil, retrieve it, centrifuge the oil out, and re-apply it.
Also, are you aware that the Trash-To-Energy plant in west Tulsa has been re-opened for some time now?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 01:45:29 PM
Also, are you aware that the Trash-To-Energy plant in west Tulsa has been re-opened for some time now?
Tulsa residential trash has been going there for over nine months now.
So, hows about that Hillary Clinton?
Quote from: YoungTulsan on July 19, 2010, 03:48:07 PM
So, hows about that Hillary Clinton?
Knowing what we know now, she's looking pretty good.
(http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg266/radnorj/BitchPlease.jpg)
Hillary is talking to Gretta:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about the fight against terrorism on the Pakistan/Afghani border. Clinton says "I assume somebody in this [Pakistani] government, from top to bottom, does know where Bin Laden is, and I'd like to know too."
What would happen if she came home with Bin Laden. What a victory. I would probably even vote for her.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 02:53:55 PM
Hillary is talking to Gretta:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about the fight against terrorism on the Pakistan/Afghani border. Clinton says "I assume somebody in this [Pakistani] government, from top to bottom, does know where Bin Laden is, and I'd like to know too."
What would happen if she came home with Bin Laden. What a victory. I would probably even vote for her.
I wonder if her husband would mind if she brought Bin Laden home?
"Billy. . .Ju got some splaning to do!"
No, I had no idea. I am thrilled. That is good news - even if it's actually olds....
I wonder if she would consider a run on the Republican ticket?
Wait that explains it, Gaspar. President Obama isn't arrogant nor abdicating his duties, he's hard of hearing.
When they said "Do something about the Gulf" he thought they said "golf".
In that case, I admire his response time.