Poll
Question:
Who did you vote for as the District 1 Representative
Option 1: Jim Bridenstine
votes: 3
Option 2: John Olson
votes: 17
Option 3: Craig Allen
votes: 2
Curious to see how our cross-section of members stacks up with D-1 as a whole, since it's said a Democrat cannot win a national office from the Tulsa area.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2012, 03:51:57 PM
Curious to see how our cross-section of members stacks up with D-1 as a whole, since it's said a Democrat cannot win a national office from the Tulsa area.
He cannot win. I have a feeling we will look back at John Sullivan with fondness and melancholy.
You never can be sure.
People may vote for Olsen because they don't want to vote for a monster built from the parts of cadavers.
Oh, and they can spell Olsen.
You know, after reading his responses to the LWV, I thought Allen was reasonable enough that I would be reasonably OK with him winning. He buys some of the weird far right talking points, but all in all seemed like he had a brain capable of functioning, unlike Bridenstine who seems to just parrot whatever crap his backers feed in.
That said, Olson is by far the better candidate. Slightly left leaning relative to Oklahoma, but clearly willing and able to have disagreements with his party.
I'll vote for Olson....when we get to the poll. We're waiting for Number One Daughter to get home from work.
I voted for JO. Gives me the right to complain about Bridenstein for 2 years. Maybe he'll toe tap.
Markwayne...the rest the country recognizes us by our "leaders."
Quote from: Townsend on November 06, 2012, 04:04:04 PM
You never can be sure.
People may vote for Olsen because they don't want to vote for a monster built from the parts of cadavers.
Oh, and they can spell Olsen.
Except that it is Olson, at least according to his web site and the ballot I marked. And if our sampling is any indication, Olson trampled Bridenstine.
Bridenstine was too much like Sullivan, a vacuous talking point machine for the Tea Party. Half the things Bridenstine was spouting in his ads was pure fantasy.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2012, 04:36:38 PM
Except that it is Olson, at least according to his web site and the ballot I marked. And if our sampling is any indication, Olson trampled Bridenstine.
Bridenstine was too much like Sullivan, a vacuous talking point machine for the Tea Party. Half the things Bridenstine was spouting in his ads was pure fantasy.
His "debates" with Sullivan were sure as heck entertaining though. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2012, 04:36:38 PM
Except that it is Olson, at least according to his web site and the ballot I marked. And if our sampling is any indication, Olson trampled Bridenstine.
Bridenstine was too much like Sullivan, a vacuous talking point machine for the Tea Party. Half the things Bridenstine was spouting in his ads was pure fantasy.
Well dammit to your first point. Maybe I like Bridenstine's monster.
I hope our sampling is consistent with actual voting.
Quote from: erfalf on November 06, 2012, 04:42:21 PM
His "debates" with Sullivan were sure as heck entertaining though. ;D
I assume that's why he refused to debate the other candidates and wouldn't respond to interview requests.
I crossed party lines and voted for Olson.
I just don't care for extremist from either party.
Quote from: Townsend on November 06, 2012, 04:47:48 PM
I assume that's why he refused to debate the other candidates and wouldn't respond to interview requests.
Yes they did debate..................... http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20121022_335_0_SyriaA9907
They debated in Bartlesville too........................http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/local-news/bridenstine-olson-debate-issues.html
I'm a republican but can say that I REALLY don't like Bridenstine. He ran the airshow clusterfrack and was quoted saying he had no idea what he was doing. He did that while running TASM and admitting he wasn't qualified for the job. He sold four houses and an alpaca farm to buy into the rocket racing league which had it's only performance 2 years ago in Tulsa. So... it seems to be his own worst enemy when it comes to icking jobs or business ventures.
Ready Craig Allen's facebook makes me think he's Shadows.
Not real impressed with Olson either... if only he had shot a water bottle with a shotgun while holding a bible, he might've had a shot.
Well, this is a good indication where this forum stands. Not very representative of how Tulsa thinks. Me included.
Bridenstine wins in a landslide.
Quote from: GG on November 06, 2012, 09:40:27 PM
Well, this is a good indication where this forum stands. Not very representative of how Tulsa thinks. Me included.
Bridenstine wins in a landslide.
His acceptance call to war on the federal government was a bucket of crazy.
Quote from: Townsend on November 06, 2012, 09:54:19 PM
His acceptance call to war on the federal government was a bucket of crazy.
At least he'll fit right in.
His victory speach made me want to duck under the sofa. Well at least he'll be entertaining.
Quote from: carltonplace on November 07, 2012, 09:25:08 AM
His victory speach made me want to duck under the sofa. Well at least he'll be entertaining.
He's going to spend his term ensuring that Obama will only be a 2 term president.
Quote from: Townsend on November 06, 2012, 09:54:19 PM
His acceptance call to war on the federal government was a bucket of crazy.
He was interviewed on KRMG this morning and apparently was still drunk on the Tea Party passion punch:
-Deficit
-Debt
-Obamacare
-Socialist agenda
-Attack on family values
You get the rest. Four more years of gridlock.
I'm hoping now that Obama doesn't have to worry about winning another term, he will be more open to compromise which does not have to include a tax increase at every turn as part of his compromise.
Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2012, 09:27:55 AM
He's going to spend his term ensuring that Obama will only be a 2 term president.
We need a "like" button on here.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:34:00 AM
He was interviewed on KRMG this morning and apparently was still drunk on the Tea Party passion punch:
-Deficit
-Debt
-Obamacare
-Socialist agenda
-Attack on family values
You get the rest. Four more years of gridlock.
I'm hoping now that Obama doesn't have to worry about winning another term, he will be more open to compromise which does not have to include a tax increase at every turn as part of his compromise.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/22452137.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:34:00 AM
I'm hoping now that Obama doesn't have to worry about winning another term, he will be more open to compromise which does not have to include a tax increase at every turn as part of his compromise.
It isn't compromise if only one side gets things that they want. It's OK. He's (hopefully) going to be schooled in what compromise actually means after the sequester bomb goes off. Obama and the Senate Dems will be negotiating from a position of strength since the Democrats basically get what they want, just sooner than they think is appropriate for the economy. Maybe the Tea Partiers who forced Boehner to scuttle the deal he and Obama had made will learn that it's best to accept it when you win instead of trying to get even more.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:34:00 AM
I'm hoping now that Obama doesn't have to worry about winning another term, he will be more open to compromise which does not have to include a tax increase at every turn as part of his compromise.
You can't possibly think that we can continue without a revenue component??
Which is MOST likely to be letting Bush tax cuts expire. And then massaging the system a little bit.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 07, 2012, 08:40:33 PM
You can't possibly think that we can continue without a revenue component??
Which is MOST likely to be letting Bush tax cuts expire. And then massaging the system a little bit.
Any idea how much more revenue would be generated with 23 million unemployed and underemployed getting real employment?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:28:05 PM
Any idea how much more revenue would be generated with 23 million unemployed and underemployed getting real employment?
Not enough. I can say that with confidence because we were running deficits before the supplementary appropriations for Afghanistan and Iraq even during the peak years of the economy under Bush.
Quote from: nathanm on November 07, 2012, 10:10:25 PM
Not enough. I can say that with confidence because we were running deficits before the supplementary appropriations for Afghanistan and Iraq even during the peak years of the economy under Bush.
Do you really think that merely eliminating the Bush tax cuts on only the 1%ers will be "enough"?
I don't.
I'm guessing not. But what is the harm in letting them expire? They'd just go back to the effective tax rate they had during the Clinton years. We all know how financially dire THOSE years were.
::)
Quote from: Hoss on November 07, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
I'm guessing not. But what is the harm in letting them expire? They'd just go back to the effective tax rate they had during the Clinton years. We all know how financially dire THOSE years were.
::)
Jimmy Carter could have ridden the financial bubble given to Clinton. Manufacturing in the US was already on the way down before Bush was elected in 2000.
Harm? I expect they will be "allowed" to expire so we will find out. I wish us all good luck but hope I can keep working for a few more years so I can keep my toys when I retire.
Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2012, 09:27:55 AM
He's going to spend his term ensuring that Obama will only be a 2 term president.
I expect he will be successful. :D
I expect a toe tapping incident.
Don't ask, don't tell. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 07, 2012, 10:31:24 PM
Jimmy Carter could have ridden the financial bubble given to Clinton.
The economy (and job growth) was strong long before the financial bubble. The point, of course, being that just about any tax rate won't stop the economy presuming it's not high enough to suck more money out of the economy than it can sustain. Think of it as a tool to help keep inflation under control if you like.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:28:05 PM
Any idea how much more revenue would be generated with 23 million unemployed and underemployed getting real employment?
Yeah, but that would mean reversing decades of job export exercises, wouldn't it? That is very high on my list of favorite events to happen. And that would also be in conjunction with more revenue. We were on a path, when Bush was elected - granted it probably would not have continued at that rate - where our national debt would have been eliminated in about 12 to 15 years. That's today.
So, yeah, it is absolutely valid - in fact mandatory - to look at and continuously evaluate the past and its effects on today. Examples; Bush was very bad. Roosevelt very good - literally gave us the means and tools for our economy to become what it became - those tools literally allowing the development of something that had never existed before - a massive middle class. No other country had ever achieved that before.
Even the most myopic of "tax cuts are all it takes" fools can see that it has been changed over the last decades.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 07, 2012, 10:19:19 PM
Do you really think that merely eliminating the Bush tax cuts on only the 1%ers will be "enough"?
I don't.
Red, you are still falling into the same old tired pattern of jumping to the most extreme, exclusive condition and lamenting it's failure. Nobody - except for the Murdochianz - has EVER said or implied or advanced the idea that lapsing the Bush tax cuts will be 'enough'. It must be done in conjunction with other actions that have already been started. Now it is time to start that one.
As with the topic of energy - no one ever advances the idea that solar or wind will be the only tools used. They MUST be some of the tools used.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2012, 06:34:51 AM
Red, you are still falling into the same old tired pattern of jumping to the most extreme, exclusive condition and lamenting it's failure. Nobody - except for the Murdochianz - has EVER said or implied or advanced the idea that lapsing the Bush tax cuts will be 'enough'. It must be done in conjunction with other actions that have already been started. Now it is time to start that one.
As with the topic of energy - no one ever advances the idea that solar or wind will be the only tools used. They MUST be some of the tools used.
For me, it seems that many on the right use a 'black or white' mentality with no grey in between.
Quote from: Hoss on November 07, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
I'm guessing not. But what is the harm in letting them expire? They'd just go back to the effective tax rate they had during the Clinton years. We all know how financially dire THOSE years were.
::)
As long as the middle class rates aren't allowed to go back up with the upper brackets. Spending power of the middle class is already taking a beating with high fuel prices.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
As long as the middle class rates aren't allowed to go back up with the upper brackets. Spending power of the middle class is already taking a beating with high fuel prices.
Historically, housing has led recoveries. Now that housing has finally turned the corner in the vast majority of markets we should be good as long as we don't actively love it up.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
As long as the middle class rates aren't allowed to go back up with the upper brackets. Spending power of the middle class is already taking a beating with high fuel prices.
You mean those high fuel prices that are about 60 cents less than this time in 2008??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2012, 01:45:37 PM
You mean those high fuel prices that are about 60 cents less than this time in 2008??
Buck higher, at least in Tulsa. Gas prices peaked in July/Aug of '08. If the average family burns 20 gal of gas per week, that's $80 less per month they can spend at the grocery store or Wal-Martz.
QuoteBy August, the cost fell to $3.74 and continued to fall until the price averaged $2.07 just after Election Day in November, when Mr. Obama was elected president.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650/face-the-facts-a-fact-check-on-gas-prices/
High gas prices suck. Unfortunately, there are only two ways of bringing them down significantly. First, foment another financial crash. Second, curbs on speculation that would be decried by half the country as teh soshulizum.
Quote from: nathanm on November 08, 2012, 03:11:03 PM
High gas prices suck. Unfortunately, there are only two ways of bringing them down significantly. First, foment another financial crash. Second, curbs on speculation that would be decried by half the country as teh soshulizum.
Three ways, actually. Third is out-strip demand with supply but that's never going to happen again at least not the official account anyhow.
Demand isn't out-stripping supply, that's what big oil wants you to believe and it's the crap they keep shoveling to the government.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2012, 04:13:18 PM
Three ways, actually. Third is out-strip demand with supply but that's never going to happen again at least not the official account anyhow.
Demand isn't out-stripping supply, that's what big oil wants you to believe and it's the crap they keep shoveling to the government.
Supply greater than demand is the reason we have the fluctuations we do have. They work VERY hard to keep that from happening. And if/when it does, they use all the storage capacity available to hold supply back from the market until the last moment possible - just as gas is starting to bubble over the top of the tank...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2012, 04:13:18 PM
Demand isn't out-stripping supply, that's what big oil wants you to believe and it's the crap they keep shoveling to the government.
With regard to gasoline, it's not, supply can exceed demand if refiners would like it to do so. With regard to oil, however, significant overall production increases are harder to come by. The continued economic turmoil in Europe and elsewhere is easing pressure on oil supplies for the moment, but the moment they pull their heads out of their asses that situation will become difficult again.
Obviously, any individual country's production may or may not follow the global trend, but in aggregate there's not much more (in the sense of increasing the rate of production) to be had in the next few years.
Quote from: nathanm on November 08, 2012, 04:21:55 PM
With regard to gasoline, it's not, supply can exceed demand if refiners would like it to do so. With regard to oil, however, significant overall production increases are harder to come by. The continued economic turmoil in Europe and elsewhere is easing pressure on oil supplies for the moment, but the moment they pull their heads out of their asses that situation will become difficult again.
Obviously, any individual country's production may or may not follow the global trend, but in aggregate there's not much more (in the sense of increasing the rate of production) to be had in the next few years.
Not sure how it is today - have been out of touch for a couple years - but back just a little while, Saudi could turn up the volume to the tune of 50% to 100% or so in essentially real time. Later today? Or in a few days...or few weeks.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 09, 2012, 07:20:41 AM
Not sure how it is today - have been out of touch for a couple years - but back just a little while, Saudi could turn up the volume to the tune of 50% to 100% or so in essentially real time. Later today? Or in a few days...or few weeks.
They
can pump more, but not more light sweet. The last few times they've said they'd increase production, they haven't really. (that's what they say on the oil drum, anyway, with charts to prove it. :P)Iraq, on the other hand, very much could increase output of the good stuff if people would stop blowing up the infrastructure. Not that they have any reason to do so. They obviously enjoy the high prices. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2012, 09:29:34 AM
Just a couple?
Out of the oil industry. Been thinking about going back! Does that scare you enough??
Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2012, 09:32:21 AM
They can pump more, but not more light sweet. The last few times they've said they'd increase production, they haven't really. (that's what they say on the oil drum, anyway, with charts to prove it. :P)Iraq, on the other hand, very much could increase output of the good stuff if people would stop blowing up the infrastructure. Not that they have any reason to do so. They obviously enjoy the high prices. ;)
Back in the bad old days when we were in the worst recession in history next to the 30's depression - 2007 thru mid 2009 - Saudi talked regularly about how they wanted oil to be somewhere in the $60 - 70 per barrel - they saw that as the best operating point of supply/demand/price that would maximize their revenue while keeping the price low enough to not hurt the world demand (make the worldwide recession worse). Usually they are exceptional at dialing that number in, but this time they missed it by about $25-30...the current price range near $85-90.
Which makes them happy that demand hasn't been adversely effected with the higher prices. We now have the 'real' price of oil. Today's price. Now they know this, they won't increase production, since it might bring down prices.