It's possible that some of them simply do not know that the talking point given them by Fox News or by Karl Rove, or by John Boehner or Eric Cantor or Mitch McConnell (each of whom has told the lie time and time again, is in fact a lie.
But this morning, in the Republican response to the Weekly Presidential Address ( when did they start doing these, anyway?) they told the lie again.
That lie: Obama said the stimulus package would prevent unemployment from going over 8% , however, is absolute bullshit. And the people telling it know it. The problem is that there are other people, like people in the media who supposedly know better and have a duty to report the truth, do not bother to call the liars out on the facts. Also, the supposed political allies of the president frequently hang him out to dry on this one as well. if they bother at all to correct on the facts they do so in a timid and unconvincing way.
In the article linked above the point is made that the statistics used are from a pre-presidential report by staff of the future Obama administration. The report itself indicates nothing by way of an unemployment rate and is quite emphatic about the unknown impact of the recovery act except that passing it would prevent the loss of as many as 4 million jobs.
Directly from the article :
"Once again, it is CLEARLY STATED that these are ESTIMATES and LIKELY to be incorrect. So why is the media pretending like the President predicted definitively that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% when he NEVER DID?
The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6%, so CLEARLY nobody in there RIGHT MIND thought that the Stimulus package was going to be able to hold it under 8%. The stimulus bill wasn’t signed into law until mid February . . . the unemployment rate then was ALREADY 8.1%."
Why would anyone make a promise to keep unemployment below the point it had already crossed? They would not- and Obama did not.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Thursday, June 09, 2011
News from the Truth Campaign
Joe (You Lie) Wilson today endorsed Former Governor Tim Pawlenty's Campaign of Truth. Apparently the guy who has the self control of a poorly disciplined puppy believes that Tim Pawlenty has the perfect solutions for our country.
I hope T-Paw continues to surround himself with such noble characters.
I hope T-Paw continues to surround himself with such noble characters.
So, will they still call it ObamaCare?
July 1, will bring peace of mind to those who currently are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions.
This is yet another example of good news coming from the Obama Presidency in spite of united opposition from the minority party who would rather see Obama fail than see the nation succeed.
Now if we continue to see job growth- as many project will strengthen in the next year, with higher income jobs returning, and if we can draw down significantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, things will loo bright by summer of 2012.
This is yet another example of good news coming from the Obama Presidency in spite of united opposition from the minority party who would rather see Obama fail than see the nation succeed.
Now if we continue to see job growth- as many project will strengthen in the next year, with higher income jobs returning, and if we can draw down significantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, things will loo bright by summer of 2012.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
It makes no sense to ask Republicans: "Where are the Jobs"
In a Wall Street Journal article dated January 9, 2009 they described George W bush as the worst performing president for job creation since Herbert Hoover. This is demonstrated with a chart that tracks job creation by president going all the way back to Herbert Hoover. The figures represent non farm jobs and areprovided by the bureau of labor and statistics- Department of Labor. The number shown is annual growth and shown as a percentage rate.
Listed from worst to best- notice the party affiliations:
Herbert Hoover (R) -6.9
George W Bush (R) .02
George Bush (R) .06
Dwight D Eisenhower(R) .9
Gerald Ford (R) 1.1
Ronald Reagan(R) 2.1
Richard Nixon (R) 2.2
John Kennedy (D) 2.3
Bill Clinton (D) 2.4
Harry Truman (D) 2.5
Jimmy Carter (D) 3.1
LB Johnson (D) 3.8
FD Roosevelt(D) 4.9
And now the boneheads will no doubt say, "Yes, but Obama has been so much worse..." But this WSJ article will demonstrate that Obama's record on job creation is actually pretty strong. In fact, at the current rate of job creation, Obama will have created, by the end of 2011, more jobs than were created in the whole 8 years under George W Bush (whose best claim about job creation can only be that he helped his dad look better.
Now, at the same time I do not want Boehner and his ilk to stop asking, "where are the jobs?" But they need to start asking that question of their wealthy corporate buddies who are sitting on 1.6 trillion dollars in wealth that was put into theor pockets through tax breaks with a promise of job creation.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
This post is reprinted from a comment section at Talking Points Memo.
As posted by Oscar Homolka-
It was off-point where he printed it but is noteworthy none-the-less.
How Social Security Works -
Excerpted from Truthout.Org article by Josh Hilgart, New Deal 2.0Op-Ed
Consider what Social Security is: a 75-year-old public insurance program that allows us all to save just enough to avoid working to the grave for food, or moving in with our adult children out of destitution. It works spectacularly well, solving a problem that has always dogged humankind. Social Security grants dignity to hundreds of millions of aging Americans who would otherwise confront the less pleasant world that existed before the program.
That’s not all. Social Security is arguably the most stable, well-run government program in the United States. While other programs, like military spending, require new votes of money every single year, Social Security is running a surplus and will be over a hundred years old before it starts falling short of its obligations. Moreover, it would be solvent for many more years with only minor adjustments. It’s government at its best.
Social Security’s resilience stems partly from the politically savvy way in which it was created. It can’t be dismissed as a simple welfare program because it’s not a direct handout; ultimate benefits are based on your lifetime contributions. Further insulating it from charges of “income redistribution,” Social Security imposes taxes only on income corresponding to those deriving the greatest benefits: The tax is applied to income below $106,800. This is limited government with an American twist — you will be asked to pay in only so much, and what you get in the end is based on what you put in.
A couple of other facts about Social Security’s payouts warrant note. Unlike regular retirement accounts, Social Security distributions to retirees are not the same dollars those retirees paid in; like insurance, current benefits are funded by current contributions and interest derived through loans made to other programs (more on loans below). Related to this, while benefits are tied to individual contributions over a working life, payouts also take into account projections of future standards of living.
To fund the payouts, an independent tax — the payroll or FICA tax — was established (later including taxes for Medicare). This kept retiree benefits separate from the regular pot of money used for discretionary spending, and facilitated Social Security’s regressive tax rate, aimed at the middle class and poor who depend on the program. To get an idea of just how much this tax is tilted towards those who most benefit from the program, consider the following: unlike regular income taxes, a billionaire doesn’t pay a similar percentage, but the same dollar amount into Social Security as someone who earns $106,800. Put another way, a top hedge fund manager pays about 0.003 percent of his income into Social Security, while anyone earning less than $106,800 pays 12.4 percent — a rate over 4,000 times greater than that of the much wealthier hedge fund manager.
How does the structure of Social Security and its tax rates relate to our debate? Let’s look at the most basic description of our current discussion: both parties’ leaders and the media claim that cutting Social Security benefits would reduce the deficit, and that such cuts are probably necessary; there is disagreement only over the size of those cuts, with a few, rarely-interviewed “lefties” arguing against any cuts at all. (Sen. Harry Reid is an exception among mainstream politicians in his arguments for no cuts, and he is being lambasted for it.) In other words, the general consensus among “serious” people is that benefits must be taken away from those paying in, so that we can make up shortfalls in other pots of government money.
But taking into account the way it is taxed, any diversion of Social Security benefits towards balancing the general budget is a tax increase on those earning under $106,800. If the middle and lower classes are the ones who have been paying the highest tax rate into this pool of money, using this pool to offset shortfalls in our general income tax, instead of paying out benefits, would represent a systemic shift in tax liability for general spending. For all practical purposes, it would be a tax on benefits going to the poor and middle class, used to offset recent cuts in income tax for the rich.
Given public outrage over the ever-decreasing tax burden on the rich, you’d expect those suggesting that our debts be settled exclusively by those earning under $106,800 to be run out of town with pitchforks. Yet, amazingly, politicians and the media collaborate with impunity to ignore this shift in taxation. Just ask yourself: how often do those who advocate reducing the deficit with cuts to Social Security argue that the middle and lower classes should bear the burden of our debt? For that matter, how often do hosts on CNN or the Sunday political shows require such advocates to even acknowledge that their plan asks working families to service our debt? In contrast — to drive the point home — when the rich are asked to pay more, do media and politicians completely ignore who is getting stuck with the bill?
In all likelihood, this inequity is ignored precisely because it would spark outrage. If the public was exposed to regular debates about the tax implications of using Social Security benefits for regular spending, it might take that option off the table entirely. Indeed, the best excuse available to politicians and pundits who studiously conceal this tax hike on the common classes — the only possible excuse — would be that deficit reduction is such a critical priority that the public can’t be trusted with knowing the side effects of treatment.
But even this paternalistic excuse is full of holes, in light of another fact: not only would balancing the budget with cuts to Social Security sock working people, it wouldn’t even work.
Social Security’s surpluses have been used towards general expenditures for years, and it’s true that cutting benefits will increase the amount of surplus available. But Social Security is a separate and independent financial entity, which can only loan money to the federal government to fund general budget items. For the purposes of our deficits, Social Security is essentially a credit union constituted by the retirement savings of the American people. By law, the government can’t just spend your retirement savings on something else.
In fact, when our government takes money from Social Security to use on general expenditures, it must, under law, issue Treasury bills to the Social Security Trust Fund in return. This is basically identical to the way in which we borrow money from China. And like China, the only way to renege upon this loan would be to fail to honor the Treasury bills, which would destroy the value of every Treasury bill and with it the dollar itself.
There is no connection between the level of benefits that Social Security pays out and the debt that the government incurs when it borrows money from Social Security. Regardless of whether Congress slashes Social Security benefits or preserves them, national debt still goes up a billion dollars for every billion the government borrows from the program, the same as if it borrowed that money from China or anyplace else. Put plainly, cutting Social Security benefits will have only one immediate effect: reduced benefits. While benefit cuts would have a long-term impact on when Social Security revenues fail to match outlays (decades away, even with no change), they will have no impact whatsoever on annual deficits. None. Nada. Zip.
This means that our media-driven debate on Social Security is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how Social Security operates — a misunderstanding that can be easily fact checked. If Social Security is cut in the name of deficit reduction, over a hundred million people would lose some of the small nest egg for which they saved over a lifetime of work without any progress toward the stated goal. Annual deficits would remain unchanged, forcing further cuts in services that most affect those who just gave up part of their retirement fund.
Shouldn’t debate begin here? Shouldn’t the public inquiry first determine whether this is fair, or will even work, before there are any discussions about how big the cuts should be?
Those of you having difficulty imagining that the Social Security debate could be this corrupted, please fact-check the underlying contentions for yourselves: 1) Social Security taxes only income below $106,800, and 2) Treasury bonds are issued in return for all the money taken from Social Security surpluses (i.e. the money is borrowed), which means that cuts to Social Security benefits will have no impact on long-term debt.
These two facts are all you need to know in order to conclude that every politician, pundit or news organization that advocates deficit reduction through cuts to Social Security is aiding and abetting — either knowingly or foolishly — theft from the middle and lower classes. (For an in-depth study of the current distortions, see also the recent paper by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Robert Johnson and Thomas Ferguson, A World Upside Down: Deficit Fantasies in the Great Recession).
It was off-point where he printed it but is noteworthy none-the-less.
How Social Security Works -
Excerpted from Truthout.Org article by Josh Hilgart, New Deal 2.0Op-Ed
Consider what Social Security is: a 75-year-old public insurance program that allows us all to save just enough to avoid working to the grave for food, or moving in with our adult children out of destitution. It works spectacularly well, solving a problem that has always dogged humankind. Social Security grants dignity to hundreds of millions of aging Americans who would otherwise confront the less pleasant world that existed before the program.
That’s not all. Social Security is arguably the most stable, well-run government program in the United States. While other programs, like military spending, require new votes of money every single year, Social Security is running a surplus and will be over a hundred years old before it starts falling short of its obligations. Moreover, it would be solvent for many more years with only minor adjustments. It’s government at its best.
Social Security’s resilience stems partly from the politically savvy way in which it was created. It can’t be dismissed as a simple welfare program because it’s not a direct handout; ultimate benefits are based on your lifetime contributions. Further insulating it from charges of “income redistribution,” Social Security imposes taxes only on income corresponding to those deriving the greatest benefits: The tax is applied to income below $106,800. This is limited government with an American twist — you will be asked to pay in only so much, and what you get in the end is based on what you put in.
A couple of other facts about Social Security’s payouts warrant note. Unlike regular retirement accounts, Social Security distributions to retirees are not the same dollars those retirees paid in; like insurance, current benefits are funded by current contributions and interest derived through loans made to other programs (more on loans below). Related to this, while benefits are tied to individual contributions over a working life, payouts also take into account projections of future standards of living.
To fund the payouts, an independent tax — the payroll or FICA tax — was established (later including taxes for Medicare). This kept retiree benefits separate from the regular pot of money used for discretionary spending, and facilitated Social Security’s regressive tax rate, aimed at the middle class and poor who depend on the program. To get an idea of just how much this tax is tilted towards those who most benefit from the program, consider the following: unlike regular income taxes, a billionaire doesn’t pay a similar percentage, but the same dollar amount into Social Security as someone who earns $106,800. Put another way, a top hedge fund manager pays about 0.003 percent of his income into Social Security, while anyone earning less than $106,800 pays 12.4 percent — a rate over 4,000 times greater than that of the much wealthier hedge fund manager.
How does the structure of Social Security and its tax rates relate to our debate? Let’s look at the most basic description of our current discussion: both parties’ leaders and the media claim that cutting Social Security benefits would reduce the deficit, and that such cuts are probably necessary; there is disagreement only over the size of those cuts, with a few, rarely-interviewed “lefties” arguing against any cuts at all. (Sen. Harry Reid is an exception among mainstream politicians in his arguments for no cuts, and he is being lambasted for it.) In other words, the general consensus among “serious” people is that benefits must be taken away from those paying in, so that we can make up shortfalls in other pots of government money.
But taking into account the way it is taxed, any diversion of Social Security benefits towards balancing the general budget is a tax increase on those earning under $106,800. If the middle and lower classes are the ones who have been paying the highest tax rate into this pool of money, using this pool to offset shortfalls in our general income tax, instead of paying out benefits, would represent a systemic shift in tax liability for general spending. For all practical purposes, it would be a tax on benefits going to the poor and middle class, used to offset recent cuts in income tax for the rich.
Given public outrage over the ever-decreasing tax burden on the rich, you’d expect those suggesting that our debts be settled exclusively by those earning under $106,800 to be run out of town with pitchforks. Yet, amazingly, politicians and the media collaborate with impunity to ignore this shift in taxation. Just ask yourself: how often do those who advocate reducing the deficit with cuts to Social Security argue that the middle and lower classes should bear the burden of our debt? For that matter, how often do hosts on CNN or the Sunday political shows require such advocates to even acknowledge that their plan asks working families to service our debt? In contrast — to drive the point home — when the rich are asked to pay more, do media and politicians completely ignore who is getting stuck with the bill?
In all likelihood, this inequity is ignored precisely because it would spark outrage. If the public was exposed to regular debates about the tax implications of using Social Security benefits for regular spending, it might take that option off the table entirely. Indeed, the best excuse available to politicians and pundits who studiously conceal this tax hike on the common classes — the only possible excuse — would be that deficit reduction is such a critical priority that the public can’t be trusted with knowing the side effects of treatment.
But even this paternalistic excuse is full of holes, in light of another fact: not only would balancing the budget with cuts to Social Security sock working people, it wouldn’t even work.
Social Security’s surpluses have been used towards general expenditures for years, and it’s true that cutting benefits will increase the amount of surplus available. But Social Security is a separate and independent financial entity, which can only loan money to the federal government to fund general budget items. For the purposes of our deficits, Social Security is essentially a credit union constituted by the retirement savings of the American people. By law, the government can’t just spend your retirement savings on something else.
In fact, when our government takes money from Social Security to use on general expenditures, it must, under law, issue Treasury bills to the Social Security Trust Fund in return. This is basically identical to the way in which we borrow money from China. And like China, the only way to renege upon this loan would be to fail to honor the Treasury bills, which would destroy the value of every Treasury bill and with it the dollar itself.
There is no connection between the level of benefits that Social Security pays out and the debt that the government incurs when it borrows money from Social Security. Regardless of whether Congress slashes Social Security benefits or preserves them, national debt still goes up a billion dollars for every billion the government borrows from the program, the same as if it borrowed that money from China or anyplace else. Put plainly, cutting Social Security benefits will have only one immediate effect: reduced benefits. While benefit cuts would have a long-term impact on when Social Security revenues fail to match outlays (decades away, even with no change), they will have no impact whatsoever on annual deficits. None. Nada. Zip.
This means that our media-driven debate on Social Security is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how Social Security operates — a misunderstanding that can be easily fact checked. If Social Security is cut in the name of deficit reduction, over a hundred million people would lose some of the small nest egg for which they saved over a lifetime of work without any progress toward the stated goal. Annual deficits would remain unchanged, forcing further cuts in services that most affect those who just gave up part of their retirement fund.
Shouldn’t debate begin here? Shouldn’t the public inquiry first determine whether this is fair, or will even work, before there are any discussions about how big the cuts should be?
Those of you having difficulty imagining that the Social Security debate could be this corrupted, please fact-check the underlying contentions for yourselves: 1) Social Security taxes only income below $106,800, and 2) Treasury bonds are issued in return for all the money taken from Social Security surpluses (i.e. the money is borrowed), which means that cuts to Social Security benefits will have no impact on long-term debt.
These two facts are all you need to know in order to conclude that every politician, pundit or news organization that advocates deficit reduction through cuts to Social Security is aiding and abetting — either knowingly or foolishly — theft from the middle and lower classes. (For an in-depth study of the current distortions, see also the recent paper by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Robert Johnson and Thomas Ferguson, A World Upside Down: Deficit Fantasies in the Great Recession).
Monday, May 23, 2011
Tim Pawlenty's campaign of Truth(?)
This article from the Star Tribune does a fact check on T-Paw's Charter speech as a presidential candidate for 2012. Since he promises to be the candidate that will tell the truth- that is their standard for grading this particular speech.
Peole in MN are long familiar with his failings in the area of truth so it is no surprise to us. Let's see how the rest of the nation reacts.
I will say that means testing for Social Security increases and increasing the retirement age to newcomers to the system are perfectly reasonable ideas. Unfortunately, with his track record with truth-telling, I am skeptical.
Peole in MN are long familiar with his failings in the area of truth so it is no surprise to us. Let's see how the rest of the nation reacts.
I will say that means testing for Social Security increases and increasing the retirement age to newcomers to the system are perfectly reasonable ideas. Unfortunately, with his track record with truth-telling, I am skeptical.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Gas Prices are going down slowly- What Now?
Apparently gas prices in the US are going down slowly because of lack of demand and they will drop to $3.50 or so after Memorial Day.
This is good news. But if we are to get serious about keeping the oil industry from exploiting us for their own greed we need to continue to reduce the ways we use gasoline and oil products.
Most of us have only scratched the surface of what this looks like, even though we have been warned about this for 35 years (Thank you Jimmy Carter). Carpooling, reduction of use of plastics, walking, biking or other alternative transport when possible are good starts. But we must also continue to demand higher efficiency out of our American made automobiles. Government regulations will never go far enough, but corporations understand consumer demand.
I cannot afford one right now but if I could I would buy the Chevy Volt. The Leaf is another good choice (probably better for reduction of oil consumption) but Our economy needs us to buy American where ever and whenever possible.
The media- propped up by oil interests have been ringing the bell and warning us about $5/gallon gas in 2012. We need to demonstrate by our behavior as consumers that that is completely unacceptable.
This is good news. But if we are to get serious about keeping the oil industry from exploiting us for their own greed we need to continue to reduce the ways we use gasoline and oil products.
Most of us have only scratched the surface of what this looks like, even though we have been warned about this for 35 years (Thank you Jimmy Carter). Carpooling, reduction of use of plastics, walking, biking or other alternative transport when possible are good starts. But we must also continue to demand higher efficiency out of our American made automobiles. Government regulations will never go far enough, but corporations understand consumer demand.
I cannot afford one right now but if I could I would buy the Chevy Volt. The Leaf is another good choice (probably better for reduction of oil consumption) but Our economy needs us to buy American where ever and whenever possible.
The media- propped up by oil interests have been ringing the bell and warning us about $5/gallon gas in 2012. We need to demonstrate by our behavior as consumers that that is completely unacceptable.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Average Gas Prices in US hit $3.909 Last Week and Republicans Still Lie.
This morning President Obama called once again for the end of subsidies for oil companies in light of another round of reported record breaking quarterly profits for oil corporations. The president continues his calls to end the 4 billion per year government gas subsidies to the oil industry and to invest in clean energy. This comes as oil companies are reporting record profits and the cost per gallon of gasoline have reached nearly 4 dollars a gallon.
“While rising gas prices mean real pain for our families at the pump, they also mean bigger profits for oil companies,” he said. ‘When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right.’’
But the Republican response counters that the cost of gasoline in the US is the responsibility of the president himself. This is an interesting position to take since they denied the power of the president to control consumer pricing during the Bush administration (the last time prices for gas were over $4/gallon). Their argument today holds that it is because of Obama’s policies that limit domestic oil production (drill baby drill) and unnecessary environmental regulations are driving up the price for consumers.
Unfortunately, once again, the Republican position is light on facts. They ignore the record breaking profits (over $30 billion for the top 5 oil companies) at a time when consumers are suffering. The statement that domestic oil production is down is flat out false. Drilling leases are being given out at a faster pace than under W Bush. The companies themselves are simply not drilling- an interesting way to drive up oil prices by cutting supply that is happening around the globe. Further, environmental regulations- even those that have proven ineffective in light of the BP blowout in the gulf- have remained unchanged under the Obama Administration.
But let us suppose that everything the Republicans are saying is true- go ahead and twist your brains into that reality distorting funk necessary to hold such positions. Even then, their position does nothing to bring relief to the consumer and only serves to advance their political agenda. They have offered no bill to deregulate. Other than using it as a rally cry they have not advanced any bill to increase domestic oil production. They have not demonstrated how increased domestic oil production would bring the price down. Contrary to the policies they ran on in 2010 to reduce spending they seem committed to maintaining a subsidy for companies that are reporting quarterly profits unmatched by any business in the history of the world. It would be hard to argue that a subsidy that is dwarfed by the profits of the recipient should be maintained.
There could probably be an intelligent debate about these subsidies. What was their purpose when they we instated and do they still serve to meet that goal would be serious topics of conversation. But as long as you have a right wing that would rather spread fiction and attack the opposition than stand on the strength of their position, that serious conversation will not happen.
“While rising gas prices mean real pain for our families at the pump, they also mean bigger profits for oil companies,” he said. ‘When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right.’’
But the Republican response counters that the cost of gasoline in the US is the responsibility of the president himself. This is an interesting position to take since they denied the power of the president to control consumer pricing during the Bush administration (the last time prices for gas were over $4/gallon). Their argument today holds that it is because of Obama’s policies that limit domestic oil production (drill baby drill) and unnecessary environmental regulations are driving up the price for consumers.
Unfortunately, once again, the Republican position is light on facts. They ignore the record breaking profits (over $30 billion for the top 5 oil companies) at a time when consumers are suffering. The statement that domestic oil production is down is flat out false. Drilling leases are being given out at a faster pace than under W Bush. The companies themselves are simply not drilling- an interesting way to drive up oil prices by cutting supply that is happening around the globe. Further, environmental regulations- even those that have proven ineffective in light of the BP blowout in the gulf- have remained unchanged under the Obama Administration.
But let us suppose that everything the Republicans are saying is true- go ahead and twist your brains into that reality distorting funk necessary to hold such positions. Even then, their position does nothing to bring relief to the consumer and only serves to advance their political agenda. They have offered no bill to deregulate. Other than using it as a rally cry they have not advanced any bill to increase domestic oil production. They have not demonstrated how increased domestic oil production would bring the price down. Contrary to the policies they ran on in 2010 to reduce spending they seem committed to maintaining a subsidy for companies that are reporting quarterly profits unmatched by any business in the history of the world. It would be hard to argue that a subsidy that is dwarfed by the profits of the recipient should be maintained.
There could probably be an intelligent debate about these subsidies. What was their purpose when they we instated and do they still serve to meet that goal would be serious topics of conversation. But as long as you have a right wing that would rather spread fiction and attack the opposition than stand on the strength of their position, that serious conversation will not happen.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Oil prices- history and differing opinions
I originally posted this on May 28, 2008
May Gas Prices for the past 8 years--
May 15, 2000-- $1.67/gal
Then we elected a Republican Oil Man to the White House in November of that year.
November 13th, 2000--- $1.70 /gal
May 14, 2001--- $1.88 /gal
September 10, 2001--- $1.69 /gal
October 15, 2001--- (people have blamed price on Sept. 11) $1.50 /gal
December 31, 2001--- (last lowest price) $1.28/ gal
May 13, 2002--- $1.58/gal
May 12, 2003--- $1.68/ gal
May 10, 2004--- $2.11/gal
January 10, 2005 (last time average was under $2.00) $1.99/ gal
May 9, 2005 $2.39/ gal
August 29, 2005 $2.80/ gal
September 5, 2005 (first time average is more than $3.00) $3.29/gal
May 15, 2006--- $3.15/ gal
September 11, 2006 (five years since september 11 attack) $2.85/ gal
May 14, 2007 $3.28/ gal
October 15, 2007 (last time average was under three dollars) $2.99/ gal
May 12, 2008 $3.94/ gal
$1.67 to 3.94 is a 236% increase. And people wonder why our economy is so bad off.
Either every calculation that this administration has made was completely off the mark, or they are not so incompetent as we might think. As a congressman Dick Cheney spoke vehemently about letting the market set the price for oil even to the extent of saying that if the market could bear $4.00 a gallon, than that is what the cost should be.
After 7.5 years in charge- they got their wish. And the oil companies are pocketing all of that money.
There was one particular response to this article and commentary today because the commenter mistook it for an article about gas prices today.
The obvious and most striking reality here is that, after 2.5 years in office gas prices have crept up to what they were under President W Bush. Republicans are calling for Obama's head now and they are gaining some steam in doing so. The reason they get any success with this tactic is two-fold. First, it has always been the left's position that government can and should do something about such situations (The right only holds this position when they accuse the left of not doing enough. As a result people on the left buy in to the notion that their elceted officials on the left are not doing enough. The people on the right appreciate the gamesmanship of their leaders. They seem to care very little or not at all about the integrity of their position.
The position of the right allows them to stand for their corporate interests by doing absolutely nothing and blocking action from the left while at the same time criticizing the left for not doing anything.
It might be interesting to track gas prices from May of 2008 to the present. I think the patterns will play out much the same- remember that gas prices peaked over $4/gallon under W in the summer/fall of 2008 and dropped off again below $3/gallon before the election. There is no election this year and I am willing to bet that the oil profiteers are banking on the fickle nature and short term memories of the American consumer. As a result we may not see the seasonal break next fall. This would allow them to push the price toward $5 or $6 by summer of 2012 and count on Republicans to blame Obama in that election.
May Gas Prices for the past 8 years--
May 15, 2000-- $1.67/gal
Then we elected a Republican Oil Man to the White House in November of that year.
November 13th, 2000--- $1.70 /gal
May 14, 2001--- $1.88 /gal
September 10, 2001--- $1.69 /gal
October 15, 2001--- (people have blamed price on Sept. 11) $1.50 /gal
December 31, 2001--- (last lowest price) $1.28/ gal
May 13, 2002--- $1.58/gal
May 12, 2003--- $1.68/ gal
May 10, 2004--- $2.11/gal
January 10, 2005 (last time average was under $2.00) $1.99/ gal
May 9, 2005 $2.39/ gal
August 29, 2005 $2.80/ gal
September 5, 2005 (first time average is more than $3.00) $3.29/gal
May 15, 2006--- $3.15/ gal
September 11, 2006 (five years since september 11 attack) $2.85/ gal
May 14, 2007 $3.28/ gal
October 15, 2007 (last time average was under three dollars) $2.99/ gal
May 12, 2008 $3.94/ gal
$1.67 to 3.94 is a 236% increase. And people wonder why our economy is so bad off.
Either every calculation that this administration has made was completely off the mark, or they are not so incompetent as we might think. As a congressman Dick Cheney spoke vehemently about letting the market set the price for oil even to the extent of saying that if the market could bear $4.00 a gallon, than that is what the cost should be.
After 7.5 years in charge- they got their wish. And the oil companies are pocketing all of that money.
There was one particular response to this article and commentary today because the commenter mistook it for an article about gas prices today.
The obvious and most striking reality here is that, after 2.5 years in office gas prices have crept up to what they were under President W Bush. Republicans are calling for Obama's head now and they are gaining some steam in doing so. The reason they get any success with this tactic is two-fold. First, it has always been the left's position that government can and should do something about such situations (The right only holds this position when they accuse the left of not doing enough. As a result people on the left buy in to the notion that their elceted officials on the left are not doing enough. The people on the right appreciate the gamesmanship of their leaders. They seem to care very little or not at all about the integrity of their position.
The position of the right allows them to stand for their corporate interests by doing absolutely nothing and blocking action from the left while at the same time criticizing the left for not doing anything.
It might be interesting to track gas prices from May of 2008 to the present. I think the patterns will play out much the same- remember that gas prices peaked over $4/gallon under W in the summer/fall of 2008 and dropped off again below $3/gallon before the election. There is no election this year and I am willing to bet that the oil profiteers are banking on the fickle nature and short term memories of the American consumer. As a result we may not see the seasonal break next fall. This would allow them to push the price toward $5 or $6 by summer of 2012 and count on Republicans to blame Obama in that election.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Random 10
Feelin' Groovy- Simon and Garfunkel
Miss America- Styx
Somebody's Baby- Jackson Browne
Little Jeanne- Elton John
Heavy Metal Poisoning- Styx
The Happiest Days of our Lives- Pink Floyd
Poems Prayers and Promises- John Denver
Beatles Medley- Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight/ the End- Neil Diamond
Rebel Yell- Billy Idol
I Want Love- Elton John
Miss America- Styx
Somebody's Baby- Jackson Browne
Little Jeanne- Elton John
Heavy Metal Poisoning- Styx
The Happiest Days of our Lives- Pink Floyd
Poems Prayers and Promises- John Denver
Beatles Medley- Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight/ the End- Neil Diamond
Rebel Yell- Billy Idol
I Want Love- Elton John
Friday, August 06, 2010
We need to take the public discussion away from the angry right.
Rules of engagement in political discourse-
1. Always tell the truth- even difficult truths.
2. If you call someone a 'liar' show evidence of the lie. Your word is not enough,
3. Insist on data when the other side uses words like 'lie.'
4. Admit that if you resort to labeling and name calling- of persons or ideas- y...ou have already lost. Do everyone a favor and stop talking.
5. Opinion is not evidence. To say: "x lies because I do not believe him" is not evidence.
Feel free to add to this list. I will update it as Face Book people post there.
1. Always tell the truth- even difficult truths.
2. If you call someone a 'liar' show evidence of the lie. Your word is not enough,
3. Insist on data when the other side uses words like 'lie.'
4. Admit that if you resort to labeling and name calling- of persons or ideas- y...ou have already lost. Do everyone a favor and stop talking.
5. Opinion is not evidence. To say: "x lies because I do not believe him" is not evidence.
Feel free to add to this list. I will update it as Face Book people post there.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
