Do you expect Oil to stay under $70/bbl indefinitely?
Yes, as long as OPEC tries to undermine shale oil production in the US.
Now that it's low, it's Obama's doing. You can bet when it goes back up it will be due to circumstances beyond his control.
The right blamed him when prices were high. Now that they are low, he has nothing to do with it. OK, got it.
OriginalGoober doesn't mind when a colored fella plays drums in his favorite band, but having one run the country and make decisions for Americans....now that's where he draws the line!
Nasty and uncalled for. Yet typical.
From the King Of Nasty And Uncalled For. If anyone would know, it would be doughron.
Better days are ahead for all those hard working middle class Americans dreaming of a warm pizza (no anchovies).
[Edited on 1/21/2015 by OriginalGoober]
I guess the pizza reference was the only thing you got out of it.
In the spirit of John kerrys foreign policy approach, Barrack will invite UFO to perform their classic
"Hot & Ready"
Do you expect Oil to stay under $70/bbl indefinitely?
Yes, as long as OPEC tries to undermine shale oil production in the US.
Watch for some interesting things to happen. Russia recently said they do not intend to trade oil in US dollars and they have stopped selling to Europe. Iran has been pumpin' up a storm, and since the US has sanctions on Iran, Europe cannot legally buy oil from Iran, they will have to get it from China, and where is Russian oil going? To China. We have sanctions on Russia. So Europe will get Russian and Iranian oil via China.
It will get interesting.
Do you expect Oil to stay under $70/bbl indefinitely?
Those in the know say oil will not go back up for twelve to eighteen months from now. The effects are, we can drive around more with cheap gas, but more stations will go out of business because of the greed of the company owners.
I know it doesn't need my attention. I can't stand the clapping or faux outrage. I think it is the most disgusting display in all of American politics.
So much is appearance; if you are golfing and you get bad news (previous issue I can't remember which) you stop even though in reality it changes nothing. Current administration is not good at grasping that point. Maybe James Taylor can bring his guitar tonight and sing "Handy Man"
You mean like continuing to read a children story in a classroom while hijacked planes are flying into buildings?
He did that to avoid panicking the children. Whatever you think of Bush and the job he did overall are you seriously suggesting that he seemed detached and aloof from the crisis on 9/11?
Yes. He was in over his head. He could have cut the reading short without panicking the children.
Bank on this. No matter what he did would have been wrong.
As far as being in over his head your probably right, 9-11 being just your run of the mill everyday incident and all.
The things that stuck with me were he calls us the 9/11 generation. Everything changed from that point on.
180,000 troops served in Iran and Afghanistan.
11 Million new jobs were created in five years.
Russia is isolated, it's economy is in tatters?
We must lead with the example of our values.
You cannot deny that he has done anything while in office. Jobs were created, but we need more. We sent 180,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan I do not agree with that decision. Russia is not isolated, they have become a strategic partner with China, that does not bode well for us because China finances our debt, and Russia is now not going to trade oil in US dollars, that will hurt our economy.
As to leading with the example of our values - well I agree with that idea. Let's start with closing Guantanamo and resolve never to sodomize, and torture people ever again. Everyone agrees the place needs to close, so why hasn't it? Why are the people who were even cleared by the tribunals still imprisoned there?
One of the other things that needs watching is John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to address and speak with Congress. Speaker Boehner did not inform or clear this with President Obama. He said that he did not have to inform the President.
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/LetterToPMNetanyahu.pdf
President Obama's speech more than anything else asked that Congress work with him on the common ground related to all of the issues. If they can all agree that an issue needs reform, even if they only agree on one point, it is a starting point, their differences should not just close down the lines of communication.
Compromise is how you get things done, in a relationship, in a family or in Congress. One person, one side cannot always have their way.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
I was right! The entire speech went right over your head.
Classic Alloak.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.
Can you explain that?
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.
Can you explain that?
And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?
Alloak's post smacks of Republican hypocrisy given their history of the last 5 or 6 years and the GOP voiding the business of the American people.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
I was right! The entire speech went right over your head.
Classic Alloak.
Hint: Despite your constant need to make it so, this thread is not about me.
SSDD.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills.
Can you explain that?
He hasn't had to, but trash can Harry is gone now.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.
Can you explain that?
And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?
It sure killed them in the mid-terms, didn't it?
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
I was right! The entire speech went right over your head.
Classic Alloak.
Hint: Despite your constant need to make it so, this thread is not about me.
SSDD.
Hint: It isn't about you because you have nothing meaningful to add. Go read some right wing emails and get back to us.
It sure killed them in the mid-terms, didn't it?
Senate Democrats received 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans.
That's the way it goes. A minority is now in control of the Senate of the greatest democracy in history.
How will a representation of the minority of the country do the work of the People?
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
I was right! The entire speech went right over your head.
Classic Alloak.
Hint: Despite your constant need to make it so, this thread is not about me.
SSDD.
Hint: It isn't about you because you have nothing meaningful to add. Go read some right wing emails and get back to us.
Wow, sorry about that. From now on I'll do something more "meaningful" here and constantly make snide remarks about other posters. How meaningful, thanks for the tip!
Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that.
Whereas Democrats have always striven to make Republicans two-term Presidents?
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
I was right! The entire speech went right over your head.
Classic Alloak.
Hint: Despite your constant need to make it so, this thread is not about me.
SSDD.
Hint: It isn't about you because you have nothing meaningful to add. Go read some right wing emails and get back to us.
Wow, sorry about that. From now on I'll do something more "meaningful" here and constantly make snide remarks about other posters. How meaningful, thanks for the tip!
Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that.
Whereas Democrats have always striven to make Republicans two-term Presidents?
And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?
Let's put this in context, in other words, MartinD28's entire post. nice try taking somethinng out of context.
Typical alloak. 😛
So, alloak, is congress's job to see that their party wins the presidency, or is it their primary job to vote on legislation that is helpful to all Americans?
The focus from the State of the Union, the one thing that will probably become reality, should be the trade issue.
Republicans never saw a free trade agreement they didn't like. And Democrat leadership continues to build on it's reputation of outsourcing jobs through their own free trade agreements while talking out the other side of their mouth on protecting jobs.
It is crazy that history keeps repeating. NAFTA and CAFTA were such huge successes right - I mean of course do it again! Permanent normal trade relations with China, the Korean Trade deal signed by this President and now the Trans-Pacific deal, the latest one that the corporations are writing that the President wants no disclosure or debate on.
There needs to be pushback on this from the left. The President says "it's the right thing to do", but it's not. In the end foreign nations and multinational corporations win, and America workers and communities and tax bases, schools, emergency response forces, etc lose all while stressing unemployment programs and education assistance, and all the social programs that people who are impacted by free trades negative consequences seek for help.
There is pressure to push the minimum wage up because too many people are finding themselves in those jobs and the jobs that would've supported these people finding themselves in minimum wage jobs because opportunity for them has been ruined by free trade. The problem isn't that the minimum wage is too low, it is that there are too many people having to rely on these jobs for their opportunities. Free trade hallows out the middle class while enriching others and transferring wealth to other nations. It sounds like it would be a staple of the Democrat Party to oppose, which they do when campaigning, but when they get to Washington and the corporations sink their fingers in them it is free trade all the time and in this case with President Obama and the Trans-Pacific Partnership it must be secret. You'd expect as much from a Republican President right, but how about this President.
This is where Democrats and this President is no different than Republicans and Presidential predecessors.
Hey! All you leftist Marxist low-info voters suffering from cognitive dissonance...what's up with you getting all nasty and personal?
You expected something else? Until we all think alike some will continue make it personal. The master debaters.
You gotta give Obama credit though. I had no idea everything was so awesome! The economy is roaring and the world is at peace, so turn the page!
It takes quite an astute man to point out what nobody else has noticed.
The focus from the State of the Union, the one thing that will probably become reality, should be the trade issue.
Republicans never saw a free trade agreement they didn't like. And Democrat leadership continues to build on it's reputation of outsourcing jobs through their own free trade agreements while talking out the other side of their mouth on protecting jobs.
It is crazy that history keeps repeating. NAFTA and CAFTA were such huge successes right - I mean of course do it again! Permanent normal trade relations with China, the Korean Trade deal signed by this President and now the Trans-Pacific deal, the latest one that the corporations are writing that the President wants no disclosure or debate on.
There needs to be pushback on this from the left. The President says "it's the right thing to do", but it's not. In the end foreign nations and multinational corporations win, and America workers and communities and tax bases, schools, emergency response forces, etc lose all while stressing unemployment programs and education assistance, and all the social programs that people who are impacted by free trades negative consequences seek for help.
There is pressure to push the minimum wage up because too many people are finding themselves in those jobs and the jobs that would've supported these people finding themselves in minimum wage jobs because opportunity for them has been ruined by free trade. The problem isn't that the minimum wage is too low, it is that there are too many people having to rely on these jobs for their opportunities. Free trade hallows out the middle class while enriching others and transferring wealth to other nations. It sounds like it would be a staple of the Democrat Party to oppose, which they do when campaigning, but when they get to Washington and the corporations sink their fingers in them it is free trade all the time and in this case with President Obama and the Trans-Pacific Partnership it must be secret. You'd expect as much from a Republican President right, but how about this President.
This is where Democrats and this President is no different than Republicans and Presidential predecessors.
For all the cheaper clothing we can buy in this country, their workers are making 56 cents per hour, it isn't raising them out of poverty and we have no new jobs. It is great that 11 million new jobs were created in all the sectors, but 8.7 million people still have no jobs, so we need to do something as a country to help all of those people. Using natural gas as a transportation method is an interesting idea.
Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."
Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?
Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."
Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?
And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.
Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."
Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?
And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.
So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?
Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."
Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?
They can keep them if they want to pay the big deductibles in the plan (like $4800 a year in New York for a Silver Plan) plus the co-pays, the plans only pay 80% of the charges. So even though you can get a nice big subsidy for the plan, you still have to pay about $2,000-2,500 a year for the plan, plus that $4,800 deductible before they pay the 80% of charges. The consumer pays $6800, the govt. pays the rest, FOR NOW.
The subsidies apply to the plans for a year, then what happens? Will they subsidize them forever? it is not a good deal. I think that France (okay I should use some other country as an example perhaps) that charges 40-50% income tax, but provides FREE coverage to all their citizens is a better deal. Our tax rates are up to 35% now anyway and we still don't have FREE national health care. (and don't cite Medicaid as free health care, because it really isn't something for the masses, the reimbursement rates to physicians are so low if you need surgery, most surgeons don't accept it or want it. I had normal great health insurance and for a $5,000 surgical procedure my doc got paid $1500 - I cannot imagine what Medicaid would have paid or Obamacare health coverage).
There is still a health care/insurance crisis in America. Punishing people with a tax penalty because they can't afford a plan that has hidden BIG fees in it, does not help America. My suggestion is two plans, one a Dr. visit, RX, lab and radiology paying plan, the other, a surgical short term plan, pay as you go. If you need a surgery, you get the plan and pay only for the months you need it. Even if they just had 4 or 6 month plans, people could maybe do that.
Why are they forced to buy an annual plan, and pay money they don't have, and nobody knows how long the govt. subsidies will be paid for?
Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."
Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?
And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.
So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?
The ones who lost their plans, lost plans that were non compliant. They are now in different compliant plans. This has all been explained to you and you either ignore it or, once again, it went over your head.
