Do you remember Solyndra? This is the solar panel manufacturer that went bankrupt after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in government money. The Obama administration was blamed for the program. Loosing and wasting your tax dollars on left wing liberal projects that were supposed to help lower our carbon foot print. So, was it really as bad as you remember?
This is a short post in reply to a FB post where I'm talking about how peoples views are often distorted by misreporting and out right lying by not only Fox News but most media outlets. To often people latch on to this stuff and don't let go. I still hear people make comments about Solyndra and frankly most people have no real clue what happened or even what "Solyndra" was. They just use it as a "buzz word". When people bag Obama there are a few "go to" terms. Solyndra! Benghazi! Obama Death Panels!
The reality is most often very different from the shit that is in people's heads. Yes "shit". It is a very apt word to describe the "information" it is largely all the stuff that wasn't useful and probably just out right fake. Much like what you flush down the toilet every day from your previous days meals.
Did you know that the program that gave Solyndra money was supposed to loose hundreds of millions of dollars. $780 million dollars has been lost by 4 companies including Solyndra. The Department of energy factored into the loan program these types of losses. The whole program was supposed to loose money over all. The costs was deemed acceptable because of the innovation it was expected to spur. So Solyndra lost about 528 million dollars. Three other companies folding lost the program another 150 million dollars.
Before I go on let me talk a bit about the DOE's renewable-energy loan program. Normally we would hope that private equity providers, like Mitt Romney has made so much money off of, would be the source of funding for programs like this but people like Mitt Romney don't like these "risky" investments do they. He doesn't actually like investments full stop when you talk about building up companies. He's more for going in, transferring debt then dumping or dismantling the companies. So the government had to step in. The government has been doing this type of stuff for a long time. Obama's administration isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last to issue loans like these. Hell the banks get loans like these all the time from the government and they loose hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.
Anyway what is the state of the renewable-energy loan program that was budgeted to actually loose money. Well turns out that the program is going to make any were between 5 and 6 billion dollars. Not bad aye. Have you heard Fox News or any other news organization talk about that? Did they explain that the program was supposed to loose money but ended up being a bit of a cash cow? Probably not. Doesn't work well with the view that the vocal right wing want to push that Obama wants to destroy America.
It is crazy. Our government is being held hostage by Americans voted for to run our government. There is blame going both ways and there is normally 2 sides to every story and this one does too. The difference here is that one side is very definitely lying about the situation which involves the Debt Ceiling and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
So if you live in a cave here is what is being said by both sides.
Many republicans including the leadership:
"We want to fund the government and we want to give the American people what they want with regards to the ACA."
What a few republicans and all democrats are saying:
"We want to fund the government and will not let a few republicans hold the entire nation hostage in a attempt to kill the ACA."
Now what is the situation?
Well there are 2 parts to this. One is funding the government by raising the debt ceiling. This involves allowing the government to get the funding they need to pay bills they have ALREADY incurred. This has happened, automatically many times. The only times it hasn't is when the republicans try to hold the country hostage over some legislation that they don't like but still passed. This isn't new spending. This isn't money for new stuff. It is paying the bills you already have.
It would be like going and getting a mobile phone that isn't pre paid. Signing a contract saying you'll pay $25 a month for a certain plan. Using your phone for that entire month using all the benefits of the plan you signed up for. At the end of the month when you get your bill you then refuse to pay and tell the phone company that you won't pay unless they provide you electricity in the Antarctic.
Sadly this is what to many American's think ...that not raising the debt ceiling now is the way you stop spending later. This is like thinking by not paying your bills now that you won't buy that new toy tomorrow. How about pay the bills we've incurred, stop fighting wars we can't afford, stop buying tanks our military doesn't want, start asking the extremely wealth to actually pay their fair share!
The second demand has nothing to do with your phone plan. The second part being the affordable health care act which the republicans claim most people don't want. What is the reality tho? The fact is that Obama was re-elected on a platform that was clear that the ACA was going to be implemented. Citizens voted and he was placed back in office. The law was legislated and even challenged as unconstitutional but the highest court of the land ruled that it is constitutional. It has been challenged over 40 times in congress, costing the American tax payer about $2.5 million each time it has been, and won every single time. The president is willing to talk about sensible changes to the ACA but will not have the government held hostage over it.
The talking heads in the republican party would have you think they are willing to "compromise" but this is like a hostage taker saying they'll compromise on how many millions of dollars they'll get while they hold a gun to your child's head. All of the "compromises" equate to the same thing. Death of the ACA.
The republicans are lying when they say they say they will compromise and the democrats are unwilling.
Too many American's don't understand even the basic premise of the ACA. Many American's don't even know that "Obamacare" and the ACA are one and the same. No wonder with the smear campaign using misinformation against the ACA. One can argue that the ACA is complicated and you would be right. But the issue is complicated. How can you unfuck a broken health care system that leaves out so many Americans with a "simple" system. It is like complaining that you can't cure a genetic disorder by taking an aspirin. The executive branch hasn't explained the program very well either. Some of the confusion arises from introduced bits as "compromises" that republicans asked for.
Here is the ideal ACA premiss.
Health care should be attainable by all American.
Most American should be able to pay for private health insurance.
Insurance companies should not be able to deny health insurance to those that need it most.
Insurance companies should not be able to stop providing insurance to those that need to use the insurance they supposedly have.
The government should subsidise health care for those that are of lower income status.
Women shouldn't have to pay more for health care then men.
Health care should not have their costs artificially and arbitrarily inflated.
For those that want specifics and more detail then go here. Just don't complain that it is to complicated. If you want to know the mysteries of the universe then you can't complain that you have to understand things like quantum physics, general and special relativity.
This is achievable because insurance companies that previously denied benefits to individuals either for pre-existing conditions or cut off benefits to individuals that end up needed said benefits now can offset that risk by knowing that everyone will be covered.
Many people complain that they shouldn't have to be covered medically. But we require people who drive to have insurance. Some might say that people can choose not to drive and thus not pay car insurance so some people should be able to choose not to receive health care and not pay insurance. The difference is somebody that doesn't drive doesn't all of a sudden find themselves behind the wheel of a car. People who are healthy DO find themselves faced with an unexpected illness or injury. People don't often just agree to lay down and die but will seek medical attention.
The biggest cause of bankruptcy is from medical bills. This means that the bills remain unpaid. People without insurance also end up using forms of care that are inherently more expensive like emergency rooms. Going to a general practitioner to get looked at is much less expensive then going to the emergency room and taking up a spot that is geared up for situations that are more life threatening.
Another part is getting the cost of health care down. Right now in the USA health care is the free market gone crazy. Do you know you can pay 20x or more for medication in the USA then you would in other countries. Same medication! Why is this? Well in places like Australia, England and Canada the government says "Hey we'll put medication x on our pharmaceutical benefits scheme but you have to make the cost reasonable!" The government then will subsidise the cost of the medication a bit. People still have the choice to use medication that is not on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme if they choose. So what happens is the pharmaceutical companies still make money and the people don't get ripped off unless they choose to be.
This doesn't just happen with drugs. It happens all over the place. Sure this does mean that you might end up paying more if you choose to use something that isn't on some government benefit scheme but that is your choice. For example the government goes to companies and says "We want product x with these specifications" and those companies come back with their solutions and a the cheapest ones that meet the specifications are chosen to go on a benefits scheme. Those companies know that they'll sell more so their margins can be lower. This doesn't stop other companies from making more expensive products and does not stop you, the consumer, from using those companies. What it does do allow most American's to access that product at a reasonable price. In health care this is especially important because if you are told "You need medication x to stay alive." you shouldn't be held to ransom to pay 20x the reasonable cost of that medication. Really what are you going to say? "No I refuse to pay!" which in reality many people are forced to do when they can't afford to access the health care they need. Others access that health care but end up going bankrupt and the rich just pay the costs and move on.
Health care shouldn't be a luxury. If governments can say that "Internet access" is a basic human right I'm sure that basic health care should be one too!
Watch this video. There is a lot of humour in it but it is very informative too. You'll find yourself laughing then a bit disgusted when you realise that while some of it sounds ridiculous it is actually all true.
What the republicans need to do is let the government be funded no strings attached because it is a bill the government has already incurred. Then if they want to make changes to the ACA then that is another matter that can be handled separately. Note almost every other time they've done this they've just tried to kill the entire thing not make it better. Also note that the basic plan is THEIR PLAN! The individual mandate is a republican idea. Many people might not like it but, at present, it is the most logical plan on the table. The government is all about doing what is best for the citizens as a whole even if they don't understand it. Ask all Americans if they would like medical care if they are injured. See how many people say "no". That should be the same number of people that support reform in the health care sector.
Ok so let me break this down for people. The first line
'Children of a congress member do not have to pay back their college student loans. How nice!'
Is false. There is no program for congress members to wave student loans of any of their family. There is a program to aid congressional staff members, that are elible, to pay back student loans but this is the same program that is offered to all federal employees.
"Any employee (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105) is eligible, except those occupying a position excepted from the competitive civil service because of their confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating nature (e.g., Schedule C appointees)."
That means elected representatives are NOT eligible.
The actual program was enacted in 2001. It can pay up to $10,000 a year for the federal employee and is capped out at $60,000 and must be PLUS Loans (these are federal loans). Part of the program is that the employee has to sign a contract and remain in their position for, at least, 3 more years else they must pay back the benefits they have received.
In 2011 34 government agencies participated in the program with just over 10,000 federal employees claiming. The average claim being $7,091
Since 2003 the number of federal employees taking part in the program had increased about 23.43% per year. Instead of me rambling on with numbers here is a chart showing the adoption figures.
Before you freak out about the 72 million dollars spent on this program last year remember this is part of their benefit package even if they don't claim. This is budgeted for just as much as employees wages are. The federal employees don't make much. My manager while I was a Marine stationed at Albany GA was a GS11. Her salary in 2011 would have been about $65,371 and she was in charge of well over 100 civilians and Marines.
The Federal student loan repayment program is a great incentive that helps those that need it the most. IE the lower your pay scale the more the program helps you. For those that aren't following. If you are a federal employee and a GS5 you start out at $27,431 a year. So IF you could claim the entire $10,000 amount per year that is a much bigger percentage of your total package then if you were a GS11 with 20 years of service making $65,371 a year. That in itself is telling too. The difference between a first year GS1 and a GS11 with 20 years of federal service is less then 4x. Think about your job. Think about how long you have been there. Now think about the pay difference between you and some 18 year old kid just starting at that company with no experience and tell me the difference in pay between you two. Odds are it is much larger then if you were employed by the federal government.
Now this program was specifically initiated to help retain federal employees. As any person with a bit of management experience knows it is costly to have high employee turn over rates. Someone who has been at the job for 5 years is going to be more beneficial then a new employee coming on board. This is especially true in the Civil services where pay differences are often fairly minor.
Now to boot the Senate actually have lower caps then the program allows. I.E. the Senate staff members can claim a maximum of $500 a month and is capped at $40,000.
So with the facts out of the way let me now focus on what Fox News reported, without even fact checking.
From The Sean Hannity Show on 23rd of August 2010 Dick Morris and Sean Hannity had this exchange
Dick Morris Do you know — my wife Eileen just told me yesterday that staff in the House of Representatives and in the Senate do not pay student loans back? The government pays it for them? Sean HannityI didn’t know that. Dick MorrisThe House of Representatives last year spent $25 million paying the salary, student loans of their staffers.
Now I love that source. Dick Morris's wife told him. Well fuck me ... it must be true. No need to fact check that.
The exchange makes you think that elective officials are part of that. The face book post distorts it even further.
Notice the bit of "staff in the House...". Representatives and Senators can not claim from the program. They are NOT eligible The second line about the House of Representatives is less then half true. First off the amount the House spent was about 12 million and again it was over 3,000 employees with the average claim at just $2,000 and no claim more then $6,000.
That is the reality. Fox News complaining about valid programs that even in the short term make the government more efficient by retaining employees. This is what Fox News is complaining about. Efficient government. But, of course, they lie and distort the actual fact to enrage their viewers.
Now there are a lot of things you can be upset with Congress members about. But this is not one of them and 5 minutes on Google would show you that.
Then you aren't even "middle class" according to Mitt Romney. Don't feel sad because 95% of American house holds don't make enough to be labeled as "middle class" according to Romney.
In a flash of honesty and for the first time Romney is putting some numbers to his economic plan. He states that he considers the middle class to be 200k-250k per year. We already know he wants big tax breaks for those that earn 250k+. He want to keep middle income earners tax burden "low" and well he won't talk about poor people except to say "not concerned about the very poor" despite the fact that his economic policy would require most of the safety nets low income earners depend on to go away.
This is the world Mitt Romney lives in. In an America where 83% of house holds earn under $100,000 a year. Where 72% of house holds earn under $75,000 and still over 54% of house holds earn under $50,000 a year, Mitt Romney will look after the 1.37% of Americans that qualify as "middle class" by his definition by keeping their tax burden as low as he can. He's got one interesting thing going for him. There are less households that earn $200,000-$250,000 a year then there are that earn over $250,000.
Wait oh sorry...I've used figures from 2005. The latest census data has that number of Mitt Romney's "middle class" has drop by over 15%.
Again the GOP show they don't understand basic maths. Do you really want a Mitt Romney as President when he thinks that:
97% of American households are defined as "poor"
"not concerned about the very poor"
Plans to increase the tax rate paid by the "poor" by about $1,600/year.
Watch Romney and Obama both describe who they think is "middle class"
My cousin say " If you live in California 250k is middle class and Obama is an idiot. He is a socialist and should move to Europe."
Lets look at the mean household income of California. Seems people can be ignorant of what it is like in their own state.
The GOP has been jumping on the Obama administration's foriegn policy. Claiming them as a failure despite the fact. They make completely baseless claims like
Liz Cheney "he’s abandoned some of our key allies, like Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia"
First lets look at Israel. This is what Defence Minister Ehud Barak said just over a month ago.
Ehud Barak "But I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past"
Kind of shows how much the GOP is prepared to lie and distort the truth. Just because Obama and the Israel government admit there are differences of opinions on some matters doesn't mean that Obama has abandoned them. Quite the opposite. There is honesty there.
As far as abandoning Poland 48% of poles like the policy and only 31 don't with 21 undecided in one pole and another had a 56% approval rating with only 29% against the change. But Slawomir Nowak, a senior advisor to the Polish Prime minister abck in 2009 said this "If this system becomes reality in the shape Washington is now suggesting, it would actually be better for us than the original missile shield programme...We were never really threatened by a long-range missile attack from Iran," The only ones that loose out here is the defence contractors that where slated to make tons of money for putting in a system that wasn't suited to the task.
The fact is the new plan cost less and is a better fit for the situation and risk. Spending billions of dollars in a paranoid cold war mentality where we are worried about Russia starting a nuclear war is obsurd.
Finally lets get to the final country that Obama has "abandoned", Czechoslovakia. First off Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country for almost 2 decades. So do they mean the Czech Republic? If so that is covered by the same system as Poland.
Note also that this "Missle sheild" isn't to defend these countries. It is to "defend" the USA from Russia firing nuclear weapons at us.
The GOP constantly complains about Democrats spending to much but when you look at the facts it is very much the other way around. The difference is that the Democrats spend more on the common person. The republicans spend more on making the rich richer.
Lets look at the numbers
Reagan 1st term
8.7%
Reagan 2nd term
4.9%
Bush Snr
5.4%
Clinton 1st term
3.2%
Clinton 2nd term
3.9%
Bush Jr 1st term
7.3%
Bush Jr 2nd term
8.1%
Obama
1.4%
Democrats clearly raise spending more then republicans.
How about creating private sector jobs? Democrats average 150,000 jobs a month over the last 50 years. Republicans only 71,000. That means under democratic administrations PRIVATE sector jobs increase twice as fast. Yes unemployment is still above 8%, 8.1 to be exact. But when Bush Jr left office the unemployment rate was rising into double digits.
The raw numbers
Reagan ~168,000 new jobs per month
Bush Snr ~54,000 new jobs per month
Clinton ~270,000 new jobs per month
Bush Jr ~11,000 new jobs per month
it took a year to halt the collapse Bush Jr caused. Since then
Obama ~107,000 new jobs per month
Sure Reagan did better but he didn't have to deal with a shit economy handed to him by the previous president.
Like Clinton said at the DNC. Its simple maths. And the GOPs math doesn't add up.
Just once I'd like to see the GOP attack Obama using truth rather then the lies they come up with.
That sharp increase while in 2009 is a result of a number of things like
5.8 percent cost of living increase before Obama got into raised social security payments and another 39 billion for medicare.
Obama did push through the stimulus bill to stop the rising unemployment rate and Bush's 2009 budget only covered defence spending for the full year. Other government agencies where only funded through to March meaning Obama's administration had to hustle to get funding for them.
Not surprisingly the GOP stands firmly against tax cuts for people making less then $250,000/yr. 46 of 47 republican Senators voted against S3412 Middle-class tax relief. The 1 republican that didn't vote no, Senator Mark Kirik, didn't actually vote. It passed 51/48 with one abstaining.
Reason for this? The republican's will not pass this bill, which benefits all American's by providing tax relief for the first $250,000.00 of income, because they want further tax cuts for people earning over $250,000.00/yr.
Do you find this right? Should rich people get even more tax breaks then poor people? Already our tax code allows the rich to pay significantly lower tax rates then low and middle income earners by providing many tax shields and incentives that are only accessible by the wealthy. Tax breaks that Mitt Romney exploits to the fullest often moving income over seas to evade taxes here.
If you had an income of $100,000/yr do you think it would be nice if you could shield it from taxes by moving the income over seas? Who would pay for our schools? Who would pay for our roads? Who would pay for our emergency services? Who would pay for our wars?
The GOP blame President Obama for the current rate of unemployment. Saying "his [Obama] economic plan has failed". Yet every time President Obama tries to implement any plan he is confronted with this partisan blockade. Obama has made some hard compromises and brought spending increases to a low not seen since 1953. Obama policies, many implemented by executive order because republican congressmen refuse to vote for any bill that might make make the President look good., stopped an unemployment rate that was rising into the double digits.
President Obama has said all along that the recovery is coming to slow. That it isn't good enough. That we still have a lot to do. He's made hard compromises in hopes the republicans would also make similar compromises but at every opportunity republicans refuse. Even to compromises they agreed to in the past.
They want to privatise education giving more support to rich families sending their children to private schools at the cost of low and middle income families, that can not afford high priced schools, to attend schools that get even less funding per student. Choice is easy for those that can afford it. I sent my son to a private school up until year 8. That was my choice and that choice didn't rip funding away from public schools in the process. How does the GOP expect a low income family that is struggling to put food on the table to be able to come up with more money to send their kids to a school that is properly funded? A school which is probably further away then their local public school. A school which may have many other hidden costs like uniforms and "building fees". How do they expect struggling families to come up with thousands of dollars more a year for each one of their children when the GOP plan to take away safety nets like food stamps. When the GOP plan to roll back the Affordable Health Care Act leaving the low income families with no affordable medical insurance and no guarantee that if they do keep their health insurance that the insurance company won't drop them as soon as someone in the family gets ill?
If you vote for the GOP this coming election be assured that the unemployment rate we saw at the end of the Bush administration will only be the start. The GOP are great at saying democrats hate America but the GOP only like the rich and they'll lie to all the low and middle income Americans to get into power.
The phrase "I'm proud to be an American" will be a joke unless you are in the top 2%.
Obama's administration has the lowest increase of spending since President Eisenhower. That is over 50 years you have to go back.
How does Obama stack up to other presidents?
Regan's 1st term - 8.7%
Regan's 2nd term - 4.9%
Bush Snr - 5.4%
Clinton's 1st term - 3.2%
Clinton's 2nd term - 3.9%
Bush Jr's 1st term - 7.3%
Bush Jr's 2nd term - 8.1%
Obama 1st term - 1.4%
Do you really trust that The GOP will make the cuts needed? Oh they'll make cuts.
They'll make cuts that will cost seniors $6,500 more a year in out of pocket expendatures do to allowing insurers to refuse coverage which increases the strain on Medicare forcing out many seniors from even recieving benefits.
They'll shift medicare onto the states that isn't designed to keep up with actual health care costs.
They'll repeal the Affordable Care Act and let the insurance companies go back to business as usual where they can deny you coverage when ever they want which would effect tens of millions of Americans not to meantion the more than 30,000,000 Americans who would loose their coverage right away.
They'll slash education. Ryan and Romney won't tell you where exactly they'll make the cuts within education but the reduction is there...they just don't want to be pin down to so they can claim make claims like "Pell grants don't have to change". But the truth of the matter is that cuts would have to be made some where.
They'll slash programs for the very poor and disadvantage. Programs like food stamps. Programs that help poor children get the nutrician they need.
They'll also make the rich get richer. 3 Trillion dollars in tax cuts that will benifit only the top 2%. Mitt Romney would end up paying less then 1% in taxes under the Romney-Ryan plan. Ironically 1% might be more then Romney has paid in some years in the last decade. But until he releases his tax returns we'll not know.
We all know Romney has a problem with connecting with the average American. His awkward lines like
Talking to the members of the chambers of commerce - I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. - Jan 2012
Trying to pander to middle Americans - I'm not concerned about the very poor. - Jan 2012
Trying to pander to a group of unemployed in florida -I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed. - June 2011
When asked about tying his dog to the roof of his car and not stopping to let the dog go to the toilet -PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air. - 2007
Trying to show how he's an average guy that likes motor sport - I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners. - Feb 27, 2012
Talking to some supporters from a local bakery - I'm not sure about these cookies. They don't look like you made them. No, no. They came from the local 7/11 bakery, or whatever. - April 17, 2012
Talking to supporters in Michigan - I love this state. The trees are just the right height. - Feb 2012
At a speech in Harrisburg - he [Obama] spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps, or maybe just not enough time actually working in the real world - April 2012
note: that Romney was at Harvard longer and got 2 degrees while he was there, Obama paid his way through Harvard like most American's using student loans and worked as a community organiser for an organisation with a annual budget of $400,000 a year for 13 staff and the projects they ran.
Now Mitt Romney comes out with this. No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate!
Well who cares. Obama was born in Hawaii. Has legitimate short and long form birth certificate authenticated by officials in the state of Hawaii. Just because nut bag conspiracy idiots within the GOP keep lying and claiming that Obama isn't a real citizen of the United States of American, even when shown the evidence to the contrary. One would hope that Mitt Romney would try to distance himself from those nut jobs. But instead he's kept those nut jobs close. Accepting untold amounts of money from them and now he's jump squarely in bed with them spouting the same shit as they do.
The hypocrisy here is amazing. No one has asked Mitt for his birth certificate but will he release his tax returns for the last 10 years? Nope! Mind you this is a tradition his father started back in 1968. The only 2 years of tax returns he did release showed that he paid taxes at rate of less then 15%. That he used banks in the Cayman islands and Switzerland to shield income from taxes to not only the USA but other countries like Italy. Don't get me wrong. To date nothing he's done appears to be illegal. He's just manipulated the system which is geared to making it easy for rich people to pay very little in taxes.
The official tax policy that the republicans want to push through is even worse. Mitt Romney would end up paying less then 1% in taxes. The GOP wants to push through 5 trillion dollars...that is $5,000,000,000,000.00 in tax cuts that are exclusively for the top 2% of American's. The GOP currently won't extend tax cuts that would benefit all Americans until they get further tax cuts to those Americans that earn over $250,000.00 a year. Get this straight. ALL Americans would benefit by the tax cuts Obama wants to push through because it covers all income up to $250,000.00. But this isn't good enough for the GOP. They want more tax breaks that only benefit people that earn more then $250,000.00 a year.
Where do you think the GOP's tax cuts for the top 2% would come from? Who's going to pay for it? This is something they don't like you to know. It comes from killing Medicare. Independent economists predict that Medicare collapse within 4 years if Romney was elected and implemented his tax plan. Taxes to low and middle income Americans would got up. Finally services like police, fire and education would be cut back so that the rich can get richer.
Apparently its ok to call Sandra Fluke a slut on national radio but to point out Newt's wife is white is "racist".
Back on March 4th Newt Gingriche said this in response to Rush Limbaugh comments about Sandra Fluke.
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week.
Yet today, the 22nd of March, just 3 weeks later he thinks that Robert De Niro's following comment Robert De Niro: Callista Gingrich, Karen Santorum, Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady? Too soon, right?
warrants the President of the United States to apologise on De Niro's behalf.
Really? A joke pointing out that the GOP candidates' wives are white is racist and warrants the president stepping in?
Lets see..rising gas prices....not the Obama administration's fault. It is a globally regulated market and he is trying to put policies in place that will minimise the effect of gas prices on the average American.
The deficit due to Obama stopped us from the stupid downward spiralling unemployment rate he inherited from the Bush administration which brings us to unemployment which again wasn't Obama's fault in the first place. Forget the fact that the Obama administration has almost got us dug out of that hole the Bush administration threw us into.
The president can't lower the price of gas at the pump! What can he do though?
Paying to much at the pump?
First lets clear something up. The price of gas at the pump is set by a globally regulated market. Local conditions have little to do with the price of petrol. The oil companies scared the people in California into thinking that placing a tax on oil removed from the ground in California would raise the price of petrol at the pump and this is just an out right lie. What would have happen in that situation would have been, at worst, that the companies would have been paying a fee for removing a limited natural resource to the Californian citizens and the price of petrol would go up by a hair. That money could then be used to provide more services to the people of California. Note that "fee/tax" which is paid by the oil companies in every other state and nation. California just lets the oil companies rape their limited natural resources for free. Most likely that tax would be absorbed by the global market anyway. So if the price does goes up it is hedged over the entire world. IE you might pay 1¢ more at the pump but the oil being removed might be taxed at a rate where the citizens of California would benefit by double digits. Its kind of like paying an extra 35 cents at the pump to get a few dollars worth of benefits and services in other areas and the rest of the world makes up the difference. That is the worst case scenario. Most likely you'd not notice an increase directly due to that tax.
The same process also means that increasing oil production in the USA doesn't lower the price at the pump. What it does do is provide more money to US citizens employed by the industry. It can build up our reserves so that if there is a drastic change that OPEC causes we can buffer that a bit but that isn't a sustainable solution at this point and is more a buffer against some situation where supplies are limited. Prices would still go up but there might not necessarily a limitation to supply.
So you might ask "How does the 'all of the above' policy does help me?" As you reduce your dependence on petroleum based products you reduce the impact of the price rises of petroleum. Let me demonstrate this with a simple thought experiment.
Say your electricity is produced 75% petroleum based and 25% based off of renewable energy, that aren't put on a global market like oil is, that if the price of oil goes up by 50% that you don't get slugged with a 50% increase because only 75% of the cost is effected by the price of petroleum based products. So instead of a change of 50% you only get slugged for 37.5% increase.
Say your car is a ford focus. You drive an average of 15,000 miles in a year mix of city and highway driving you would use about 500 gallons of petrol say at a cost of $4 a gallon your up for $2000. Now if petrol jumps to $5 a gallon then your annual fuel cost jumps by $500 or ~$10 a week. Not really rocket science here. So what can you do? Well go for the hybrid ford focus and your buffered. Your bill is over 25% less to begin with so instead of $2,000 a year you are only talking about $1,500 a year, $500 cheaper. But that increase of petrol from $4/gal to $5/gal means you only pay $375 more a year. At the end of the day the you're still spending less at the pump after the increase in price then you where before the increase with the non hybrid version of the car. You can go one step further and get a full electric version of the car. Then your cost go from $2,000 or $1,500 a year to about $600 a year and get this...no emissions. You will pay a bit more for it at the dealership but after government rebate you are talking 4-5 years of fuel savings if prices don't climb, less time if they do.
Now you might say "Why should I spend more upfront?" Well you are insulating yourself from the changes for 1. Second there is no emissions. Third they are putting all the bells and whistles on this car so many of the options on a normal focus like the sat nav, dual-zone climate control, parking sensors and others come standard. If that is still not good enough there are other similar cars you can get for less money to include the volt, Nissan LEAF and the Mitsubishi i-MiEV. The Mitsubishi costing less then a non hybrid focus after the government rebate but its honestly a bit to "European" for most Americans I think. Baby steps. Go for a car that looks like it isn't a small European car.
Remember too that this technology is still pretty new and as the market gets a bit more mature technological advancement will bring the cost down even further.
I'll end it on home efficiency. If you are still using incandescent light bulbs get off them. If you leave your lights and tv's on...turn them off. If you can ... get solar panels. I've read papers on people who have gone effectively off the grid by a combination of solar panels and relatively simple changes to their power usage. One professor at Berkeley paid for the whole conversion of his house by adding it to his mortgage. You might think "The last thing I need to do is add to my mortgage." but think about this. The amount of money he now saves from the conversion is more then the increase to his mortgage. Another big difference is one day he'll pay off his house but if he didn't convert he'd still be paying his ever increasing power bills for the rest of his life.
If, after reading all this, you say to yourself "But it is all to hard!" or make up some other excuse then do me a favour. Don't blame the President of the USA when you are at the pump and don't whine about your power bills at home. You choose to drive a gas guzzling people mover and complain about gas prices then STFU about the price of petrol.
Many people blame Obama for the state of the USA but tend to cherry pick what they blame and credit Obama for.
Obama entered, knowingly, into office with the following.
An imbalance between federal revenues and spending that pre-dates the recession and his administration
Sky rocketing unemployment that started back in March of 2007
A financial crisis brought on by deregulation and the subsequent fraud perpetrated by executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Elevated spending by the government in attempt to stop the collapse of the economy via the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
What has Obama done in the last 3 year?
He's halted the sky-rocketing unemployment rate he inherited in under 9 months and the USA has seen declining unemployment rates for that last year. It takes time to recover from a 10% unemployment rate especially when you consider how fucked up the economy was besides unemployement
Under the previous administration the mentality of "trickle down economics" meant that the rich enjoyed every lower rates of taxes reducing the amount of revenue to the government while we had a huge increase in spending to support "wars" we might not actually need to be in. American's just stood by as companies like Halliburton where flooded with taxpayer money to do jobs that normally would have been done and should be done by the military like logistical support in combat areas, militarised security that because of the mandates was unaccountable for its actions. Cheney's former employer, from which he still received money from, where given free rain in an environment that is normally the domain of the defence department which is regulated by things like the uniform code of military justice and various treaties like the geneva convention. Our tax dollars being used to fund privately control mercenaries that where unduly exposed to high amounts of risk all for a "person" called
Halliburton because as we all know corporations are people. They just can't be fucked like people like you and me.
He's pushed for tax reform bringing back a fair tax rate for the top 1% which most Americans seem to think is "Class warfare" because they've been brain washed into thinking that it is ok for someone making tens of millions of dollars a year or more shouldn't have to pay anywhere near the tax rate of middle America. If you believe this is ok and you are part of "middle America" then ask why you are paying a higher rate of tax then those people below the poverty line. Fuck the people that are more poor then you. They should be rightly used as a slave labour force so you don't have to contribute your fair share to the nation. If you earn under 40k a year then 30k of it should go to the government so that those richer then you can move from a ~50% total tax contribution to about 30% and those 1% can go from 15% to 0%. This plan has the added benefit of making more people poor and thus subject to a higher tax rate! WOOOoooo
He's trying to reel in spending while not totally fucking our future generations over but all the republicans want to do is make it easy for their rich friends, A.K.A. corporations, to get bail outs and reduce their taxes. Some how the "trickle down economics" that has demonstrably failed over the last 30+ years is still being touted as the solution to the economic crisis that it is hugely responsible for.
So next time you complain that Obama is "Elite" and mean that as a derogatory term think about what you are saying. "I don't like smart people that don't want to screw over the average American because while I'm one of them now I'm deluded an think that I'm going to be one of the 1% soon and want to shit on everyone from my ivory tower when I am"
Oh and think of all those evil poor kids he's got health care for. How dare he hold lending institutions accountable for unfair trade practices. How dare he ask that we focus on our kids education. We should goto a voucher system so that the rich can get reimbursed for sending their kids to private schools and inner city kids get screwed over because they only join gangs anyway and don't deserve a public education.
If your a Republican ask yourself are you a republican that wants smaller government or are you a Republican that want your religion pushed on the rest of the country and the ability to stop 2 people that are in love from having the same rights as you simply because they are the same sex. 50 year ago people thought that interracial marriage was wrong. Are you a racist too?
