"Unprecedented" disaster
-
I don't want to sidetrack the thread, especially since it's gone eight posts without being invaded by crazies, which might be a record, but it's here.
-
I don't quite understand how he is in"charge" of stopping it. The fact gov't thinks they have the expertise to stop such a disaster is laughable and completely out of their area of practice.
I guess in "charge" means footing the majority of the cleanup bill.
I thought Obama and the administration has handled it well so far. There is only so much they can do in an incident like this.
The fact they made them drill two relief wells is kind of redundant and of questionable (not to mention costly) field practice.
Heck: Why is it a total whiff on a political level? I'm not following here.. I think any President / office would respond in the same way ..am i wrong?
-Lambdo
-
I don't quite understand how he is in"charge" of stopping it. The fact gov't thinks they have the expertise to stop such a disaster is laughable and completely out of their area of practice.
I guess in "charge" means footing the majority of the cleanup bill.
I thought Obama and the administration has handled it well so far. There is only so much they can do in an incident like this.
The fact they made them drill two relief wells is kind of redundant and of questionable (not to mention costly) field practice.
Heck: Why is it a total whiff on a political level? I'm not following here.. I think any President / office would respond in the same way ..am i wrong?
-Lambdo
I don't quite understand how he is in"charge" of stopping it. The fact gov't thinks they have the expertise to stop such a disaster is laughable and completely out of their area of practice.
I guess in "charge" means footing the majority of the cleanup bill.
I thought Obama and the administration has handled it well so far. There is only so much they can do in an incident like this.
The fact they made them drill two relief wells is kind of redundant and of questionable (not to mention costly) field practice.
Heck: Why is it a total whiff on a political level? I'm not following here.. I think any President / office would respond in the same way ..am i wrong?
-Lambdo
Exactly like Bush handled Katrina. He did everything possible. Right? What was he supposed to do, stop the hurricane? You libs are delusional.
-
I don't quite understand how he is in"charge" of stopping it. The fact gov't thinks they have the expertise to stop such a disaster is laughable and completely out of their area of practice.
I guess in "charge" means footing the majority of the cleanup bill.
I thought Obama and the administration has handled it well so far. There is only so much they can do in an incident like this.
The fact they made them drill two relief wells is kind of redundant and of questionable (not to mention costly) field practice.
Heck: Why is it a total whiff on a political level? I'm not following here.. I think any President / office would respond in the same way ..am i wrong?
-Lambdo
Exactly like Bush handled Katrina. He did everything possible. Right? What was he supposed to do, stop the hurricane? You libs are delusional.
Exactly like Bush handled Katrina. He did everything possible. Right? What was he supposed to do, stop the hurricane? You libs are delusional.
Um, I don't believe we thought he could stop the hurricane, no. Thinking we thought that might be delusional.
-
I don't quite understand how he is in"charge" of stopping it. The fact gov't thinks they have the expertise to stop such a disaster is laughable and completely out of their area of practice.
I guess in "charge" means footing the majority of the cleanup bill.
I thought Obama and the administration has handled it well so far. There is only so much they can do in an incident like this.
The fact they made them drill two relief wells is kind of redundant and of questionable (not to mention costly) field practice.
Heck: Why is it a total whiff on a political level? I'm not following here.. I think any President / office would respond in the same way ..am i wrong?
-Lambdo
I don't quite understand how he is in"charge" of stopping it. The fact gov't thinks they have the expertise to stop such a disaster is laughable and completely out of their area of practice.
I guess in "charge" means footing the majority of the cleanup bill.
I thought Obama and the administration has handled it well so far. There is only so much they can do in an incident like this.
The fact they made them drill two relief wells is kind of redundant and of questionable (not to mention costly) field practice.
Heck: Why is it a total whiff on a political level? I'm not following here.. I think any President / office would respond in the same way ..am i wrong?
-Lambdo
I wouldn't think they'd all respond in the same way, no. And I'm not asking for a bunch of photo ops and empty gestures. But there are ways to reassure the public that the appropriate steps are being taken. They're not floating off in the middle of the Gulf. They don't know unless you tell them. And you don't seem like you're in control unless you've demonstrated that you are.
People want to know what their government is doing, and also what they're not doing. In a crisis like this, that should be explained by him just about every other day, not in one month intervals.
-
No, he's the Messiah, and we worship him on Sundays and sing Obama songs we learned off YouTube. Haven't you heard?
As for unprecedented, I'll say he's overusing it when he uses it incorrectly. So far, the financial crisis was unprecedented, as were the recovery efforts. And so was the oil spill, and the effort to stem that. So I think it's fine.
I'm still waiting for one of you to comment on that graph I put up. I guess it's kind of inconvenient to your arguments, so no one did.
No, he's the Messiah, and we worship him on Sundays and sing Obama songs we learned off YouTube. Haven't you heard?
As for unprecedented, I'll say he's overusing it when he uses it incorrectly. So far, the financial crisis was unprecedented, as were the recovery efforts. And so was the oil spill, and the effort to stem that. So I think it's fine.
I'm still waiting for one of you to comment on that graph I put up. I guess it's kind of inconvenient to your arguments, so no one did.
What graph? I must have missed it.
-
Exactly like Bush handled Katrina. He did everything possible. Right? What was he supposed to do, stop the hurricane? You libs are delusional.
Um, I don't believe we thought he could stop the hurricane, no. Thinking we thought that might be delusional.
Um, I don't believe we thought he could stop the hurricane, no. Thinking we thought that might be delusional.
Sorry dip, I thought maybe you might be semi intelligent enough to understand. The Liberals are saying that Obama couldn't stop an oil disaster. But when Bushy was president, they jumped all over him because he didn't respond quickly enough. Now how exactly is that different, dip? Understand Heck?
-
Yes, I understand. That you don't understand.
You wrote, "What was he supposed to do, stop the hurricane? You libs are delusional." And I pointed out that, no, no one claimed that. Just like no one is claiming that Obama should have stopped the oil leak, or could have. Those are things out of their control.
We're talking about how they responded to the tragedies, and how they fulfilled their responsibilities. The complaint was about how the Bush administration responded to Katrina, and how they gutted the agency tasked with responding to Katrina, and staffed it with hacks, and how that ended up causing real harm.
I don't have similar complaints about how Obama handled this. I have political complaints.
-
yeah, you hated Bush for being a Republican, so you
bought and exaggerated any outlet.
Want to tell us a thousandth time about how "Bush and Cheney"
outed Plame? (no, they didn't. did you ever sing the "I'm So Sorry" song,
like I suggested?)
Bush takes trip to Katrina - "it was just a photo op".
Obamao takes a trip to the disaster in the gulf, "it shows Obamao cares so much"
kinda like that from you libs - very, very politically expedient, but very, very dishonest.
You and Al don't seem to be very smart, or very honest. Maybe 50-50 split there...
-
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
-
I don't want to sidetrack the thread, especially since it's gone eight posts without being invaded by crazies, which might be a record, but it's here.
I don't want to sidetrack the thread, especially since it's gone eight posts without being invaded by crazies, which might be a record, but it's here.
The government, clearly, is spending too much money. Allowing people to keep a higher percentage of THEIR money should have been mitigated by spending cuts in other areas.
This chart assumes too many sacred cows, IMHO.
-
Are we looking at the same chart, John? It shows the sources of the deficit going forward. And the biggest source, and by a wide margin, are the tax cuts, not the spending.
-
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
-
Are we looking at the same chart, John? It shows the sources of the deficit going forward. And the biggest source, and by a wide margin, are the tax cuts, not the spending.
Are we looking at the same chart, John? It shows the sources of the deficit going forward. And the biggest source, and by a wide margin, are the tax cuts, not the spending.
But wouldn't repeal of the tax cuts diminish the gap?
My point is that we need to cut spending to the extent of the tax cuts.
-
The point of the graph is to bring some reality into the discussion of who and what caused the deficits the people in here, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party, all blame mostly on President Obama, if not exclusively on President Obama. And when you try to point out that it was mostly someone else's administration, they accuse you of blaming Bush and tell you to move on.
As Steve Martin sarcastically says in Parenthood, "No, I'll blame the dog."
Well, yeah, we're blaming Bush. Because his policies are responsible for most of the deficit. And the right is screaming, "Stop blaming Bush!" because they can't accept that reality, and would rather point the finger somewhere else.
So yes, job number one is setting tax rates at a more sensible level, and cutting entitlements and military spending.
-
it's ignorant to say the deficit is caused by mostly those tax cuts.
Without the tax cuts, things would have been worse...
You go ahead, Heck, and convince Obamao to have opposing voices thrown in...
no, I mean, convince Obamao to raise taxes on everybody.
Watch how the revenue plummets, and the deficit goes way upward.
Too....much....spending....get....it...straight.
TOO MUCH SPENDING.
-
Yes, the man just saw a graph that showed the giant revenue shortfall caused by the Bush tax cuts, how they are more responsible for the deficit picture than anything else, and then said things would have been worse without them.
This is the bubble you people live in. You should open the window and let a little reality in.
Yes, Cal, the Bush tax cuts caused an increase in growth. No, Cal, it wasn't nearly enough to make up for the overall loss in revenue. The budget picture would be improved immeasurably had Bush not cut taxes the way he did.
If you can learn one thing this entire year, learn that. Though I don't have high hopes.
-
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
Maybe we should stop doing anything that involves risk.
40,000 traffic fatalities a year.
WSS
-
Well, the man who cherry picked a narrow perspective graph that jives with his
boo sheet:
Just so you know, here is why I am right AGAIN:
Oh, btw, Heckiswrongagain: "National Center for Policy Analysis" = NCPA
Have nice day, Heck. Have a cookie. Have a glass of milk.
Have the nads to sing the "I'm a big dummy and Cal was right again" song.
Say you're sorry dammit. @@
*******************************************
http://www.ncpa.org/media/study-bushs-capi...us-more-revenue
Study: Bush's Capital Gains Tax Cuts Provided Stimulus; More Revenue
January 23, 2008
President Bush's investment tax cuts helped stimulate the economy and increase government revenue, and raising the capital gains tax rate, as some are now proposing, would be harmful to the economy at a time when it is once again in need of stimulus, according to a new study from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
"Some policy makers want to nearly double the tax on capital gains," warned Stephen Moore, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and author of the study. "That is the exact opposite of what our economy needs. If anything, the rate should be cut further."
Faced with a fragile economy early in his presidency, President Bush responded with a series of tax cuts, including reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income. These measures were designed to stimulate capital investment and produce more jobs. The study notes that the stimulus package had positive effects on the economy and government finances. The economy grew, the government gained revenue and the rich now pay a larger share of taxes than ever. For example:
•The rate of business capital investment underwent a U-turn - from negative business investment spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average annual increase of more than 10 percent in the three succeeding years.
•In the four years since the cut, federal revenues increased $740 billion and revenues from the capital gains tax nearly doubled to $110 billion.
•There was a sizable "unlocking effect" from the lower tax rate, meaning that investors voluntarily sold stock and other assets at a much higher volume once the tax rate was reduced, nearly doubling the amount of capital gains realized.
The study notes that the cuts are scheduled to expire after 2010, increasing the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent, which is higher than most developed countries. Some have suggested raising the rate to 28 percent, higher than the rate when Bill Clinton left office and placing the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage
"Increasing the capital gains tax rate would have a negative effect on the economy in both the short and long term," said Moore . "It is critical that Congress extend the life of these cuts by making them permanent. And they need to do it sooner, rather than later to help boost the economy and reduce the growth-dampening effects of uncertainty."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login