patrick.net

Today Trump says, to lower gas prices....

all we need to do is tell OPEC we want them lowered.

Vicente says

Today Trump says, to lower gas prices….
all we need to do is tell OPEC we want them lowered.

I seem to remember during the campaign, Obama wanted to "talk things over, face to face" with our enemies, presumably to tell them to "be nice." I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two naive positions, do you?

HousingWatcher says

Your right. Can’t argue there. But Obama did drastically reduce troop levels in Iraq, soemthign Bush never did.

by moving them to Afganistan (the graveyard of USSR soldiers) and an illegal war in Lybia. So far same government cronyism, just under a different name.

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

Today Trump says, to lower gas prices….
all we need to do is tell OPEC we want them lowered.

I seem to remember during the campaign, Obama wanted to “talk things over, face to face” with our enemies, presumably to tell them to “be nice.” I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the two naive positions, do you?

Interesting. I don't remember him every saying he would tell them to "be nice" His position was to engage all countries rather than ignore our enemies. Ignoring them clearly hasn't worked, so a new tact is obviously necessary.

I could buy a place now but since I just started a new job a few weeks ago, it makes ZERO sense for me to take the plunge and risk. Especially since the IT tech job market is very cyclical in the bay area. Companies hire a lot then lay off tons more a couple years later. With zero job stability now that your job can and will be sent overseas to China or India for less money, it is too risky to buy a home now. Maybe if prices were half of what they are today like 100-200k then it would make sense. But it is still WAY cheaper to rent now than to buy a house in Silicon Valley.

RayAmerica says

I seem to remember during the campaign, Obama wanted to “talk things over, face to face” with our enemies, presumably to tell them to “be nice.” I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the two naive positions, do you?

Wait, I thought OPEC was full of our allies, not our enemies. Now I'm confused.

But bromance didn't seem to work so well for Bush, as gas prices still shot up during his term:

The fact that we can't control the price of oil, is the result of the FACT that the oil-producer countries and commodities speculators can do what they want to squeeze the rest of us, and politicians begging or telling be damned. This schmuck Trump is a....

patb says

a million vacant houses, CA is going nowhere.

Don't worry. As per OP of this thread a million investors are coming to rescue the banks from their misery, if not Obama. :)

Vicente here are images of the dear Obama hanging out with king abdulah

Or just go to images.google.com and type in "Obama Saudi King".

All of our leaders meet with Abdullah. You can't pretend that only republicans kiss ass in the middle east.

The point being that we don't get to TELL OPEC what they can charge us for oil.

There may be some give and take but we already shot our wad to little real effect there. I'm pretty sure if Dubya with all his Saudi connections couldn't bring oil back to $1/gallon nobody can. I am assuming here of course that he did put on all the pressure he could, I've heard claims to that effect. Conspiracy theorists may cry misdirection on a secret effort to raise prices, but I'll assume he would have lowered them if he could to regain popularity. Everyone knows we are overextended and not about to invade anyone else for their oil. So far as I can tell, the net effect of nearly a decade of Oil Wars is now we pay more for it.

Thus Trump is a clown for saying HE is the only guy who can sweet-talk or "cheat" them.

I haven't heard his speeches, but that sounds like a political gimmick or misunderstanding somewhere. I really do not see him saying that, it just doesn't make sense. He is a business man, he is well aware that in business someone will only lower the price if that's their only option.

Best way to lower the price is to make competition cheaper. If green energy or some other oil source catches on that would put a damper on oil prices certainly.

Just for the record, there is no way in hell I'm voting for anyone who is in real estate business. Last bubble was not a pleasure to live through.

ChrisLA says

I haven’t heard his speeches, but that sounds like a political gimmick or misunderstanding somewhere. I really do not see him saying that, it just doesn’t make sense.

Donald Trump: "I can't believe that we let OPEC get away with it, Saudia Arabia wouldn't be there if it weren't for us".

From the video here:
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/04/10/sotu.trump.opec.cnn

I find it rip-roaring funny anytime people actually put much stock in gratitude being a major factor in business and strategic interests. The French helped us out a bunch in our history, and yet we rag on them show no gratitude. I expect the Saudi's are about the same, hey thanks for helping us back in the 90's but lately you've been kind of annoying. We'll cut you a 5% friends discount and we'll watch you circle the drain expending more on military than the rest of the world, then maybe we'll ally with the Russians or Chinese or whoever gives us best deal to act as our paid mercenaries.

tatupu70 says

His position was to engage all countries rather than ignore our enemies. Ignoring them clearly hasn’t worked, so a new tact is obviously necessary.

How's that working out? He seems to be "engaging" Libya in a not so friendly way.

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

His position was to engage all countries rather than ignore our enemies. Ignoring them clearly hasn’t worked, so a new tact is obviously necessary.

How’s that working out? He seems to be “engaging” Libya in a not so friendly way.

Well, as you no doubt know, you can't evaluate a policy based on one outcome. It will take many years to come to a conclusion. Like I said though, it can't be any worse than the previous policy.

We do need to scale down.

Troy says

Only if you’re a moron and/or didn’t know that the recession started March 2001.

Ok, so you first deny that Bush was responsible for the 2001 recession after I point out that he didn't have time to start it, then you call me a moron because you think I'm denying that it started after he was elected.

I totally understand what you are saying: Conservative Republican = Bad, Any and all Democrats = Good. Gotcha.

Troy says

It is true that government is structured to benefit the very poor and the very rich, and the vast middle class is stuck with the bill.

You are completely correct here. With rates over 30% and people paying Troy says

We need a better progressive tax rate structure to fix this — there used to be many more income tax brackets but the very rich jiggered the process to hide behind the merely upper middle class by having the brackets top out at ~$200,000.

I think this is where you are wrong. We have some semblance of a progressive structure but the brackets aren't the problem. Obama actually hit the mark correctly in stating that the deductions are the real problem. Hopefully he has opened his eyes to see where the problem is. I'm starting to actually have some hope that Barry will let his pragmatic side show. You can game the rates up and down all over the place but if people aren't paying those rates because of the loopholes it doesn't really matter. Also, I think having levels set nationally are screwey because it is more expensive to live in some parts of the country than others. A $100k income in most of the midwest, for example, means something far different than $100k in the west or northeast. If we REALLY wanted to stick it to the rich, the tax code needs to be simplified (i.e. fewer loopholes) not more progressive. Breaking SSI into a different bucket further sticks it to the middle that is paying the highest amount possible based on the current limits. I remember the SSI "holiday" starting in July-September timeframe - now for middle income earners it has either completely disappeared or only shows up for the Christmas holiday.

From your article:

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

What's the big deal? Instant coffee with benzene is DELICIOUS!

EightBall says

Conservative Republican = Bad, Any and all Democrats = Good. Gotcha.

No, I wouldn't say that. Conservatives are largely full of shit on everything -- climate change denialism, creationism, discrimination against gays, integrating religion into schools, low taxes on wealth, support for the wars and the overall pro-Israel bias. I really can't think of a single conservative position at the moment that's worth a damn -- most of the above bullshit comes from having to pander to the fundie muppets that are about half their base.

Most democrats suck, too, for different reasons. Most of them are also too "conservative", and many of the rest are pretty unintelligent or just rabble-rousers. Feingold is about the only Dem I actually respect. Kohl, too, I guess. Obama, partially, I probably couldn't do any better job than he's doing at least.

If we REALLY wanted to stick it to the rich, the tax code needs to be simplified (i.e. fewer loopholes) not more progressive.

We need to stick it to the rent-seeking. I'd like to think that would be enough to fix things, without having to uptax actual productive rich people (doctors, pro athletes, etc). Perhaps not, but without trying we can't know.

I recently calculated the total land value of the Tokyo area to be THREE times their national debt, yet Japan has lower property taxes than here (actually, these two facts are in a causal relationship).

Letting the working class skate on taxes just allows rents & land values to escalate. I think everyone should have lifelong access to good schools, medical care, etc but don't think the "rich" should have to pay for it all.

I don't think the low estate tax is a big deal. It's trying to fix the wrong kind of problem.

Tax the income flows, not the capital wealth itself. And tax rent flows more, and actual productive enterprise less.

This really seems obvious, but more than half the country doesn't want anything to do with "property" taxes, for good reason, LOL.

If it came down to a popular vote even the renters themselves would get buffaloed into believing the LLs would just pass rent taxes onto their tenants. . .

we already have progressive tax. i pay a lot more than someone making less than me.

ChrisLA says

we already have progressive tax. i pay a lot more than someone making less than me.

I think you are trying to be funny, but we do have a progressive tax structure. Just not nearly progressive enough.... The rapidly increasing wealth disparity proves it.

You're right .... this is an old thread. Now it's time for an update. It must be awful difficult if you're a liberal and continue to support Obama.
You fell (admit it) for all that "Hope & Change" junk and really believed things would be vastly different. You didn't want McCain because he was going to be "Bush's third term." Little did you know Obama would be as well, only with a lot more spending and more war. Oh well, at least he has a photogenic family and Michelle is against fat. That's a good thing, isn't it?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112346/obama-ran-against-bush-but-now.html

RayAmerica says

Comments?

"I like cheese" - Natalie Portman

It is delicious and aromatic, all at once.

They must have been importing water from New York, Cleveland, or Detroit for their fracking...

About to close on $44

I don't like some promises he failed to deliver on. But...

I think I am content about the fact that Congress is Republican and president is Democrat making government constantly slow down to bicker and fight holding off hand outs.

IMO every time a single party controls both sides government starts growing too big and picking winners and losers by giving handouts to the new friends (the winners) by taking away from the others (the losers). With partisan bickering they don't get to do it as much, since both sides aim for each others throat politically if they see special interest handout coming.

Obama gave away a lot of money, I really really did not like that. That wasn't even socialism, to me that was Bush/Clinton type of cronyism all over again.

There isn't accumulation of capital though. Simply put, capital itself isn't worth much unless it is reinvested, and therefore it is constantly spent. (That's the positive aspect of not having gold as currency backing) Velocity of money is pretty high.

Our economy is bound to slow down. Because right now, government is just keeping bad businesses afloat with constant bailouts and stimulus, which is in my opinion bad for economy and capitalism. It's inefficient and is a drain (since they take from good business and hand it out to bad business). Once these bad businesses fail or get a clue (one or the other) and cleanse the system then business cycle will go back up into growth mode.

When a corporation (lets assume American International Group) or a union (lets assume California Teachers Union) need constant bailouts, than they need to be allowed to fail in order to stop draining society in their inefficient ways and allow capitalism to flourish.

errc says

now its hard to get out when it goes up 1% per day

Just like housing - just have to know when to get out, or at least collect your profits.

I do wonder what local regulatory structure was in place to monitor this stuff at state levels...

Let them burn coal...

RayAmerica says

Total, complete, utter nonsense. The Federal EPA is about as autonomous as a government department can get. Literally, no one tells them what to do. To imply that Bush was some type of dictator of the EPA in which he gave out orders to look the other way is about as childish as it gets. When I read this kind of junk, I’m back to wondering why I waste my time on this site.

How can you say that when the President gets to appoint the head of the EPA without even needing Congressional approval?

ch_tah says

How can you say that when the President gets to appoint the head of the EPA without even needing Congressional approval?

So you agree with this silly premise that Bush set the agenda for the EPA to look the other way when it was known by the EPA that the oil companies were polluting, etc.?

Who drinks tapwater?

RayAmerica says

ch_tah says

How can you say that when the President gets to appoint the head of the EPA without even needing Congressional approval?

So you agree with this silly premise that Bush set the agenda for the EPA to look the other way when it was known by the EPA that the oil companies were polluting, etc.?

Why is it silly? Bush was anti-environment in just about every way. He's an oil man, comes from an oil family, why would you think he would do anything contradictory to the oil companies' desires?

ch_tah says

Bush was anti-environment in just about every way.

Give me some specific examples to back up your claim, in particular, his "anti-environment" policies that actually amounted to actionable policies.

kent do you have the title of the book? it sounds very interesting.

I think there is also a lot of simple fraud in government, which is very apparent at the state level and takes a lot of money out of the private sector.
For example earlier today I was listening to some radio news. Apparently Jerry Brown is proposing a union contract with prison guards where they get paid 8 weeks of vacation every year and can save these permanently. All that money to be paid to government workers do have to come from taxes, which is money coming out of the private sector. I'm sure that has a very significant impact on the wages in the private sector, after all thats who gets to subsidize the lavishness of all the Robert Rizos out there.

It just seems like in our nation lately it became a popular way to make it, by living off at the expense to others. If one runs a business, that individual can make some money. But if that same person can get taxpayer handouts through union or corporate lobbying thats where the gold is.

clambo says

Who drinks tapwater?

Only poor people in Texas, so don't worry about it! Oh... wait... they DO use tap water to make food in restaurants. Even the yuppie ones in coastal CA.

ChrisLA says

Apparently Jerry Brown is proposing a union contract with prison guards where they get paid 8 weeks of vacation every year and can save these permanently.

My cousin works at a prison - 8 weeks doesn't seem like enough for what he endures on a daily basis. But hey, teachers get the summer off why can't everyone get 8 weeks ;)

I hate Obama even more than 18 months ago. If anything, he proven time and time again to do the wrong thing. He's definately the proberbial limousine liberal elitist I suspected he was. He cares nothing for the taxpayers, only for his extreme soliclist agenda. He has done nothing to reduce unemployment, even though it would be pretty easy to reduce it susbtantially if one wanted to, via banning immigration, sealing the border with Mexico, throwing out illegal aliens, and sending foreign guest workers home.

The only people Obama genuinely cares for are union members, and anyone on any public assistance program. Any who is actually a responsible, law abiding person Obama seems to disdain, like most liberal politicians.

RayAmerica says

Give me some specific examples to back up your claim, in particular, his “anti-environment” policies that actually amounted to actionable policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003