- For example, Obama says gas was less than $2 when Bush left office because the economy was in a tailspin. So, gas is now a steady $4 because the economy is blazing? Really? Is that why a gallon of milk is $6 and a pound of bacon is $7? Maybe a lot of things are just getting really expensive even though the economy isn't doing all that great.
- Obama tried to out-drill Romney on energy? Who's going to believe Obama has anything to do with increased production in N Dakota and Pennsylvania under his watch? I was happy that Romney gave voice to nuclear energy - everyone seems to dismiss this infinite source of energy that emits no greenhouse gases. Despite 30 years of almost no new plants being built, nuclear still accounts for 20% of our generated power. Seems like nuclear waste would be an easier problem to solve than global warming.
- Finally, Libya. I don't see how anyone could possibly be falling for the Libya cover up
Obama is trying to convince everyone that he told the American people on Day 2 in the Rose Garden that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror and not a spontaneous protest about a dopey youtube video. No one who reads the transcript of that speech would be convinced. If so, why would he then go and espouse the deplorability of the youtube video on David Letterman, on Univision, at the U.N., on all the Sunday talk shows via U.N. Ambassador Rice, with Hillary over the caskets at Andrews, in paid apology ads aired in Pakistan, and on and and on and on... Why would the White House unmistakably declare the video as a source of the problem a week later - not any resentment towards America or anything mean like that. No - he blamed the video for provoking riots that led to the assassination of the ambassador. The truth of a viable al Qaeda attacking a vulnerable consulate on 9/11 is too damaging to the President's claim that he killed Osama bin Laden and vanquished al Qaeda. A really nice article on the Libya cover up is here.
See how convinced Candy Crowley is by Obama's Rose Garden assertion and tell me if Obama won that debate or just got a higher "score".
I think Obama's in for a really devastating night on Monday in the 3rd debate on foreign policy. Obama has no explanations that will pass the B.S. test when it comes to Libya or Fast and Furious.
While you've done a good job of pointing out Obama's faults (of which there are many) its not like Romney has a better story.
ReplyDeleteDrill all you want and gas would still be $4. I've pointed this out before only as an example of media hypocrisy (if McCain was prez, we'd be hearing alot more about $4 gas), the reality is the president has close to zero impact here. I agree govt should be doing more to promote nuclear because people are too irrational for natural capitalist forces to overcome. In the short term though, nuclear isn't even cost competitive with NatGas, so it's not going to reduce prices at all.
I'll admit I'm intrigued by Romney's tax plan (unfortunately there is little else). He really needs to come out with more details on "deductions and loophole modifications" that keep it in the black. Seriously why doesn't he just say he's going to do away with the mortgage interest tax deduction (aka high cost of living area subsidy)? Hardly anyone in the swing states benefit from it (those that do are probably a lock for Romney anyway). When you are only paying $3000 a year in interest and $800 in taxes on your $150,000 middle class home in an upscale Ohio suburb, you are probably taking the standard deduction anyway.
What votes does Romney think he is winning with the increased military expenditures? Anybody who benefits from military expenditures is probably a lock for him as well.
I have to disagree with you on a few points:
ReplyDelete- First, if the U.S. were to develop more of its own energy resources, then even if that weren't enough to change the cost of oil, at least more of that money would stay on this continent.
- Other than a weak energy policy, don't you think that all of the printing of money by the Fed could be raising gas prices? Heck, the price of groceries (and gold) are certainly going way up. I'm not sure how much of the rising costs are due to inflation vs supply. I'm pretty sure it's not a demand problem given the economy, though - unless China and India are increasing thirsty for oil despite the slowdown. That's only going to get worse.
- Regarding the economics of nuclear, you're not factoring in the benefit of no greenhouse gas emissions. That's worth the cost of a zillion windmills and acres upon acres of solar panels to some.
-The US is already developing its own energy resources with little government involvement, see Natural Gas.
ReplyDelete-It's very unRonPaul to say but I don't think the "money printing" is causing any inflation at the moment (it will in the future, just not now), see M3 money supply. If it were, surely other forms of energy would be at highs like gasoline, but it's just not the case (NatGas, coal, and even diesel). My suspicion is that this reflects the stupidity (financial or otherwise) of American consumers. Big companies (freight, industrial, etc) have seen the value in getting off of diesel/gasoline or found ways to be more efficient with it (airlines). Meanwhile, American consumers are still buying F150s and large SUVs having learned nothing. With heating oil at 3X the price of natgas after all the charges homes should be converted to gas as fast as the boilermakers can keep up but it's just not happening. Maybe they just tell Liz Warren how their poor financial decisions have caused them to be "hammered"?
-I'm not saying nuclear is not economically valid but that the NIMBY forces that stop it are too much for the free market to overcome. This is where government could play a role (think 40B for power plants). "If 33% (or whatever number) of your energy is not from renewable sources, developers are free to build renewable energy anywhere in your town without any zoning restrictions." The problem is that building a power plant from scratch probably takes longer than a presidential term...