Krugman opinion: "Yes, he could"

[Listening]

Let's see--if we kill coal, which is only used for electric generation, we drive up the demand for natural gas and petroleum which drives up their prices which drive up the cost of everything which drives up the cost of living. Seems to be of great consequence since electric is at all-time highs. No wonder Obama also wants us to have electric cars--it is a huge boom to Big Oil.

The Chained Consumer Price Index and cost of electricity have hit all time highs under Obama. What a coincidence.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brain....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

And once again, numbers triumph over propaganda.

So why does Obama have such a hard on for coal ?

Numbers need to tell the entire story.

 

[sameech]

Let's see--if we kill coal, which is only used for electric generation, we drive up the demand for natural gas and petroleum which drives up their prices which drive up the cost of everything which drives up the cost of living. Seems to be of great consequence since electric is at all-time highs. No wonder Obama also wants us to have electric cars--it is a huge boom to Big Oil.

The Chained Consumer Price Index and cost of electricity have hit all time highs under Obama. What a coincidence.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brains....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

Let's see--if we kill coal, which is only used for electric generation, we drive up the demand for natural gas and petroleum which drives up their prices which drive up the cost of everything which drives up the cost of living. Seems to be of great consequence since electric is at all-time highs. No wonder Obama also wants us to have electric cars--it is a huge boom to Big Oil.

The Chained Consumer Price Index and cost of electricity have hit all time highs under Obama. What a coincidence.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brain....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

And once again, numbers triumph over propaganda.

You are both wrong, but not the surprising. Phase I of Title IV of the Clean Air Act began in 1995, and Phase II began in 2000, and the "free market" graphs reflect that the government regulation is falling squarely on the plate of Appalachia. Coal powered electricity has been under fire because of sulfur dioxide i.e. "Acid Rain". Where you see the uptick is due to china imports of US coal. Coal use still accounts for about 75% of steel production globally and Big Oil that funds both parties need energy prices to stay very high in order to make fracking scalable.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Let's see--if we kill coal, which is only used for electric generation, we drive up the demand for natural gas and petroleum which drives up their prices which drive up the cost of everything which drives up the cost of living. Seems to be of great consequence since electric is at all-time highs. No wonder Obama also wants us to have electric cars--it is a huge boom to Big Oil.

The Chained Consumer Price Index and cost of electricity have hit all time highs under Obama. What a coincidence.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brains....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brain....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

And once again, numbers triumph over propaganda.

You are both wrong, but not the surprising. Phase I of Title IV of the Clean Air Act began in 1995, and Phase II began in 2000, and the "free market" graphs reflect that the government regulation is falling squarely on the plate of Appalachia. Coal powered electricity has been under fire because of sulfur dioxide i.e. "Acid Rain". Where you see the uptick is due to china imports of US coal. Coal use still accounts for about 75% of steel production globally and Big Oil that funds both parties need energy prices to stay very high in order to make fracking scalable.

So what you are saying is that figures can lie and liars figure?

 

[sameech]

So what you are saying is that figures can lie and liars figure?

No what I am saying is that people whose ignorance require them to make personal insults are generally ignorant of the meaning of the brightly colored graphs they try to use as a crutch to hide their cerebral limps.

Electric rates are at an all time-high. There is nothing free market about that at all. Municipal governments have tried to figure out ways to fight the rigged system on behalf of their citizens without much luck because one EPA regulation or another hamstrings them--be it the nightmare of trying to build hydroelectric or the impossibility to burn anything other than that which big oil/gas controls lock, stock and barrel. The government continues to help short competition because 1) it makes deep pockets grateful to their campaigns and 2) in the case of Obama, it theoretically makes green energy more scalable while simultaneously sticking it to China, especially since his Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is dead on arrival.

 

[bripat9643]

the 1973 Chilean coup d'état that overthrew Salvador Allende's left-wing government and instituted a 16-year-long right-wing military dictatorship that left more than 3,000 people dead or missing.[10] The dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet ended in 1990 after it lost a referendum in 1988 and was succeeded by a centre-left coalition which ruled through four presidencies until 2010.

Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[10] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[11] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[12] Chile is a founding member of the United Nations, the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chile prospers today BECAUSE they rolled back the right wings 'miracle'...

The main problem with that lame-ass theory is that they haven't rolled it back. Pinochet's reforms are still in place.

 

[Dad2three]

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

You mean Reagan 'made it shine' with a top rate of 50% his first 6 years and tripling US debt (Keynesian spending)?

 

[Dad2three]

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist

Charles Manson was famous.





Government meddling in economies is the antithesis of capitalism.

Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol

What austerity?

How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

The banksters are operating in economies that are centrally controlled. That is no free market.

Not terribly bright, are you?

Weird, so Banksters weren't stopped by regulators when they did their most current pump and dump right? What was that called?

Care to point to WHERE capitalism is in the US Constitution OR where the US Founders wanted it?



(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist

In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."

Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

 

[Dad2three]

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Marx was influential too. Doesnt mean his theory didnt suck.
Whenever anyone uses a juvenile term like "bankster" I know I'm dealing with the hard core moronic. As mentioned, banking was highly regulated, with bankers playing with Uncle Sam's money.
In the old days banks were unregulated but the law was the directors were personally responsible for their depositors' money. If they lost money, they were on the hook. Bring that back and watch how cautious banks become.

You mean in the time before the FDIC where every 15-20 years the US economy collapsed like 1929? Sure, that will work *shaking head*

BTW, THIS WAS WORLD WIDE, UNCLE SAM DID THAT?





Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of


The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.

A long-time cheerleader for deregulation, Greenspan admitted to a congressional committee yesterday that he had been "partially wrong" in his hands-off approach towards the banking industry and that the credit crunch had left him in a state of shocked disbelief. "I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."


..."I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.


Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian

 

[Dad2three]

Got what ? Brainlock ? Oh wait, you'd need a brain.

You didn't even address the points of his post.

Did you really just need to ejaculate your little sermon that badly ?

Feel better ?

Carter just cleaned up and the economy tanked under Reagan. Wait....

Address what, the Coolidge/Harding depression HH inherited?

Reagan? Oh right the guy who had a top tax rate of 50% for 6 years and once the top rate was cut to that, the unemployment soared, the opposite of what was supposed to happen?

Yes, those '70's policies set in motion by Nixon/Ford wage and price controls and OPEC really hurt Carter, the guy who had 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 million in 8


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's right...you didn't address those points.

But, now that you've been called on it....you are basically BSing your way.

It's to bad you have to try and appear to be smart.

That you correlate things like this with no evidence is hysterical.

Carter created X jobs in 4 years......he only got four years for a reason. Remember...he got his ass kicked in 1980.

Reagan gets to eat the recession Carter handed him.

Reagan got whomped in 1984....wait...that was Mondale. Because nobody else would run against Reagan. Reagan barely campaigned.

But you know something the rest of America doesn't.

No need to dispute the job numbers, they are correct. They simply don't tell the entire story.

I hope there isn't a number 4 for his/her sake.

So AGAIN, there was no point to your post? Thanks

 

[The Rabbi]

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist

In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."

Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

 

[Dad2three]

the 1973 Chilean coup d'état that overthrew Salvador Allende's left-wing government and instituted a 16-year-long right-wing military dictatorship that left more than 3,000 people dead or missing.[10] The dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet ended in 1990 after it lost a referendum in 1988 and was succeeded by a centre-left coalition which ruled through four presidencies until 2010.

Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[10] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[11] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[12] Chile is a founding member of the United Nations, the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chile prospers today BECAUSE they rolled back the right wings 'miracle'...

The main problem with that lame-ass theory is that they haven't rolled it back. Pinochet's reforms are still in place.

Sure they are

From an economic point of view, the era can be divided into two periods. The first, from 1973 to the Crisis of 1982, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the collapse of the Chilean economy. At that point, unemployment was extremely high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become bankrupt. During that first period, an economic policy that emphasized export expansion was implemented. Some economists argue that the economic recovery of the second period, from 1982 to 1990, was due to an about-face turn around of Pinochet's free market policy and the fact that, in 1982, he nationalized many of the same industries that were nationalized under Allende


Valenzuela, Arturo (2002). A Nation of Enemies. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 197-8


One by one the economic crises of 1981 led to the replacement of all the Chicago Boys.


Pragmatic economists had to socialize the two biggest Chilean banks in 1982 and another seven collapsing banks in 1983. The Central Bank of Chile socialized much of the foreign debt.

Anil Hira, Ideas and Economic Policy in Latin America, Praeger Publishers, 1998



The public expenditure quota rose above 34%, even higher than during the presidency of socialist Salvador Allende. Critics mocked the situation as „Chicago way to socialism“


Robert G. Wesson: Politics, policies, and economic development in Latin America. Hoover Press, 1984



The percentage of Chilean population living in poverty had doubled from 1973 to 1990






lol



To save the nation's pension system, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Socialist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation. While most of these businesses were eventually re-privatized, the state retained ownership of one industry: copper.

For nearly a century, copper has meant Chile and Chile copper. University of Montana metals expert Dr. Janet Finn notes, "It's absurd to describe a nation as a miracle of free enterprise when the engine of the economy remains in government hands." Copper has provided 30% to 70% of the nation's export earnings. This is the hard currency which has built today's Chile, the proceeds from the mines seized from Anaconda and Kennecott in 1973 - Allende's posthumous gift to his nation.

Greg Palast | Investigative Reporter

 

[jillian]

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

than now?

higher... though probably not corporations.

your refusal to live in reality is quite amusing,

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

MUCH lower on those 'job creators', the average person, higher. Why, did a top rate of 50% on the 'job creators' stop a boom? Or did lowering it to 28% create Poppy Bush's recession?

 

[The Rabbi]

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

than now?

higher... though probably not corporations.

your refusal to live in reality is quite amusing,

No, idiot. Than when he entered office.
And taxes are higher now than under Reagan.
You say I refuse to live in reality and you don't have the slightest grasp of facts. You imagine basic information. Like you are an attorney or Anthony Weiner would make a fine mayor or you have some relationship to the Jewish people. Crap like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

MUCH lower on those 'job creators', the average person, higher. Why, did a top rate of 50% on the 'job creators' stop a boom? Or did lowering it to 28% create Poppy Bush's recession?

You're one of those "low information voters" people talk about, arentcha?

 

[Dad2three]

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

than now?

higher... though probably not corporations.

your refusal to live in reality is quite amusing,

No, idiot. Than when he entered office.
And taxes are higher now than under Reagan.
You say I refuse to live in reality and you don't have the slightest grasp of facts. You imagine basic information. Like you are an attorney or Anthony Weiner would make a fine mayor or you have some relationship to the Jewish people. Crap like that.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Murray N. Rothbard


Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


Taxes at the top rate are STILL lower than Reagan's first 6 years, when, according to right wing MYTHOLOGY, the economy boomed BECAUSE of low taxes(NOT his tripling the debt by blowing up spending)...

 

[Dad2three]

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

MUCH lower on those 'job creators', the average person, higher. Why, did a top rate of 50% on the 'job creators' stop a boom? Or did lowering it to 28% create Poppy Bush's recession?

You're one of those "low information voters" people talk about, arentcha?

No, That would be MOST conservatives on this forum, the minority not represented by that are just ideologues (sociopaths)....

 

[Listening]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/o...e-and-climate-president-obamas-big-deals.html

You should judge leaders by their achievements, not their press, and in terms of policy substance Mr. Obama is having a seriously good year. In fact, there’s a very good chance that 2014 will go down in the record books as one of those years when America took a major turn in the right direction.

First, health reform is now a reality — and despite a shambolic start, it’s looking like a big success story. Remember how nobody was going to sign up? First-year enrollments came in above projections. Remember how people who signed up weren’t actually going to pay their premiums? The vast majority have.

We don’t yet have a full picture of the impact of reform on the previously uninsured, but all the information we do have indicates major progress. Surveys, like the monthly survey by Gallup, show a sharp drop in the percentage of Americans reporting themselves as uninsured. States that expanded Medicaid and actively promoted the new exchanges have done especially well — for example, a new survey of Minnesota shows a 40 percent drop in the number of uninsured residents....


....Then there’s climate policy. The Obama administration’s new rules on power plants won’t be enough in themselves to save the planet, but they’re a real start — and are by far the most important environmental initiative since the Clean Air Act. I’d add that this is an issue on which Mr. Obama is showing some real passion.

Oh, and financial reform, although it’s much weaker than it should have been, is real — just ask all those Wall Street types who, enraged by the new limits on their wheeling and dealing, have turned their backs on the Democrats.

Put it all together, and Mr. Obama is looking like a very consequential president indeed. There were huge missed opportunities early in his administration — inadequate stimulus, the failure to offer significant relief to distressed homeowners. Also, he wasted years in pursuit of a Grand Bargain on the budget that, aside from turning out to be impossible, would have moved America in the wrong direction. But in his second term he is making good on the promise of real change for the better. So why all the bad press?

Part of the answer may be Mr. Obama’s relatively low approval rating. But this mainly reflects political polarization — strong approval from Democrats but universal opposition from Republicans — which is more a sign of the times than a problem with the president. Anyway, you’re supposed to judge presidents by what they do, not by fickle public opinion...

----------------------------------------------------------------------


I suspect that history is going to smile upon this president, when all is said and done.

Now, feel free to discuss. I suspect that some of you will probably scream. Carry on.

The only smile this president is going to get is the mooning he deserves as they cart his fanny out the front door in Jan 2017.

We've already shot down the premise of this article.....

But now we have the leftyloons spouting the usual DailyKos vomit.

 

[Listening]

Were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

MUCH lower on those 'job creators', the average person, higher. Why, did a top rate of 50% on the 'job creators' stop a boom? Or did lowering it to 28% create Poppy Bush's recession?

You're one of those "low information voters" people talk about, arentcha?

Worse, than a "low information voter", she's got the Rachael Maddow needle shoved up her ass and is getting the usual intraveinous injection of horses**t we see coming from the left on a routine basis.

You know.....

Transparency......

Above the fray of Washington D.C.....

You can keep your doctor......

The list goes on and on.....

I am surprised Statistik posted such a loser...he's usually better than that.