Sticking it to Obama and gas prices

The SD GOP unveiled these brilliant little Post-It notes recently, and Senator Dan Lederman is earning big kudos from me for his recent tweet.

I commend the effort to bring awareness to the unnecessary rise in gas prices and to highlight how Obama has chosen to side with radical environmentalists as opposed to the person paying through the nose at the pump.

91 Replies to “Sticking it to Obama and gas prices”

  1. Bill Fleming

    Stupid. On that day the Dow Jones Industrial Average was also around 7000 on its way to the bottom. Today its almost double that.

    1. Job Creator

      Bill, I would go with moronic. The thing that gets me is that the speculators have sucked literally billions out of South Dakota farmers, ranchers and families by manipulating the oil markets. And Nome and Thune want to give those scum a break on their income taxes! This is just another bumper sticker issue for the misinformed.

      The positive? If you are a South Dakota voter your vote for president literally does not count. If you vote Democrat you will lose every time. If you vote Republican, the state can’t generate enough electoral delegates to make a difference one way or another.

      1. Republicans Rock!

        That isn’t true. NH is a swing state and they matter with only 3 electoral votes. If SD was a swing state we would get much more attention and matter at the polls.

        We vote hard R so obviously we are taken for granted.

        1. Job Creator

          Some would say that we vote R so obviously we are misinformed. It is true, however, that your vote does not count. There is just no possible scenario that South Dakota could make a difference.

            1. Job Creator

              Actually Independent, resigned from the Republican part during W’s second term because I was sick and tired of trying to justify idiotic Republican behavior at that time. ymous, you are the perfect example of a “dogmatic Republican” – a person whose core values are dictated by the bumper sticker slogans handed down by your overlings at FOX. Yes, I do create jobs – and probably far more than you ever have. I guess a person doesn’t need to be a right wing nut to create jobs after all, eh?

  2. Mitchell

    I’m glad someone is doing something to counter Obama and his aweful gas prices.

    I wish my car ran on Obama BS.

      1. Anonymous

        Agreed. Mitchell’s spelling is *awful. Your car doesn’t run on ‘BS’ but your mind does.

  3. caheidelberger

    O.K., kids, pretend you are President. It’s Election Year. You want to win so you can finally unleash your master plan. And you control gas prices. Do you…

    (A) Make them go up?
    (B) Leave them alone?
    (C) Make them go down?
    (D) Make them fluctuate wildly?

    1. toga

      Policies have consequences Cory. Obama’s are not unleashing the American energy industry. They are holding them back.

      Obama’s plan is “I can’t do anything.”

      That isn’t a good enough plan. Solyndra didn’t work. Obama doesn’t work.

    2. Anonymous

      Excellent point, Cory. If Obama had any control over gas prices, wouldn’t he made them go down??

      1. ymous

        The government needs to get out of the way and open the gulf up. Had the democrats allowed ANWAR to open up during Bush years we might not even be talking about gas prices. Private land has caused drilling and supply to increase not Obama and the democrats. Nice mis-direction though Cory.

        1. Job Creator

          Another bumper sticker moment for ymous. Bush had a Republican Congress for SIX YEARS. Don’t blame it on the dems. Blame it on the money boys who owned W and the Congress. They weren’t quite ready yet.

    1. toga

      Only an idiot thinks the presidents policies don’t affect the price of gas. If that is all the liberals have then it’s not going to be a fun election for you.

    2. duggersd

      Perhaps you can enlighten us. What money was given to an oil company? Are you talking about tax breaks that every other business in the world gets? Those are called expenses and go against profits. Do you want to tax oil companies on those expenses and not anybody else? I believe that sounds like a bill of attainder.

  4. Anonymous

    Bush did have gas prices even higher than now. However, the prices spiked because of Katrina which caused the shut down of many refineries in Texas, La and Ala. That is what caused the spike. We have had nothing like that under Obama. Just a steady rise since he took office and then really climbing last year.

    When Obama doesn’t want drilling in the barren north slope of ANWR, when he stops the drilling in the gulf (the rigs go to Soros’s oil company Petrobras off Brazil), when he stops the Keystone pipeline (which had been studied for three years), when no drilling is allowed on federal land, we will continue to have climbing gas prices until we reach the levels paid in Europe. This is what Obama’s Secretary of Energy Steven Chu had stated should happen.

  5. Anonymous

    Hey There Voter. Do you remember that on inauguration day (January 20) 2009 we had been at war with Iraq for almost 6 years, and how Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for the war and for re-building Iraq, but instead your grandkids will pay for it? Do you remember how Dick Cheney’s company Haliburton made a fortune in no-bid contracts and stole a few billion dollars through fraud? How’s that war mongering working out for you? Ready for another one?

    Anyone but the GOP Nov. 2012

    1. Xandi

      Krishna Sir, Nice to hear from you about our village.Although we are away,we alyaws eagar to hear & see prosperity of Ghandruk and the Ghandruke.Thank you very much and hopeto hear from you very soon. Krishna Gurung Kot Gaon(residing in The U.K.)

  6. Ivan

    How about a little honesty. Cheney had nothing to do with Haliburton during the Iraqi war. Remember it was all about stealing the oil. When Obama loses the election, and he will, his last words will be, it was Bushs fault.

  7. insomniac

    Tony Post made a good move with these “post” it notes. He seems to be hitting his groove as ED.

    The one thing I’d like to see him improve though is the social media aspect and gop website. We are getting killed by the SDDP on our website and interaction.

    Gas is expensive and I can’t wait to see Varilek defend Obama…

    1. Clay Bill

      Tony Post must be out of his mind if these post-it notes are his idea. Gas was $1.78/gallon in January 2009 because we were in the sudden grips of the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression — that all began during the second term of GW Bush. Thank you, Tony, for reminding us all of the ineptitude of the GOP.

      Kristi is also demonstrating that she has no clue about the true cause of gas price increases. She shows no indication that she’s even aware of the impact of speculators or current Middle East turmoil on the recent price hikes, or how Keystone will actually, when built, increase the cost of gasoline in the Midwest.

      “The pipeline could raise prices as much as 20 cents a gallon in the Midwest, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, in part because the oil could bypass Midwest refineries and get to a wider market through the Gulf of Mexico, Bloomberg reported.

      Noem said Monday that she was unfamiliar with those reports.” (Noem: Gas Price Impact Is Big?Worry — Yankton P&D 3-13-2012)

      Thank you, GOP, for screwing us all four years ago, and working to do it again this year.

      1. duggersd

        I am glad you cleared that up for us, Clay. Now we know that the reason gas prices have gone up has nothing to do with the stupid regulations and the choking of oil companies on federal land and the Gulf, but due to the boomin economy over the past three years. I can see how the booming economy would increase prices. Thankfully our economy is now booming!

        1. Clay Bill

          I’m glad the truth is finally beginning to sink in, Dugger. It’s confusing, I know, to actually realize that gas prices in the U.S. can rise, not because of the president, but numerous other factors that are occurring while, simultaneously, our domestic oil supply is climbing and our economy is improving:

          “Oil rose from the lowest price in more than a week in New York as investors speculated that signs of a strengthening U.S. economy will bolster fuel demand in the the world?s biggest crude user.
          Futures advanced as much as 0.5 percent after a 1.2 percent drop yesterday. The number of Americans applying for jobless benefits declined last week, according to a Bloomberg News survey before a report today. U.S. petroleum demand climbed 2.2 percent to the highest in a month, Energy Department data showed yesterday. Global oil-market fundamentals will tighten this year and push London-traded Brent crude toward a 2013 forecast of $130 a barrel, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said.
          Fuel Demand
          A measure of U.S. oil-products consumption rose to 18.6 million barrels a day in the week to March 9, the highest since the period ended Feb. 10, the Energy Department said in a report yesterday.
          Gasoline stockpiles fell 1.41 million barrels, the report showed. They were forecast to decline by 1 million. Distillate inventories, a category that includes diesel and heating oil, slid 4.68 million barrels, more than three times a projected drop of 1.5 million.
          Crude supplies at Cushing, Oklahoma, the delivery point for New York contracts, climbed 7 percent to 38.7 million barrels last week, the highest in nine months, according to the Energy Department. Stockpiles nationwide rose 1.75 million barrels to 347.5 million, a six-month high. The increase was the seventh in eight weeks.
          Saudi Arabia
          Oil markets are balanced and have ample output and refining capacity, Saudi Arabia?s Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said at the International Energy Forum in Kuwait yesterday. Market volatility is caused by speculation, he told the meeting of producers and consumers. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he is ?enthusiastic? about Saudi willingness to produce more oil to offset the effect of economic sanctions on Iran.
          The EU is seeking to ban imports of products including petroleum oils and natural gas from Iran and to bar global bank- transfer messaging companies from providing services to entities subject to EU sanctions, according to a draft regulation obtained by Bloomberg. Iran?s oil exports will probably decline by 50 percent when the sanctions take full effect in July, the International Energy Agency said in its monthly report yesterday.”
          (Oil Rises on Bets Economy Bolstering U.S. Fuel Demand, Bloomber News, March 15, 2012)

      2. ymous

        Clay Bill , this must be the dumbest post I’ve seen in a while. So your saying additional supply has no bearing on price? My econ prof justed rolled over in his grave. Part of the choke hold is in the refining area. The oil companies have been trying to add refineries for years but the dems fight them.

        1. Clay Bill

          ymous: Please point out where I state that additional supply has no bearing on price. I’ll wait.

  8. springer

    Another problem causing high gas prices is inflation and our national debt, all of which can be laid directly at the mighty O’s feet. And don’t forget, Obama stated in his own words that “energy prices would necessarily skyrocket” under his policies. And also, his Sec of Energy (Chu) stated in 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” and again on 2-28-12 Chu told a House committee that he was not working to lower gasoline prices but to wean the United States off oil.

      1. springer

        Yeah, send us to the very unbiased Media Matters to find the truth! Chu did say in 2008 that he wanted gas prices in the US to get to European levels. He said recently that he had no problems with higher gas prices. Now today I heard him say that of course he is concerned about high gas prices because it might hurt the economy right now (translation, O’s re-election chances). He said the words; now he is trying to eat them. Good luck!

      2. duggersd

        If Chu was inaccurately quoted, why when asked did he say he no longer believed that? That tells me he must have believed it at one time.

    1. Jammer

      Springer, not only is it inflation and the restrictive Obama policies but it is also the weakness of the US dollar. Oil is priced and traded in US dollars. As a result, when the value of our currency decreases the price of oil goes up.

      I personally believe that all three issues mentioned above affecting the price of oil can be tied directly to Obama?s failed policies and Timothy Geithner?s printing press. Just keep printing and spending money like democrats always do and we will be back into the horrible days of the late 70?s and the SECOND worst president in the history of this country, Jimmy Carter.

      1. duggersd

        Great point, Jammer. It is interesting that inflation is low, but uses a market basket that is not in line with what normal people purchase every week. Energy does not get the attention it should. Anybody who actually purchases groceries can tell you their dollars do not go as far either.

        1. Cliff Hadley

          Used to wonder this myself, but was told that gasoline pump prices are left out of the CPI because it’s assumed all other categories in the index reflect energy costs already. Which doesn’t explain why the CPI almost always runs 1% higher than actual inflation, which seems counterintutive if energy is overtly omitted.

  9. Troy Jones

    Three comments:

    1) Short-term swings are matters over which the President has no control. I do find it ironic Dem’s are saying “Obama not responsible when they were more than willing to hold Bush responsible for the swing related to Hurricane Katrina.

    2) No “regulatory efforts” (e.g. goofy plans to Dodd-Frank oil futures/derivatives) as the trading will just move off-shore as oil is world-wide product outside the oversight for fraud by the SEC.

    3) What one can hold the President accountable is what has he done to decrease demand, increase supply or pursue policies that stabilize existing supplies.

    Let’s look at them:

    – Decrease demand. The only one that could add up to anything is alternative energy (conservation is an effort to hold the line on demand because of our need for a growing economy). The move to electricity (e.g. electric cars) is a fools game unless we have a source of cheaper electricity. Nuclear is the only source with current technologies (solar/wind is comparable to $10 gas and will be for at least a decade). In short, the President has nothing being advocated that will have any material effect before 2025.

    – Increase supply. Since becoming President, off-shore drilling is harder. Known conventional sources (e.g. ANWR) is not on the table. Supporting new sources via improved distribution to market (e.g. Keystone) is non-existent.

    – Stabilize existing supply. While there could be a myriad of good reasons to pursue the current strategies in Libya, Iran, Iraq and other Middle East nations, there is no denying nothing that has been accomplished will result in more stable supply. This is the single largest factor in the current price spike.

    If the policies in Libya, Iran, Iraq etc. are the best and the consequence of higher gas prices are justified, the President needs to make that case.

    But, a President who has done virtually nothing to decrease demand except to promote a higher cost alternative, has opposed solutions to increase supply, and pursued policies that increase instability in existing supplies can not claim “it is not my fault” is doing more than abdicating responsibility, he is misleading the American people.

    1. caheidelberger

      “opposed solutions to increase supply”? Um, according to this chart of EIA data, U.S. oil production decreased from over 9.0 million barrels per day in 2000 to under 8.4 Mbpd in 2005 and 2006, then crept up to 8.5 Mbpd by 2008. In 2009, U.S. oil production jumped to almost 9.2 Mbpd. In 2010, it increased again to 9.5 Mbpd.

      I’m not even spinning now; I’m just citing numbers and asking just how the heck anyone here can think Obama is throttling oil production.

      1. Bill Fleming

        They’ve made up their minds, Cory. How cruel of you to trouble them with the facts. LOL.

      2. duggersd

        Since you asked, perhaps you would like to look at another source that sort of explains some of the numbers. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-claim-energy-production-all-time-high-selective-facts-experts-say
        One excerpt: “While Obama?s comments were technically accurate, he was leaving out vital information that gives a fuller picture of the situation, according to the Institute for Energy Research (IER). ?Of course, he?s right ? to a point,? the DC-based energy group told CNSNews.com in an e-mail.
        ?In classic fashion, he?s using a technicality to skirt the facts and keep the myth of energy scarcity alive,? the IER email said. ?The reality is that the U.S. has enough recoverable oil for the next 200 years, despite only having 2 percent of the world?s current proven oil reserves.?
        And another: oil production on federal lands declined in fiscal year 2011 from fiscal year 2010 by 11 percent, and natural gas production on federal lands dropped by 6 percent during the same timeframe. In contrast, oil production on private and state lands accounted for the entire increase, reported the IER, as production was up 14 percent from 2010 to 2011. Natural gas also was up 12 percent from 2010 to 2011.
        And another: Hofmeister, a registered Democrat, explained that the United States is producing more oil than when President Obama took office because of ?decisions made in the 3-to-5 year period looking backward — not the last three years.?
        He explained that it takes about three to five years to bring on production in oil fields.
        Obama is ?conveniently selecting a number based on a narrow definition Securities and Exchange Commission on proven reserves,? said Hofmeister. ?There are two other categories called probable reserves and possible reserves. He ignores them completely.?
        The long and short of it is President Obama is stifling drilling on Federal lands and the private land he has no control over is where the increase is coming from. So the increase is in spite of President Obama’s efforts, not due to them. Also, the oil coming online is from areas started before President Obama was even President. That was another guy, um Bush?

          1. duggersd

            Cory, what it says is essentially oil production is increasing in spite of Obama’s policies. Obama does not have control over private lands. Oil and natural gas production are DOWN on federal lands. The increase comes from production started BEFORE Obama was President. President Obama taking credit for the increase in oil and natural gas production is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Funny thing is, both seem to. How smart is that? Well pretty smart if he can get gullible people to believe it, I guess.

              1. duggersd

                Actually, I have not blamed President Obama for the price of gasoline. I blame President Obama for doing things that make it unlikely for the price of gasoline to go down. For example, bringing more oil online would tend to have a downward effect, right?

                1. Bill Fleming

                  Not unless you can produce enough to satisfy world demand, duggerSD. It’s a global market.

                  Making sure we don’t go to war with Iran would help, since they would most likely blockade some of the supply. I’m guessing that’s what much of the speculation is about.

        1. Anonymous

          You provide a ‘source’ which is a conservative ‘news’ organization and try to pass it off as fact? You are easily fooled, duggersd.

          1. Jammer

            Thanks for reminding everyone about the liberal principle of; ?If a conservative website gathers FACTS from some credible source and uses them on their website, they are no longer FACTS?. We understand your frustration that we keep forgetting that.

      1. Jammer

        Obama cannot control oil and gas production on private and state land where production has dramatically increased. What he can do is prevent pipelines from being constructed that will move this oil to market, thus ultimately reducing the effectiveness of these drilling efforts.

        What can Obama control? He can control the sale of leases and production on FEDERAL land. The information listed below can be found in the following link:

        http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/18/under-obama-oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-is-down-40/

        Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than 40 percent compared to 10 years ago.

        Under the Obama administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.

        The Obama administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011.

        Beyond the question of why would a president of the United States create policies that would deny our country the ability to produce its own natural resources is the question of why is all of this land even FEDERAL land. The real answer to this problem is to return this land that was grabbed by progressive Presidents to the states.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/?page=all

        http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343

        For liberals to continually deny that liberal policies are reducing our oil production is either an outright lie or their blind following mentality that has enabled the progressive liberals to flourish in this country.

      2. Cliff Hadley

        A fact entirely due to improved technologies — such as fracking — in existing gas fields. There are practically zero new oil or gas fields being approved by the Obama administration.

  10. Anonymous

    I remeber when gas was 3.40 When Bush was in office, but it was still Obama fault, as he was in the Senate.Like Daschle was to blaim for high gas price when it was a 1.70 a gallon in 2004, Look how high it is under Thune>.

    1. Jammer

      And liberals actually believe that people like this are competent enough to decide the fate of laws being proposed by the imitative and referendum processes? These people are more suitable to be comedians than voters.

        1. Jammer

          I said the voters are responsible for electing competent and qualified legislators to represent their interests. It was others that said the voters were smarter than any of these elected officials and should make the laws themselves. From the earlier comment and now yours, it is obvious they are wrong.

          Am I interpreting you correctly that you are in favor of taking the right to elect representatives away from voters or just what are you implying?

          1. Les

            Something you said about comedians and voters Jammer. Voters are electing comedians.

            Realize there is no perfect method of dealing with humans. Tell us, with all the apathy about staying informed, how you win an election up against cubic bucks or beat the incumbents name recognition?

  11. Bill Fleming

    Interesting you mention that, Jammer. Didn’t Rush Limbaugh, the spiritual leader of the grassroots GOP just disclaim himself as a comedian (albeit not a very funny one)?

    1. Jammer

      I wouldn?t know, I don?t listen to Rush. However, I am glad to see that you are addressing some of the more penetrating issues of the day. It is good when one knows their limitations.

  12. Winston

    No one likes $4 a gallon gasoline, but lets be honest. Before the Bush/Cheney economy literally “tanked,” gasoline prices were higher
    than they are now. Actually, the higher prices since Obama’s inauguration speak to how he has turned the economy around and not how he has failed us. But you watch, as soon as the Obama Justice Department begins its squeeze on oil price fixing and speculation, the “Republican Party Gasoline Play” will begin to fizzle … and once again, the “Flag Waving Republicans” will be found guilty of playing dirty to win … even if their ploy is at the literal “expense” of what is best for the country.

    1. insomniac

      Bush would have lost his second term if gas prices were $4 a gallon.

      Katrina and 9/11 increased the price. If we’d have gone disaster free during the Bush years prices probably would have been $1 a gallon.

    2. Jammer

      The Bush/Cheney economy did not tank. The US economy ?tanked? because of the housing crisis and while there were numerous contributing factors, the single largest factor was the Community Reinvestment Act. So if you want to point fingers at anyone for the recession of 2008, I suggest that you look for all of the people associated with the creation and expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act that created the housing bubble.

      1. Clay Bill

        It’s incredible isn’t it, how GW Bush had nothing to do with the economy tanking in 2008, and the worst recession in our nation’s history that followed, but gas prices start to rise and it’s all Obama’s fault.

        1. Jammer

          I never said that Bush had nothing to do with the economic downturn in 2008. I said it was not the Bush/Cheney economy as some uniformed person referred to it as. It is the American economy. And I said the single largest factor was the Community Reinvestment Act along with numerous other factors which I did not list. I merely listed the single largest contributor.

          1. Bill Fleming

            …because the unfunded Iraq and Afgan wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the unfunded Medicare prescription drug bill were what? Choppped liver?

            Bush and Cheney ran up the credit cards to the max and forgot to put any money into the account. That’s the long and short of it, Jambo.

            1. Jammer

              No question they were irresponsible in their spending. However, NONE of what you mentioned had anything whatsoever to do with the housing crisis and resulting recession. As for the spending problems you mention, you must really be upset with Obama as his spending levels are much worse than Bush.

              1. Bill Fleming

                No, I’m not. The things he has done were necessary to save and then restimulate the economy. And had Bush Cheney not acted so irresponsibly, there would be no deficit/debt ceiling issue. Nothing for you to whine about. (But of course, what am I thinking… it’s not like you guys ever need a reason. LOL)

                1. Jammer

                  You say that without Bush/Cheney there would not be any deficit/debt ceiling issue; well that pretty much destroys what little credibility you might have had. There is no reason to communicate with a person that has such a lack of understanding of the issue. You need to find some other brain dead liberals to discuss things with, I am not going to waste my time with a person that is totally clueless.

                  1. Bill Fleming

                    Look it up, Jammer. You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Before Bush took office, we were running at a surplus. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts, nonetheless. And as far as not talking to me any more, no problem, you have contributed nothing of value here that I’ve ever noticed.

                    1. Les

                      Albeit differential accounting to achieve those numbers Bill. The nat deficit rose every year BJ Clinton was in office though not nearly as much as the last 3 or probably the last 11, didn’t look it up.

                      Clinton used Social Security on other expenses.

                      That being said I wouldn’t trade Obama for Clinton with his signing of the Gramm/Leach debacle that has ruined our financial system, the full testament of that yet to be seen. Rubin and Greenspan, treasonous cowards, taking out Brooksley Born, the only honest person the CFTC has had in decades.

                    2. Jammer

                      You are correct Les, the national debt went up EVERY year under Clinton. However, that FACT doesn?t stop some political hacks from claiming that Clinton actually reduced the national debt. I guess these are the people that feel it is acceptable for them to have THEIR OWN FACTS.

                      You have to go back to the fiscal year ending 6-30-1957 to find the last time we actually had the national debt decline. We have spent more money than we took in every year since. There will be some political hack that will tell us it was all Bush?s fault. He?s a real funny guy, just no credibility.

                2. Bill Fleming

                  Again. Stupidity. Neither of you appear to understand the difference between debt and deficit. Stace Nelson made the same mistake. Like I’ve said before, remind me never to hire either of you two geniuses. LOL

                  1. Les

                    A little reading comprehension for my friend Flem here. Somewhere in my post there was a statement on Clinton’s spending of Social Security funds into the general along with a rising deficit, not stating debt.

                    I don’t need an accountant to understand the deficit spending which Clinton managed without missing a stroke Flem. His 93 budget was bloody red until implementing the Washington gimmicks by both parties.

                    No different than our SD budget being balanced on items such as pilfering the Aero fund to the tune now of about 3.5mil. Pilot registration fees, aircraft registration fees, and fuel taxes going into the general fund instead of winning a 95% federal match with our lowly 5% on airport upgrades. Taking those funds jeopardizes about 66mil in fed funds our airports are due.

                    I don’t like that math Flem dog anymore than I like the DC gimmicks.

                    1. Jammer

                      Les, you are fighting a losing battle with a guy that uses the terminology ?deficit/debt issues? and then calls you stupid and that you don?t understand the difference when you reply. It would seem that the rocket scientist is the one that doesn?t understand when he has to use the terminology ?deficit/ debt issues? and can?t identify when one he is talking about.

                    1. Bill Fleming

                      p.s. top one is debt, the bottom deficit. Notice the positive bump during clinton years.

                    2. Bill Fleming

                      The obvious lesson here is that if you guys don’t know what it is and how it got that way, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell you’ll have any clue what to do about itt. That’s why you chouldn;t be given the car keys any more. ;^)

  13. Anonymous

    No it was Obamas fault when he was in the senate.Every thing that happens is inhis control.

  14. Anonymous

    By lowering academic standards for politicians, we help to marginalize the intellectual enterprise as a whole. People with a personal agenda, writers of untruths etc are the same people.

  15. Les

    Now we agree Flem. That is how numbers become stats and stats become, just more numbers. Meaningless drivel that won’t make a memory as we ponder our life from the confines of our mind in old age.

    1. Bill Fleming

      That’s good, Les. Thanks. Sometimes the best thing to do is just draw ’em a picture. LOL.

  16. Clay Bill

    One may finally learn something constructive from this blog — a frequent commenter has been revealed to not even know the meaning of some basic terminology used in describing our nation’s budget problems. Readers of DWC would be wise to ignore his posts from now on as they lack all credibility.

  17. Bill Fleming

    I like how Jammer keeps presuming to speak for all conservatives… or maybe all of us posters… or maybe he just has a turd in his/her pocket?

    What’s with the “we” thing, dude?

    “We” don’t even know you “you” are.

    I’m going to presume you are male, because quite frankly I’ve not met any women who are at once so belligerant and so intellectually bereft.

    LOL.