RAF:
I totally agree with that, and along with that the government should TOTALLY STAY OUT of trying to bring down gas prices, or any open market traded prices for that matter. The governmnet should just let the free market work on it's own. No special favors (tax breaks, ext) to oil companies. No tinkering with the market supply. Obama's once said he wanted energy prices to sky rocket in price. That way it would force alternative energy. He got a TON of flack for that comment, but in reality the concept is correct. It just should not be the government who tries to drive up (or down) prices. When oil gets high enough by normal market forces, it will advance alternative sources. Throughout history technology has often made gigantic advancements based on market needs, and basic economics. In Ancient Egypt, a genius engineer; named hero of Alexandria, actually had full blown blue prints, and working models of steam power technology! I mean you are talking a concept so advanced that it was literally 3000 years ahead of it's time. You could have literally had technology that was the foundation of transportation, and electrical power.. They never bothered to develop his concept simply because there was no economic need. Slave labor was so cheap, that his idea was laughed at as being a total waste of resources.

Despite claims from many leftists the free market, if the govt stays clear, will create fixes for energy in this country and the world. As new technologies are created and prices for these become competitive with current sources, shifts in demand will happen. What will surely fail is government policy forcing energy winners and losers; the scam of corn based ethanol is a perfect example.

poobah: peak oil will indeed happen at some point in the future. When it happens, I totally agree with you, in the prices will go INSANE. When it actually happens, is total speculation; however. Back in the 70's they were calling for peak oil within the decade. Pretty much every decade since many respected analysts have been calling for it. Lot of the prediction did not come to fruition simply because they found more oil. Ocean reservoirs, oil sands, and other unexplored regions of the globe.
.
Eventually oil will run out. It took MILLIONS of years for nature to create all the oil reserves, and it will be consumed in the blink of an eye (in geological terms). When we really hit peak oil, is anyone's guess. It has truly befuddled even some of the best analysts out there.

Ezoner said, "The point is anyone claiming that todays alternative solutions solve any problem is blowing smoke."

On the contrary, anyone using today's alternative solutions are the ones not blowing smoke (carbon emissions). The people who continue using fossil fuels are the one's blowing all of the smoke (carbon emissions). How unwitting of you to use the phrase, "blowing smoke."

*economics

""Global warming is unproven and in my opinion non-existent from a human effect perspective."" Bwahahahaha!!
Sure burning billions of barrels of fossil fuels billions of tons of coal and it wont have any effect on the temperature of the globe. All of those scientific studies that have been done must be those liberal scientists. What a joke, you really need to stop lecturing on economic and on science.

Poo --- You said "Speculation is more responsible for cost variation than supply manipulation".

My response is -- speculation is based upon demand and the ability to supply - capacity and sourcing locations available, present and future. If the US does not have a plan to reduce or eliminate foreign sources, the dependencies will drive our price to a greater extent. In the EU, they are not sourcing a large portion of their supply and individual nations are depedent upon others for product (would be like dividing states into countries in the US).

Environmental damage is highly speculative for the US supply. Most of the pollution is caused by other nations and you cannot hold the US accountable for what other countries do. Meaning that you cannot claim damage based upon others. Global warming is unproven and in my opinion non-existent from a human effect perspective.

Production of equipment and materials to produce alternative energies and the forms available today use fossil fuels to manufacture and the batteries alone when they expire will be also contribute to pollution, so the claims by those using alt. energy are not forthcoming about their true impact in comparative analysis, therefore are less than accurate and connot be trusted.

The point is anyone claiming that todays alternative solutions solve any problem is blowing smoke.. (smoke and mirrors -- haha).

You guys are all wrong. The President has control over oil prices. Nancy Pelosi said so 3 years ago when blaming Bush for high gas prices. :)

Ezoner, I never said that speculation was independent of supply or of anything else. That was a reading comprehension problem on your part.

Let me redo without autocorrect....

Ezoner said, "Why is fuel so expensive in the EU -- they dont have an EU supply --period. They need to import nearly all of their products."

Europe does have oil. Take a look at oil reserve and oil production maps. And the costs related to oil use are not artificial. Nobody will accept artificial money to clean up after them. The costs are real and they are measurable. In fact, it has become its own industry to enrich the same people making money selling the fossil fuels that caused the damages.

Much better...

"Three" should be "the" and "furl" should be "oil." Autocorrect on my Droid got me. Back to my curry tofu!

Ezoner said, "Why is fuel so expensive in the EU -- they dont have an EU supply --period. They need to import nearly all of their products."

Europe does have oil. Take a look at oil reserve and oil production maps. And three costs related to furl use are not artificial. Nobody will accept artificial money to clean up after them. Three costs are tall and they are measurable. In fact, it had become its own industry to enrich the same people making money selling the fossil fuels that caused the damages.

Pooo -- SO now you want to add artificial costs to the use of fossil fuels? Things you cannot possibly measure to justify your cause. YOu cannot do that -- thats phony math. Why is fuel so expensive in the EU -- they dont have an EU supply -- period. They need to import nearly all of their products.

For the person that says speculation is independent of supply -- pick up an economics book... If speculators see no threat to supply, the price drops, why hold and asset that gains little or short term value. They are predicting the future supply/demand curve. If the curve is stable for the forseeable future -- the price lowers.

Fear -- I didnt say that oil would be the least expensive solution forever. I just dont see people driving down the road in electric vehicles. I do not see solar panel or wind trubine mounted vehicles. I believe it will take something like a "Back to the Future" type solution, something big.

Fear said, "Like many I will not be voting for Obama this time around, for a far different set of reasons. I believe he had the political capital to make some very large , very necessary changes to the overall structure of this nation, and he and the rest of the democrats caved to the republicans even though they had total control of all three branches."

Well said, Fear. You can add the continued destruction of our personal liberties and freedoms under the Obama administration (indefinite detention of American citizens, SOPA efforts, etc.). It's often hard to tell where Bush left off and where Obama picked up. Nothing but a bunch of economic elitists doing whatever is necessary to continue to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the super wealthy. I urge everyone I speak with to not vote for any of the Republican candidates and to not vote for Obama. Ron Paul is right about the Fed, he's close to right on the military - we should cut defense spending from $700 billion to $150 billion annually and quit enriching suppliers - but he's wrong on healthcare and education, and his newsletter's racist and homophobic content, and the way he has handled responding to that, greatly disturbs me. The Republican's best candidate by far, Buddy Roemer, was totally shut out of Republican debates and mainstream media coverage. Obama was right, at least his rhetoric was right, on most issues that concern me, but he sold out progressives and proved he can't be trusted to do what he says despite, as you mentioned, his party controlling the presidency, house and senate.

It's clear to me that this generation of our political "leaders", if you can call them leaders, are quite uncomfortable having absolute control because they're then expected to do the job the people elected them to do. Obama figured this out early and proceeded to WASTE the first two years of his administration on a half-baked healthcare reform package that was so watered down he lost the support of progressives while angering the right. I'm quite certain our "leaders" prefer a split Congress so they can play the blame game. It's really sickening.

If there were a handful of countries controlling fossil fuel supplies, perhaps they could conspire to "artificially inflate" costs. But one only need look at the DIVERSE source of imported oil in the United States to understand this is not happening. OPEC often gets blamed for manipulating oil supplies, but in reality, the structure of OPEC encourages member nations to disobey supply restriction agreements. Our largest imports in 2010 (barrels per day) came from: Canada 22%, Mexico 11%, Nigeria, 9%, Saudi Arabia 9%, Venezuela 8.5%, Russia 5%, Algeria 4%, Iraq 4%, Angola 3% and Columbia 3%. [ http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_imp... ]

Speculation is more responsible for cost variation than supply manipulation. Cost variations due to speculation are temporary and move randomly -- up and down. I heartily disagree that fossil fuels will remain the least expensive solution, or that they are even now the least expensive solution. That thinking considers only the cost of the fuel. You need to consider the costs related to the use of fossil fuels -- carbon emissions, environmental damage, health damage, etc. These costs are huge.

SO when is it not a loser? Whne oil/gas prices are driven so high that no one can afford to drive? Or do we need another financial meltdown to drive the price of oil down again? Again not addressing the problems now and continuing this ridiculous consumption of fossil fuels until there is no gas left, then well be stuck with nowhere to go , because so many said that there is no alternative? I just cannot buy that, and will not, as reality.
Peak oil is not a theory it is an absolute FACT!

spark said: "Point is, we all know it's not one persons blame"
-----
But, it really doesn't matter. Republican strategists know that gas prices are a flash point, and just like the economy, people blame the person at the front of the line, so it'll get used, ad nauseum, until it sticks, even though, as you said "we all know it's not one person's blame". It's the reason tea party repubs swept into office, not because their policies would somehow help ma and pa America, but because it was anything but what we had, and turns out, it's the same parade, just different clowns marching to a different tune.

Fear -- Alternative energy is a loser -- for now. Right now, unless you artificially cause inflation in the cost of fossil fuels, they are and will remain the least expensive solution for over 100 years. That doesnt mean something else wont come along, but forcing wind and solar -- or selecting the winner now -- isnt the answer. I dont believe that we have the answer yet and wont see one, anytime soon. There is cold fusion and a variety of energy generating technologies that need exploration. What I see is politicians that have invested in a technology or a philosophy that drives financial gain for their individual position. I feel that politicians now in office are creating regulation and laws without purpose and/or without consideration for the impact. They are elected to legislate and legislate they will do -- regardless of what is practicle, just so they can show they have done something or will enact rules, laws and regulation for personal gain. Thats both sides. Not just one.

Home grown innovation,and technological breakthroughs are what will bring down gas prices.
http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_...

Fear - My statement about the blame to Bush was not directed towards you. I was speaking on behave of the thousands of people that pinned gas prices on him. We all heard it. Now gas is going to be higher than ever. Point is, we all know it's not one persons blame.

spark- I never blamed Bush for gas prices skyrocketing. That would be as ignorant as folks blaming Obama.
Like many I will not be voting for Obama this time around , for a far different set of reasons. I believe he had the political capital to make some very large , very necessary changes to the overall structure of this nation, and he and the rest of the democrats caved to the republicans even though they had total control of all three branches. Which is why Ill never again trust any political party, because they all say one thing and do another when it comes time to make critical decisions that would be for the benefit of the nation, NOT their corporate masters.
The United States is a Plutocratic Oligarchy, not a representative Republic, not a democracy. The wool has been pulled over everyones eyes. The people DO NOT have the power in this nation anymore, we are merely a bunch of programmed zombies that do what media outlets(whichever you choose to parrot) tell them be. Keep watching commercials, keep believing the hype. Politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, all of them. If anyone believes that a politician is "working for the people" then you truly are looking for something that isn't there.

The last "good guy" imo got voted out infavor of "Plastic man" who married into money and could care less about the people, would rather make it easier to hire good cheap prison labor, nice job creator , huh?

""via mass leveraging."" as usual I defer to kiowa for economic knowledge. Mass leveraging was one of the main causes of the financial meltdown in 2007-08. Banks lobbying to lift leverage limits and lifting leverage limits, in many cases banks were leveraged 1000 to 1 (dollars lent vs. cash on hand) the moment that margins were called and people could no longer pay their mortages the system came crashing down due to the corrupt banking/financial sector , also due to CDOs and the trillions on the derivatives market, essentially being able to bet on the weather if saw fit. Bundling credit card debt and many other sources of bad credit with mortages and giving them triple A rating? The same as a treasury bond?
Kiowa- I am also with Dr Paul on the fed, but peak oil is no longer a theory that is out of site and out of mind, its a complete reality. Forgetting the financial markets for a second, we as a society need to start progressing away from fossil fuels as global demand has out paced production, and will continue to do so. The contentions that there is no alternative out there as cheap and efficient will soon be going by the wayside, because as we are finding out Oil is not in endless supply. As demand continues to skyrocket and supply continues to decrease we will be faced with a far larger societal problem than what the speculators do to the price of Oil/Gas. So many politicians are subject to bribery and rhetoric that green energy "just isnt affordable or sustainable' that a large segment of the population is believing it. Unfortunately the supply wont be there forever and is coming to a tipping point. Time to face harsh realities and make some moves to find alternatives.

Wow the Government has no control over gas prices? I guess that pretty much takes care of all the liberals blaming Bush over and over for this issue. Although I think the current price of gas has shut them all up in a hurry. Maybe some of you that are so "informed" should spread some of that knowledge to your own party and voters.

Kio -- I partially agree with your statements. I do feel that $$ devalue will have an effect on the price of oil and that the fed printint money will hurt the price of oil and of gas. However, I disagree that world issues must cause a disruption or increase in the price. If the US had the capacity to increase production (or) the world oil production capacity outside of the region in trouble had the ability to absorb a disruption in supply, then the impact on oil price would be less volatile. Its similar to having 2, 3, or 4 suppliers of a component part in a manufacturing environment such that you can change vendors quickly if needed. Right now, the production capacity would see a significant impact if a problem arises in Iran. If the market sees the that production capacity is and will come on-line in the future to offset the drop in supply, then the impact on commodity pricing will reflect that.

Kiowamohican, interesting comments but there's no denying an impending supply crisis for oil. The shortage will be so significant that people simply won't be able to purchase it. There won't be "gas stations" as we know them. At least not selling oil-based products. I'm a fan of Paul's views on the Fed, but peak oil will make the problem with centralized fractional banking seem like a day at the beach.

The president has no control over gas prices unless he is from the other party...

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-17/polit...

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday blamed the "two oil men in the White House," President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Republican allies in Congress for gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon"

Not so funny reading posters trying to claim a government entitlement program, at current funding and payout levels, that the government’s own financial analysts (CBO) say has zero chance of keeping existing promises try to proclaim it is solvent. How do you people do your own finances? If you get a 30 year mortgage and only have finances to pay for 20 years, I got news for you you’re not solvent! The only thing worse than proclaiming this false financial wizardry is these people also vote; scary.

Speculation drives any market in the short term. However; the speculation has to be based on real fears of events to come. All oil traders are speculating big time on a potential war with Iran. What we produce, or what we export really is irrelevant in the price. It's all traded on a world market. If we do the 'drill baby drill', and produce all this mass amount of oil. SO WHAT? The companies can still just turn around and sell it on a the world market; as poohbah pointed out, and many companies here are doing now. Just as we can buy it on the world market which is supplied from every corner of the globe. The long term price will go up no matter what, because the dollar will continue to lose value with the monetary madness we engage in.
.
Dr Paul had a brilliant assessment of this the other day with the lead in that he could get gas prices to 10 cents a gallon.
Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8mbKMkr6...
.
That is the REAL TRUTH behind gas, and commodity prices. Gas has been going DOWN, yes DOWN in price over the decades. That is when you measure it in REAL dollar terms! Paul seems to be the only person who gets this concept, and anyone who thinks prices will ever go down in today's money is INSANE, because our $$'s value is openly being destroyed by our federal reserve, and politicians, as we simply create more, and fully endorse growth via mass leveraging.

Oil EXPORTED by USA (barrels per day):

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=95&...

fear, thanks for your informed comments.

The United States is EXPORTING oil. That's right, we EXPORT oil. People say we need to explore our reserves, but it will end up going to the highest bidder on the world oil market. Much like where a lot of our current oil ends up going. Unless, of course, people want to forgo free market, free trade conservative principles and impose restrictions on where our oil can be sold. And what would happen then? Oil drilling companies would stop drilling and pumping oil. All of this, "drill baby drill" talk is just to provide oil companies with more oil to EXPORT at record prices.

The other often misunderstood thing is our strategic oil reserve. People think that the reserve can lower gas prices. We have around a 35 day or so supply of oil in our reserves. Thing is, the land-based pipelines and marine-based distribution facilities can only draw down about 5 million barrels per day. That means it would actually take about 150 days to draw down the 35 day supply. We only store crude oil, so it would also have to be refined. I always get a great laugh when I hear ANY politician from ANY political persuasion saying the President should draw down the strategic supply to lower gas prices. What a joke. At best the speculators drop oil prices a few dollars a barrel for a couple days and it's right back up to where it was prior to an announcement. And then we're paying near record prices to replenish our strategic reserve that was purchased at a cost that is much lower than the current price.

People better get used to higher and higher priced gasoline. It's what happens when supply runs out. The real dilemma with peak oil will not be gas prices or even the unavailability of gas. It will be the crippling impact of extremely limited availability of oil-based lubricants used in industry.

I forgot price controlled by SPECULATORS more so than any supply and demand illusion. It is what you make of it. Who was blaming Pres Bush when the price was 4.25 a gallon? Didnt matter the housing crash took care of the financial markets and the bottom fell out of everything, including the oil market. I suppose the housing crash was Obamas fault too, right? Again laughable at best.

SO lets get serious here , the price is what it is, controlled by yes a supply and demand market, not by the government, or the POTUS anyone who suggests as such is just wrong.
Oil is a finite resource that is going to run out , peak oil is a reality that everone should read about because it will effect everyone on Earth. Maybe a little light reading might help you.
Ezoner, your posts get funnier and funnier. Yet still very short of facts.

Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the UK in 1999, Norway in 2001, and Mexico in 2004. Hubbert's methods, as well as other methodologies, have been used to make various projections about the global oil peak, with results ranging from 'already peaked', to the more optimistic 2035. Many of the official sources of data used to model oil peak such as OPEC figures, oil company reports, and the USGS discovery projections, upon which the international energy agencies base their own reports, can be shown to be frighteningly unreliable. In November 2009, the International Energy Agency's World Economic Outlook report stated that oil and gas liquids were not expected to peak until 2030, at significantly higher levels than today, however this was met by rebukes from internal whistleblowers who argued that the figures are more political than scientific.

Usable oil will not run out in the near future but prices will rise as global demand continues to increase (at about 2% per year) and attempts to outstrip a stagnating (or peaking) supply. The actual date that Peak Oil occurs is not as important as the fact that global oil output will probably fall short of demand.

Of course, oil supplies may be constrained not just by geological factors but for other reasons as well including geopolitical instability (e.g. conflict, political manipulation / unrest), a physical shortage of rigs, a deteriorating oil infrastructure, lack of investment and a rapidly aging oil industry workforce.

Once prices rise then demand for oil will eventually fall. Prices will then fall once again causing demand to once again pick up. As the difference between potential demand and an ever decreasing supply increases a ratcheting up of prices will occur. However, it is unlikely that prices would continue to rise indefinitely in the face of any declining supply as the price rises would curtail demand significantly enough to reduce demand back to equilibrium. However, prices would stay at a high enough level to have severe effects on those that could not afford such prices, even in the developed world.

As oflate 2009 crude oil demand was down by around 5% from it's peak a couple of years ago because of the global recession. Even with the so called economic crisis, prices have still only fallen to around the $70 per barrel mark but it wouldn't take much of an increase in demand to push prices up again quickly. Any current slack in demand would easily be taken up in a climate of stagnating and ultimately declining global production

Peak Oil is thought to occur when roughly half of the world's oil reserves have been used up. All oil fields peak and then decline by their very nature and the concept of global Peak Oil is simply the extrapolation of this idea to the sum of all known oil fields. Peak Oil is thought to be imminent because there have been fewer 'super giant' oil field discoveries in recent years to put any potential peak in production further into the future.

New oil production is coming online but at the moment this is largely being counteracted by the declines in production from older oil fields. This, however, doesn't mean there aren't more very large oil fields to be discovered. Unconventional oil reserves (of which there are the equivalent of trillions of barrels) such as Tar Sands, for example, may become viable and the fear of Peak Oil may go away for this generation. However, as no new oil is being created (unless you believe in the Abiotic Theory of oil) then a peak in the conventional oil that we are familiar with will eventually occur

Ezoner your need for constant ridicule in no way makes anything you say legitimate. More rhetoric. The president of the USA does NOT control the flow of oil. Many of you do not understand peak oil, which has come and gone. (2006) Talking about the USA and our so-called unlimites oil supply. Are you aware of the cost required to extract oil from shale? There are other reasons than drilling for why we dont pursue our large supply, and its not just turning our nation into swiss cheese.
Of course citing supply and demad Ezoner you must be aware of the exponential increases of demand in countries like India and China No? Of course that has NOTHING to do with the increase in demand? Obama should just tell them to stop cosuming so much oil, because that is what Newt would do? Chapter 1? It sounds to me like you never took an economics class, ever. Again regurgitating rhetoric doesnt make your arguments factual. Increasing the supply of crude would be great, maybe you are unaware that oil has to be refined into gasoline? I am also sure you are aware that the US hasnt dramatically increased refining capacity in 40+ years.
This notion that the president of the US has any control over the Oil speculation market is absurd , and you avent made one legitimate factual argument to support it.

For those of you who haven't come across this phrase before, the term Peak Oil is used to describe the global maximum in conventional crude oil production which is predicted to happen in the not too distant future (if it hasn't happened already). The concept was devised by geologist Marion King Hubbert who worked for oil company Shell and who correctly predicted that in 1970 the crude oil production within the United States would peak and then decline. He then went on to say that the same thing would happen to world crude oil production eventually.

poobah - Sadly misinformed? So you are going to deny that this Country isn't sitting on and obscene abundance of oil? I suggest you do some of your own research my friend. If the Government would be willing to find additional uses for Shale, etc. instead of assuming everyone is going to buy a $50,000 electric tin can, we could get somewhere. It's called other avenues of energy.

spark, you are sadly misinformed about peak oil. Please do some research before continuing the discussion with me. Peak oil considers ALL oil reserves in the world.

poobah - Do you understand this Country sits on one of the largest oil supplies in the World? We are exhausting reserves because of where we are getting it from! Of course it's limited when you aren't willing to use your own resources. It's common sense and the Government is so corrupt when it comes to this it's alarming. I cannot believe people don't realize this.

spark, oil is a commodity of limited supply. Not because the "supplier" is limiting production, but because we are exhausting reserves. We soon won't have enough oil left underground to pump to meet demand. The fallacy with Ezoner's supply and demand argument is that he assumes supply is elastic and he wants the president to take control of the supply. It is not elastic and there is nothing the president or any other human can do to make more oil suddenly appear underground.

poobah - The limited supply is coming from the source. As long as we rely on the supplier we do, we will always be in deep.

Ezoner, please explain for all of us the impact of peak oil on gas prices, that is, having a limited supply that is being exhausted. Perhaps you can give us specific measures you would take if you were president.

Fear -- affecting the price of gas is not laughable. Get out chapter 1 of your economics book...... its supply and demand. If you show the intent to increase supply and take more control of the supply in the market -- futures for oil will drop speculators wont see as much of a chance at making money on the horizon. Its a commodity -- more of it -- or t he threat of more, means lower cost. The more you have the less it cost. Also, the more we make -- the less depednent we are on forgeign product. --- At the same time you can develop alternatives.

fear, what is the argument then?

Are you better off now than you were 3+ years ago? If you're like 95% of Americans the answer is no. But for Obama apologists, the blame turns to Bush.

The problem is, 3+ years ago, Obama's message wasn't, "man this country is a steaming pile of dung and I will try my best, but no promises". His message was the same bluster that he dismisses from the GOP candidates now. The big difference is that today, the Senator from Illinois who had a lot of moxie and charisma has become the arrogant man with a ton of excuses, is always the smartest, most clever person in the room, and can do no wrong in the eyes of too many.

I voted for him 4 years ago. It was a big mistake and I won't do it again.

1 im not voting for him, and what are you talking about? All I hear is people pissed off because the man didnt solve evry issue facing this country in 3 years!! An absolutely ridiculous notion.
Too big for the job? No! But why on earth would you or anyone expect anything else out of him that no one else could have done.
Bait? That is a ridiculous notion, almost as ridiculous as your or anyone elses assertion that Newt or any politician could affect the price of Gas or change the market. That is a laughable notion.

justsomeguy - You mean like him now wanting to up the electric car rebate to $10,000 for those who are purchasing that have an average household income of $175,000? This whole plan is a joke. An electric tin can that costs $50,000 is not remotely practical for the average person. Another excuse for the Government to try and approve their corruption within the oil industry.

ezoner I am not the one talking about unfunded liabilities. Yes SOLVENT until, 15-30 years from NOW!! What are you saying that there will be no way to pay for it then? How can you make that prediction? How can anyone? Ill predict that by then we have finall come out of the stone age and have a national health care system.
More empty rhetoric from you and little if any fact.

Definition of solvent:
sol·vent/ˈsälvənt/
Adjective:
Having assets in excess of liabilities; able to pay one's debts.

I'm glad you took the bait fear. So what you're saying is, Obama was never up to the task? All that rhetoric he was spewing 4 years ago about being the guy that could get the job done was,... what? If the job is too big for him, then why are you voting for him?

Funny how a conservative is talking about controlling the free market. I really thought that conservatives were against that?
Comparing yourself getting a job with a bad environment to a man gettinga job that presides over a 300 million plus population, a 16+ trillion dollar GDP and the peace of the free world, and a global financial crisis the likes of which many have never seen? Kind of like comparing Micro-machines and semi trailers. geez.

Fear bumped his head on a tree limb and keeps turning left.... Once again -- solvent until?? Cmon what would say if your company said your pension was only good until a particular date... A company said they could only cut you checks until a particular date. SS and Medicare are basically headed into bankruptsy. They WILL run outta money. I have planned for that since the 1980's and will be fine. Others -- well those that planned only on GUBMIT to help them will and should lose. Its not my responsibility to cover things for those that chose to by big screens and cell phones instead of packing a little away for later. Dont give me this story of wooo about they just get by... yes there are a few... but many have just been irresponsible and will remain that way as long as the GUBMINT takes my income and spreads it around like fertilizer (and you know what fertilizer is). Everytime I see someon with foods stamps get into a car thats newer than my 200,000 mile for and wips open the latest cell that does everything but clean a sink, I just wanna whack them in the head. You cant expect to live like Trump and then expect me to cover you behind when you go under. TOO BAD.

Today Obama was speaking at an auto plant down south joking about Gingrich's plan to get gas prices back under control. He thinks it's funny that it costs me $60 to fill up my tank when it used to cost $40? Now he's planning on investing in alternative energy. It took him 3 1/2 years and gas prices over $4/gallon in some parts of the country to think of this?

If I'm hired for a job, and four years after being hired I'm still blaming the guy before me for all my shortcomings, I'm out of a job.

Here we go bebe-
Social security is SOLVENT until 2038 according to the CBO.
http://freakoutnation.com/2011/08/07/cbo...

Harder to make the case for medicare, however it seems sovent until 2029.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/0...

So help me with the "trillions in unfunded liabilities" rhetoric.

North Korea? Have you been watching the news? Kim Jong Il is dead and his son seems to want to address US!!
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia...

We have a national deficit that is soon approaching the total of GDP.
WRONG! Deficit is lower than when he took office. Debt is what you are talking about and that is correct. Of course you are aware that the Global financial market doubled our national debt right? And that the national debt as a percentage of GDP is right about near where it always has been.
The economy sucks for a litany of reasons, but the private sector has added over 200k jobs for the second consecutive month. And added private sector jobs for 24 consecutive months.
As far as Iran goes, let the republicans run on war. See how far that gets a war weary nation. Ready for another Iraq all over again? Good luck on that one. I think that the president will win that issue as well.
So again tell me how exactly the "sky is falling"? The US has it better than most every other nation on Earth, STILL. And you arent satisfied?
WHats your solution? Destroy Medicare/SS and invade every nation on Earth? Sounds like a winner to me!

It may be the worst thatTHIS country has ever seen but the sky is hardly falling, IMO. Desite bebes list of issues which i will address.
The whats left behind didnt really work for GWB did it? The country was is pretty good shape I would say, possibly the best shape we were in for 30 years? Btw , Clintons admin was part of the global crisis happening, it certainly wasnt all Bush.
That being said all of the whining from some(not you) about the "anti-business" that exists when the current admin has passed 17 small business tax credits. What else do you want from them? Free money?

fearandrhetoric4dummies - What people who voted for Obama were expecting was hope and change. Problem is the hope and change isn't what it was cracked up to be. I didn't vote for him because he's not a leader and that's what it takes. You can promise the moon, but you need to deliver. I understand the "what was left behind" scenario because it's used for all politicians. It go's both ways and both parties. Heck, look at the uproar in this state alone. Everyone is left a mess these days in politics. Regardless, I stand ground on my opinion. This Country is in trouble. Like many others, I see it first hand in the business and economical World. There are many out there that have no idea what they are going to do. And this is the worst many have ever seen.

At least republicans are getting vetted, unlike what happened in the last presidential election.

Spark- The sky isnt falling. We have problems, but we are certainly not headed for disaster, no matter whom gets re-elected. The USA hasnt had a POTUS worth his weight in salt in generations, (Reagan included).
I still am trying to figure out specifically what anyone really expected from Obama, considering the steaming pile of dung that he was left to contend with? There are defnitely things he has screwed up amd that he could have done more with , and has failed with. There is also a great many things to hang a hat on. I actually am surprised of his foriegn policy successes. All that being said I have my own reasons, but I will not be voting for him this time around. But I also think there is NO WAY he doesnt get re-elected, no scenario where Romney has a chance in heck to win.

I think this country is headed for a World of disaster regardless of November. If Obama stays in office, or if one of the newer candidates takes him out. We are still in major trouble. They are all completely clueless and it's unfortunate this is all our Country has to offer. I said the same for the last election. Obama and McCain? That was our choices? Wow.

Hehe and not a word about the repub candidates!! Says all you need to know about their chances in a general in November. As close to zero as possible.

I don't think so gp.

Wislady, do you even read the stories?

Best news of the day!

Rep. Dennis Kucinich suffers primary defeat in Ohio

"What’s next for Kucinich is unclear. He has spoken of possibly moving to Washington state to run in a Democratic-leaning district. He would need to establish residency there by mid-April, but it’s not certain he could do that while remaining in Congress representing an Ohio district."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/k...

Maybe he will move to Wisconsin to take down Walker?

Now...where is that snarky video of him trying intimidate Walker????
Bye, bye, Dennis....Walker is standing tall!