Is it done for a generation?
Sure looks like it to me. And it’s not good news personally, seeing as we’re currently burdened with three of them.
Is it done for a generation?
Sure looks like it to me. And it’s not good news personally, seeing as we’re currently burdened with three of them.
I agree that Romney suffers, as do many Republicans, from confusion between being pro-business and pro-free enterprise.
A primer for Barack Obama. He, and the Democrats in general, badly need one, but they probably won’t even understand it.
Could this be another campaign issue this fall?
You don’t say: “You can’t vastly expand and subsidize gold-plated health-care insurance and expect to save money.”
Only on planet Democrat.
He’s blaming Obama for high gas prices. I love this line:
Obama has focused on alternative energy and other long-term strategies to bring down gas prices by decreasing demand.
Many republicans say prices will drop if we increase the supply.
So Democrats don’t believe that? Only Republicans are familiar with the law of supply and demand?
The administration admits that the “Buffett rule” wouldn’t do anything about the deficit. “From each according to his ability.”
[Update a while later]
Twitter explains to the president how the revenue from the “Buffett rule” should be spent: “Almost half your vacations?”
“We’d rather sell our oil to China.”
What Harper is saying is that Canada could make more money by creating a market for its oil rather than selling all of it solely to the US. In other words, the cost of Canadian oil will go up as the US is forced to compete with China.
…Obama could have approved the pipeline, added 30,000 jobs to the economy, and insured the most secure oil source for our future. Instead, he chose to kill the pipeline and the jobs and, in the process, insured that America will pay more for the oil it does buy. It’s hard to imagine a worse decision, especially since it was all so Obama could deny Republicans a win in the run-up to the next election.
It’s worse, actually, considering the latest news:
Officials in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget told the Treasury Department that the announcement of a conditional commitment to Solyndra was imminent. The department had one day to review the terms of the guarantee to accommodate an Energy Department press release.
“Treasury’s consultative role was not sufficiently defined, the consultation that did occur was rushed and no documentation was retained as to how Treasury’s serious concerns with the loan were addressed,” the audit said.
…The Treasury requested more time for review and later agreed with the Energy Department’s request to expedite the review by March 19, 2009, “so that the press release could be issued on the morning of March 20, 2009,” according to the report.
Got that? A speculative “green” energy project that in retrospect, once the rest of us saw the details, was obviously going to be a business disaster, and ended up costing the taxpayers over half a billion dollars, was approved after a “one-day review.” Yet the president demanded that Keystone, a project with certain and vast energy output, be delayed for many more months so that it could be “adequately reviewed,” despite the fact that it had already had years of review. And as a result our energy prices will now rise in the future, with no way of returning to the status quo. Just as the president told us he wanted them to when he ran four years ago.
The campaign ad this fall almost writes itself. Or themselves.
One wonders what administration defenders are thinking as they watch this ongoing trainwreck. We know what they’re saying, but what are they thinking?