@Todd Marohl....I am not criticizing, but you're stating your bias only.

Ending the title of a column about educated populace with a preposition. Heavens - where's your grammar man?

Have to agree with Todd, this is a left-right problem and it reflects the liberal impact on our educational system and culture. Liberals dumbed down our schools so that their 'interest groups' are easily propagandized and led. However, this dumbing down has resulted in a population that does not consume what was once a balanced media - before the liberals took over that industry. Being one-sided, (what our Founders called the Press) produces an unengaging and increasingly ideologically transparent product. So the dullards can't comprehend it or tire of it and the conservatives seek other sources of information.

So the (deludedly) self-regarding liberals are getting their information from such low value sources as local FM radio....

President Obama talked about colors, food, Chicago, what superpowers he would like to have and music in a hard-hitting interview (sarcasm?) on New Mexico's 93.3 KOB-FM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHNh3rLsZSM&feature=player_embedded

He really is the most brilliant President ever isn't he?

Then the few remaining liberals who can think ask why their increasingly navel-gazing concerns are not getting traction.

FYI, red, that rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition is not an actual rule of grammar. It was a failed attempt by grammarians in the Nineteenth century to graft Latin rules onto English -- which is not Latin. It's been dropped.

As Winston Churchill once said, "That is the kind of arrant nonsense up with which I will not put."

--red, that rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition is not an actual rule of grammar.

As a rule, a sentence should not end in a preposition.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/prepositions_ending_a_sentence.htm

Lyle's juxtaposition of the preposition is awkward and adds nothing to the title.

"Lyle's juxtaposition of the preposition is awkward and adds nothing to the title."

The alternative would be even more awkward and wordy. A general 'guideline' of good writing style, especially in titles, is not to tie yourself in knots.

@Todd Marohl...I understand you're a fiscal conservative. How do you decide on social issues?

If you feel an individuals morality is not to be legislated, the LGBT community shouldn't enter into the political scope either, but it sure does. We've allowed Big Brother into our lives through said legislation, so we are in a situation where we can't pick and choose. Our private lives are now under the government's microscope, and always will be.
To answer the question regarding whether Joe America is educated enough to vote on the issues - a resounding NO! The last election proves this out - we had people who had never voted in their lives come out of the woodwork to vote for Obama, the first 'black' (read Muslim) candidate. These people didn't know or care what the platform was, and made no effort to look into the issues. This election was entirely race motivated and won by multitudes of illiterate votes.

@Tina Kriegel -- you have it backwards. The government legislated individual morality by outlawing certain sexual acts between consenting adults on the basis of gender -- or sometimes not on the basis of gender, and if that isn't allowing Big Brother into our bedrooms, I don't know what is.

As for the rest -- it seems to me that a large portion of the electorate who are bent on removing Barack Obama are doing it because of the color of his skin. You presume to go into the minds of people who voted for him? I'll presume right back.

By the way, he is not a Muslim. Either he attended The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Christian church for eight years or he didn't. You can't have it both ways.

At least they made the RIGHT choice for the wrong reason. It beats making the wrong choice for the wrong reason.

@Bren....Party affiliation has always been the lazy person's out. They ended up letting the party do the thinking for them. For some, unions played the same role. Now we are in a different age where party politics have weakened and unions are but a mere shadow of what they once were. The electorate has been manipulated and lied to so often that distrust of government and politicians is pervasive. It doesn't matter whether you are right or left, we all have a general feeling of unease with the information we are fed. In general, I would venture to say that the electorate is generally confused.

@Bren - I have so much distrust for the current administration, that I could see them deciding to make a move on Iran in mid October if they are behind in the polls, simply for the "we are at war, must stand behind the president" electorate bounce it would provide. Cynical yes, but I believe that is how this administration thinks. Win at all cost!

@Bren
Define woeful ignorance. Is that people not voting in line with what you believe to be correct for the state or nation?

Mr. Ruble, I couldn't agree more. Much of our news is filtered but it's still possible to get a more complete picture via international news sources (where I generally get a more accurate perspective of U.S. news). Of course, as you state, it takes time to conduct an exploration of enquiry.

Todd, your technique, if you are aware of it, has a name, "Rovian Projection," in "honor" of the strategist who came up with it. Basically it's taking your own weak area and accusing your opponent of same.

I doubt Barack Obama would take a "whack the beehive" approach to Iran after all of the efforts of his administration to contain terrorism. If you'll recall, it was McCain who sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." (Memory jogging link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg) Obama isn't surrounded by chickenhawks. I'd also say the "win at all costs" attitude is a better description of the right-wing entitlement mentality.

J.B., I mean as in not knowing who government representatives are, what the issues are, and not caring. I've heard, "both parties are the same." I don't believe they have ever been further apart than they are now, when previously conservative platforms such as environmental protection/land preservation, empowerment of people, etc., have fallen to the left as the Koch-fueled Tea/GOP gains a firm foothold on the neck of the Republican Party.

This happened to the old Federalist Party. History repeats.

@Bren
So your objection is to people who hold conservative views or vote Republican? I believe that the best example of "not knowing who government representatives are, what the issues are, and not caring" would be the blind faith that was used to Elect Obama. Yet all your examples revolve around what Republican voters do. You are being disingenuous.

Bren knows someone for every situation to frame her left wing viewpoints.

95% of blacks vote for Obama. Talk about bias and ignorance. If you weren't biased and ignorant, Bren, you'd have called out this most obvious example.

J.B., how did you reach the takeaway, "So your objection is to people who hold conservative views or vote Republican?" from my comment, "I mean as in not knowing who government representatives are, what the issues are, and not caring." Don't really know how to respond to that as it appears you didn't actually read what I wrote.

Steve the Job Creator, my ideas form based on extensive research and also practical experience. My little Me-centric, Libertarian worldview didn't last long in the real world. Things might have been easier without the experiences I have had and the people I have met and all that I have seen, but then I would consider myself to be existing rather than having a rich, vibrant life.

oak creek, I don't believe we were discussing demographics per se. Most Tea/GOPrs are white, I believe; with former ALEC presidential candidate Herman Cain being an exception.

@Bren
If you had read mine, you would have understood that I did read your yours.

Your examples of ignorant voting are Bush, Scott Walker and the influence of the Koch brothers/Tea Party. All of which are Republicans not voting for your Democrat. You are claiming again that you know for a fact that the above mentioned people and organizations (which you mentioned) do not have the truth that you appear to understand. Hence, when you follow it up with "I mean as in not knowing who government representatives are, what the issues are, and not caring.", you are presenting yourself as knowing and caring. While those that disagree with your position don't.

I have never belonged to a political party. In my younger years I was liberal and voted democrat. Then I started crossing party lines. And as time went on I saw less and less in what the democrat party stands for, that I agree with. I don't agree with all that the republican party stands for either.

Problem is there isn't a 3rd party who will ever penetrate the wall set up by both parties.

I know liberals who voted for Obama because he said he would lower the levels of the ocean and heal the earth. Because he ran as a moderate even though his record was that of the most liberal Senator in the US Senate and his background included unrepentant terrorists and America-hating pastors.

All the ignorance results from what liberals did to our school system. Own it Bren.

@red -- Would you mind explaining to me how it was 'liberals' who dumbed down the school system? In what ways did they dot this? You kind of lost me with that one.

How did liberals dumb down the schools?

How about by introducing the industrial model with unionization in 1959 in a Midwestern state?

How about by dismantling discipline via destructive interest groups like the ACLU?

You think of a couple more.

@red -- Oh yes, a good beating in school was always such a great motivator for learning.

I began grade school in 1955, and I have to tell you, I don't recall much of a difference in my teachers or my curriculum beginning in 1959. I'm not sure when the 'dumbing' began, but it wasn't liberals. It was educators trying to find a better way of teaching kids to read and do math. Going after every new fad is not necessarily the best idea.

@Luke...I think you are right on. That's precisely why most of the entitlements will survive in some form and will not be abandoned. The ACA will also survive but many amendments will be made moving forward.

It is a liberal fiction that conservatives seek to end entitlements. What conservatives want is for entitlements to achieve their goals with frugality.... support able bodied citizens when experiencing unemployment...provide support to genuinely disabled citizens.... without driving the country into bankruptcy.

Liberals have a cognitive inability to see that programs can serve our fellow citizens who need assistance and avoid massive fraud, economic destruction (e.g. continually reducing medicaid reimbursements) and incentivizing sloth and criminality. They demonize good faith efforts to make such efforts sustainable. A current example is Obama breaking the consensus about Welfare and relaxing successful rules for work.

The majority of the population gets the need for frugality and effectiveness but liberals call this ignorance of the populace and look down from their olympian summits on people who make the economy work.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” –Thomas Jefferson

@ skinnyDUDE
9:13 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
There should be no educational requirement to vote .Morons can be herded like sheep and manipulated. But so can the so called Educated class

Bernie replies.
Interesting comment. Now we can observe the ideology of the “Party First” that removes the elected representatives, within that organization, their ability to debate and make their educated vote on a subject or an issue. Is this ideology to be supported, to continue?
Constituents’ voted for a leader to represent their interest. Loss of that vote due to an allegiance to a party dissolves their commitment to their democracy and the nation. Failings their constituents’ and themselves as leaders.

@ Bernie
Is this ideology to be supported, to continue?
I am not the decider for society. They must support what they believe . Thats democracy. Is the 2 party system a bit of a shell game ? Of course it is . However, the deficit at 16 trillion is a wake up call as we approach a cliff which will end the game and nation as we know it . It is coming...........I am pretty sure we would not recover from another Obama term . So in the my world there is few choices other than to chose people who are willing to face reality . If they fail .......we all will face reality together and it wont be pretty for the future generations. Survival mode has few options when the can is kicked down the road time and time again. . The sheep will continue to graze and eventually realize that dirt doesnt taste too good. But that option is on the ballot more than names. The choice has never been easier . But we shall see ..............

@Nuitari...Who are you referring to as a Democrat?

Why you of course Lyle, Shorewood Patch's Alpha-Dem :)

@Nuitari....I'm no Democrat. I'm a social democrat which has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. I'm a liberal progressive and I don't attach myself to any political party.

Okay Lyle, so you're still one who believes in taking from the hard worker to benefit the "underprivileged".

@Nuitari...I'm sorry that you don't endorse social justice. I and other social democrats have worked hard all of our lives. I don't share your world view and based on my view we are all human beings deserving of a truly equal opportunity to rise. It's not only the sharing of my wealth through taxation, but mine and others direct efforts to level the playing field. This includes thousands of service hours as well as personal contributions.

I don't resent paying taxes, but I do have a problem with how the taxes are spent. Why do we need a military bigger and stronger than the next 17 nations combined. Why do we need to give tax breaks to multinational corporations who keep their profits offshore. I was, before retirement, a small business owner and the government wasn't the direct problem, it was the partnership between government and big business. Social democrats aren't anti-capitalists but believe in a well regulated capitalist system. Read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" to understand the need for regulation.

----based on my view we are all human beings deserving of a truly equal opportunity to rise.

There is no country in the world where a citizen has a more equal opportunity than in this country. Many of your policies, though well intentioned, make it harder for for those who need the opportunities the most.

If you want to end the government-business collaboration make government smaller. Stop funding green energy projects that are just badly disguised payola to Democratic contributors. Prosecute Obama bundler John Corzine for stealing $1.2 billion and other big Democratic Wall Street contributors. Stop inconceivably large Big Agriculture bills. Stop foreign food aid that bankrupts local farmers.

The answer is not higher taxes, it is less spending and smaller, more effective government.

@Bob McBride...Again, we don't have any fundamental disagreement. Print media was the source for a great deal of wild accusations. I wouldn't want to give up my search engines, but I have more time than most to do more in-depth searches. All in all, if used properly, the internet and search engines are good things.

@Lyle
I think you take issue with large amounts of conservative information presented on the internet. That has been the greatest change in media. The shift from liberal dominated news outlets to the wide spread availability of conservative information.

If your social democracy was the victorious political platform, you would not writing this blog. However, as the mood in the country shifts away from Obama and against his progressive agenda, you suddenly question the intelligence of the electorate. You are simply providing an excuse for a possible Obama loss. This way it has nothing to do you his or your politics; but as Obama put it, "I could have told a better story." He and you did not take the proper time to educate the public, not that we as American's reject socialism of all threads.

@J.B. Schmidt...The question posed was not to make the loser feel good or bad. We have a problem in digesting so information. I'm attempting to draw attention that we are all only validating our preconceptions of reality. Will the world end if either party wins the White House? Of course not, it will require adapting to a new set of conditions and moving forward. Change comes about with little bites and requires assimilation of change. What is troubling is the constant talking points from both sides, leading to nothing but saturation of message. I would much rather see what AWD has written than to be lulled into a stupor by someone like Keith Best, who goes on and on with the scripted message. Same thing goes for the left.

@Lyle
When hasn't their been extreme political rhetoric that people must decipher? While you deny the collapse of the country in a single election, suddenly the inability to understand the rhetoric has reached precipice? That is why I question the motives behind this piece. The election of Obama had little to do with the intelligence of the electorate and rather strictly an emotional response. Now that the emotion has worn off and people turn from his agenda you are suddenly questioning the ability of the electorate to sift through the rhetoric? What answer are the people supposed to find after they have done their research? I am going to assume your answer. If not, aren't they just believing the information you deny (ie the oppositions political rhetoric)?

@J.B. Schmidt...Of course there has always been ruff and tumble politics. That's not the issue; the issue, as far as I'm concerned is the deluge of information from all sources. The one thing that is different from this election than from the one in 2008, is the amount of money flowing in from all sides to influence that one person, one vote. Look at the amount money funneled into our recall elections. As far as I'm concerned it borders on the immoral.

You can question my motives all you want, but what you see is my genuine concern for truthfulness and the amount of information we all have to sift through. Frankly, I am quite surprised that the comments have become so partisan, since I didn't write it as a partisan piece.

@Lyle
The amount of money spent on advertising for politics is dwarfed by that spent in other sectors of the economy. Companies attempt to sway opinions daily and we are forced to determine which product is the best. Why suddenly is the public not smart enough to make a proper decision politically and why aren't you questioning the ability to of the public to make correct decisions on other products?

This is partisan because the truth in politics is some what subjective. You said, "To answer my own question; I don’t think that the average voter can be expected to ferret out the truth" and therefore established that you had the truth. Since many of on Patch understand and disagree with your political views, by default we do not have the truth. Thus we are among the uneducated. That is unless you are will to accept Paul Ryan's budget and Romney's political agenda as "the truth".

@J.B. Schmidt...Where did I state I had the correct truth. You seem to be assigning to me things that I did not state in this piece. I will ask you the same question that I've asked my students for decades; "How do you know, what you know?"

@J.B. Schmidt...What I find different from the normal marketing spending is that the consumer doesn't have to make a decision that encompasses so many areas that affect their life. The vast amounts of money being pushed into this year's election is in effect asking you and me to decide on our very futures. Either way you turn one side is saying that if you follow the other side that you'll be stepping off a cliff and vice versa. Neither are totally right or wrong, the truth has to be found in the middle. To claim otherwise is misrepresenting reality.

@Lyle
If you are attempting to call a group of people uneducated, then you must come from a the stand point of being educated, correct? If being uneducated means you are unable to possess the truth, then the educated must have the truth, correct? Therefore, while I may not have a quote that you have the truth, it must be assumed based on the approach you took in this blog. If you are not the truth holding educated, then based on the blog you are one of the uneducated unable to decipher the truth from rhetoric.

I know what I know based on experience, research and logical conclusions of the 2.

What is the middle ground choice we should be looking for? If both parties are extreme, what is our third option? Maybe we should start a campaign to write in my name.

---You can question my motives all you want, but what you see is my genuine concern for truthfulness and the amount of information we all have to sift through.

Sorry, it may feel like 'genuine concern' but (perhaps unconsciously) it is your will to power. You see an information that you can't control and that breaks the natural order of things. You would control the information to make it easier for your fellow citizens that are not as smart as you. You know better than they do.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Jefferson knew the danger of controlling information.

Bryant Divelbiss
9:47 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012
If you vote for Obama because you would prefer to copy a failed European model even if we collapse in debt crisis then you understand the issues. Likewise if you vote for Romney hoping to avoid that fate, but knowing it may be impossible to stop and that this is likely our last elect issues. The mushy middle has no driving philosophy decides the election probably does not know the issues, but hopefully they sense that Obama in over his head and shows no signs of growing into the job.

Bernie replies;
It has nothing to do with following Europe. As it is with human nature, we extrapolate from our environment as to the most productive profitable systems that will promote our general welfare. Presently Obama is leading in the recovery. Exceeding Europe’s.
Europe’s model has not failed, a presumptuous statement.
Romney on the other hand. Strategy of outsourcing for immediate wealth is advocating that we follow lower standards and benefits of that exist beyond our borders. Emulating their inferior corporation systems and infrastructures’ as what we must follow? Leadership to inferior ideologies, which “we have already been there done that” is not one who is a leadership of a nation.
Obama over his head is incorrect. Few of our leaders have done so much with so little. Obstructed by “Party First” block voting and hostage/ransom tactics. There in which, is what promotes failure.

I may have over simplified. The facts are that we all know If we continue on the Obama path we will face a debt crisis. He is suppressing the recovery, he shows zero leadership. you must be joking about him being obstructed. He had two years with total control, stimulus to pay off supporters, Obamacare to ensure we can not fix our problems,etc. Last summer during the debt deal the GOP was caving, but Obama pushed for more because he did not want a deal. His only proposal for the economy are the same failed stimulus ideas.

@Bryant Divelbiss...Bryant, it's time for you to wake up and smell the Postum. Your parochial and myopic views are not correctly assessing the situation. Obama had only the two chambers of congress for less than six months if you count the senate with a filibuster majority. When he had the congress they were deep in the process of dealing with the financial collapse. Time for you to reevaluate your expectations.

Lyle,

Obama's opinion was different that yours:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a71_1312580340

And let's not forget this:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-obama-said-in-09-stimulus-would-have-unemployment-below-6-by-2012/article/2503947#.UDROy91lTkc

-----Obama had only the two chambers of congress for less than six months if you count the senate with a filibuster majority. When he had the congress they were deep in the process of dealing with the financial collapse.

You can't be serious!!!!!. After 6 months it was Bush's fault!?!?!?!? Any President with real leadership, perhaps with experience outside community organizing could have formed bipartisan agenda. Obama had Simpson Bowles to work with and he s(*# canned it. He told the Republicans 'I won', and the media has carried his water.

You know that the "stimulus" was a mountain of Pork showered on Democratic interest groups. That's why it didn't stimulate.

Lyle, Obama still only needed 1 moderate GOP member like Susan Collins who is essentially a Democrat in most states. Thus until 2011 the GOP could only stop extreme radical and stupid ideas like cap & trade. Also realistically they did very little in congress to deal with the financial crisis. the stimulus was designed to pay supporters rather than stimulate jobs. Their entire focus then was their radical health care agenda after that. Their agenda in2010 was anti-recovery and prevented a better recovery expected by financial experts, but they did not calculate how radical and stupid the Democrats would be even after the warning shot of the Scott Brown win.

@Bryant -- I hope you realize that cap & trade was originally a GOP idea, as was the individual insurance mandate. I guess it only becomes stupid and radical when it's the other party doing it.

@Bob McBride...I fundamentally don't disagree with your comment. I remember the Kennedy/Nixon debate you cite. For those that listened to the debate on the radio, they claimed Nixon won the debate. I also remember the Barry Goldwater ad. The whole point of the blog was to bring attention to the avalanche of information making it nearly impossible to wade through. Back in the day it was possible to ferret out information, but now it's very difficult, for those who want to take the time. The bottom line is that we will still decide elections on preconceived beliefs and other factors like in Kennedy/Nixon debates or Barry Goldwater image standing before exploding thermonuclear devices.

I don't know Lyle. While there may be more information to sort through, the methods available and speed with which one may do so probably make it pretty much of a wash. I remember my father and others spouting some pretty off-the-wall theories as to why things were the way they were long before the advent of the internet and cable TV. The mere fact that more people have access to active news gathering on a regular basis, versus being pretty much limited to the whims of editors as they were in the past, is a good thing in my book. There are always going to be those who gravitate towards the sensational or choose only to believe that which supports their POV, but that's really no different than in the past.

@Rees Roberts....Your comment is spot on. Not only is it the problem of peak oil, but what if we are entering into a long term drought as indicated by some climate scientists. An available food supply at affordable prices is at a critical point. A drought would only push oil prices higher and creating scarce commodities, food and oil!

We have known since the first OPEC Oil Embargo that we are sitting on a razor's edge. It's not only this administration that hasn't addressed the issue, but all administrations since Jimmy Carter. Why isn't this an issue in this election?

@terry....Cite the information citing that peak oil is a fraud. Global warming is no longer just a theory, it is a fact. What's in question is the cause.

Just because you claim that the board is woefully educated, doesn't mean there is substance to your claim. All I have to say is your bias is showing.

Lyle,

I don't object to everything about the peak oil theory, but it can't possibly happen the way they usually describe. Dennis Gartman (a commodities trader) is correct, in my opinion, that oil above $100 stimulates so much search and discovery activity that it acts as a ceiling for the commodity. It will take a very long time for it to run out, and neither of us will be there to see it happen.

Every time oil gets up to $100+, oil producers find new ways of finding and extracting hydrocarbons. Relatedly, If the price of oil rises high enough, condensed natural gas will take its place to some degree, acting as yet another source of a ceiling on prices.

As Gartman explains on CNBC on a regular basis, the most reliable cure for high oil prices is high oil prices.

If you want something to worry about, worry about peak fertilizers and some of the non-precious materials

Like I said, the electorate can't grasp the complexity of the issues. There are too many issues to deal with, and there are too many details involved with each one, not to mention competing theories.

Lyle, global warming is only a fact in that it is a fraud by the environmentalists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/us/unrelenting-heat-keeps-torrid-grip-on-phoenix.html

When we cover the ground with tarmac and cement sunlight is trapped and the surface temperature increases. Phoenix is an extreme example because it is in the desert and there is a lot of cement. We've all heard the stories of tires melting on the runway in Phoenix. Overall, this is why temperatures are higher in urban areas; more ground coverage (roads, etc.) Is this indicative of climactic change? There's not enough data. However, the temperature changes described are. This definitely impacts local weather by exacerbating normal weather conditions (think tornadoes).

Concerning peak oil, I understand this term to mean drilling that is occurring at peak levels. When is the last time an oil deposit was discovered on the planet? This explains the turn to the dirtier, nastier job of oil extraction.

Bren,

New oil deposits are discovered all the time.

As for peak oil theory, you don't understand it. But it is explained all over the Internet. It is a serious issue.

Secondary oil deposits, correct? The issue with peak oil is that drilling is at peak. What does that mean for a finite resource?

Bren,

The deposits I'm talking about are in the billions of barrels.

http://www.dailywealth.com/1330/The-Most-Important-U-S-Oil-Discovery-in-40-Years

That is my response to your question about when the last time oil was discovered on this planet.

Lifting Drilling Restrictions Could Increase U.S. Reserves by 30 Percent, Study Finds

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lifting-drilling-restrictions-could-increase-us-reserves-30-percent-study-finds
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/pinocchios-obama-gets-a-downgrade-romney-an-upgrade/2012/03/21/gIQAX7uPSS_blog.html#pagebreak
[2] NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY INVENTORY, Institute for Energy Research, December, 2011. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/oil-shale/
[3] The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry, An in-depth study of the outlook of the industry investment flows offshore, Quest Offshore Resources, Inc., December 2011.

-----When is the last time an oil deposit was discovered on the planet?

OMG.. Lyle was right so much of the population is unknowing....

For the first time in decades, the emerging prize of global energy may be the Americas, where Western oil companies are refocusing their gaze in a rush to explore clusters of coveted oil fields.

“This is an historic shift that’s occurring, recalling the time before World War II when the U.S. and its neighbors in the hemisphere were the world’s main source of oil,” said Daniel Yergin, an American oil historian. “To some degree, we’re going to see a new rebalancing, with the Western Hemisphere moving back to self-sufficiency.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html?_r=1

isn't**

@Meg M.
Are you claiming that rhetoric doesn't exist on the left?

You only prove the point I am making regarding this blog. The level of education you believe the American public has is based on whether you political system wins.

The assumption your post makes is that if we all fell in line with your political view, the views proposed by MSNBC and the political agenda of Obama then we would have a higher level of intelligence, right?

Meg M you just totally embarrassed yourself. Thank you for being an example of an uneducated idiot, which dovetails nicely into Lyle's thesis.

Romney killed a woman by closing a Steel Plant!!!! Republicans want you to Die!!! Republicans want to put you back in Slavery!!! Republicans will burn your churches!!!!

C'mon, anyone who believes in that crap is (n't Meg didn't spell this correctly)educated on anything. Here's how you can fix that:

1. Don't watch MSNBC
2. Don't listen to VP Biden
3. Don't listen to Congresswoman Wasserman Schults Chair of the DNC
4. Don't listen to President Obama's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter
5. Don't listen to former congressman Alan Grayson

Regarding Obama's fondness for socialism, here are bonus questions:

What major US Car company does the US government own?

For extra points, how much in losses of this company is the taxpayer on the hook for. How many months before this company goes bankrupt again?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/20/save_gm_from_its_defenders_287953.html

@GearHead...You're providing a prime example of my claims. Your gut is your compass. To validate your gut you seek out that information that validates your gut feeling. I think, that if you examined how you came to feel the way you do, you'd be more honest with understanding yourself and less hostile to those that don't share your views. You appear to be so myopic in your views that you miss completely the big picture and the winds of change.

@GearHead -- "Am I (my family, my neighborhood, my community, my country) better off than I was four years ago?"

Actually, we are. The Dow has recovered almost all of its lost ground, unemployment is down from when President Obama took office. The question to ask would have been, were we better off in 2008 than in 2000? And no, we weren't.

Perhaps if the GOP legislators who swept the nation in 2010 on a platform of jobs creation would actually leave off trying to outlaw abortion, contraception and equal pay for women and do what they promised, we might be even better off.

I think you need to stop listening to your gut and start using your brain.

Using seasonally adjusted numbers, the unemployment rate was 7.8% (and rising quickly) when Obama took office, and it is 8.2% today. 12,049,000 were officially unemployed back then, and 12,749,000 are unemployed today.
Using nonseasonally adjusted numbers, the unemployment rate was already 8.5% when Obama took office, and it is 8.4% today. 13,009,000 were officially unemployed in "raw" numbers back then, and 13,184,000 are officially unemployed in "raw" numbers now.

@Randy 1949
You are not correct. When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%, it is currently 8.3% and climbing. The unemployment rate in 2000 was 4% and 4.5% in 2006 when the Democrats took the House and Senate. It was then 9.7% when the GOP regained the House.

It was the Obama administration that started the contraception issue.

And you are in the minority with your opinion. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79873.html?hp=r2

Indeed, J.B. When unemployment rises under a Republican President like Bush you blame Congress. When it rises under a Democratic President you blame the President.

I do believe that the various bills against abortion, both at the national and state levels, predate the inclusion of contraception as preventive care under the ACA. The 'personhood' amendments that would outlaw IUDs and hormonal birth control predate that as well.

As for polls -- they're gut feelings and not scientific at all. They validate Lyle's point.

Randy1949 do you know what the U6 Unemployment rates from the BLS are for the period of 2000-2012? Before you open your big mouth, educate yourself son.

A little more arrogant conclusion-jumping from Lyle and Randy, along with a helping of head-in-the-sand.

It is a commonly known that everyones gut is their compass. That a buying decision is based on emotion, and justified with logic. A vote is nothing more than a buying decision. And I never implied that my belief was correct. An erroneous belief will obviously beget erroneous justification from your brain. But for you to suggest otherwise demonstrates how little you understand human nature. I have always been quite open to change, if the change is in accordance with my beliefs. I've made a career out of it. But I'm not afraid to push back against that which I don't believe. That makes me neither myopic nor hostile. But I do find your own "social democrat" beliefs damaging for the country.

@Stella -- Actually, I do know those figures. The official unemployment figures show a reversal of the trend at the end of 2008, which was straight up for unemployment and straight down for the stock market.

And, ma'am, you are not my mother so don't call me son.

@Randy
Anything under 5% is generally considered full employment. Therefore, a rise from 4% to 4.5% would not be the end of the world. While a jump from 4.5% to 9.7% is rather significant and since it spanned 2 presidents wouldn't the party in control of the congress hold the greater responsibility for the path of the country?

How far back do you want to go to determine who brought up abortion and contraception? It is only relevant for this election cycle to understand the events of the last 4 years. Otherwise, I could point out that it was the liberal progressive movement that challenged the status quo on abortion and contraception starting some 100 years ago. However, that is irrelevant. State sponsored bills are also irrelevant as we discuss a national election. There was no national bill brought to a vote in the last 4 years that would have banned either abortion or contraception. There was a bill brought for a vote that infringed on the rights of religious organization, ACA.

Please provide the bills that the GOP put forth in the House that would have banned abortion, contraception and removed the right of women to receive equal pay.

I also believe it is the Dem controlled Senate that is not bringing bills to the floor for a vote and the Dems that have not been able to pass budget for 3 years.

@GearHead...How can my views be damaging to the country. I'm only one person, with one vote.It's others who have to determine whether they share my views or not. I am not some omnipotent or omniscient or super being. As I commented to J.B. answer the simply question: "How do I know, what I know?"

@Lyle: "I am not some omnipotent or omniscient or super being."

Helluva admission coming from you. But acknowleging the problem is always a good first step - there may be hope for you yet! ;-)

@J.B. Schmidt -- "Please provide the bills that the GOP put forth in the House that would have banned abortion, contraception . . ."

HR-212, of which Paul Ryan was a co-sponsor. http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/proLifeIssues.asp?article=Federal+Personhood+Legislation&aid=399&id=7

H.R. 374, the Life At Conception Act as well.

I'd also like to point out that 4.5% unemployment is not full employment for the 4.5% of workers still without a job. In a system that relies on a percentage of unemployment to control the price of labor, we shouldn't be too stingy about unemployment benefits and other forms of 'welfare' for those who remain jobless for the sake of capitalism.

@Randy
There is never 100% employment because there are those that will refuse employment, regardless of the benefit to capitalism that you claim.

As for the GOP bills. I stand corrected. Thank you, I tend to ignore that stuff because I know it won't go anywhere and offers purely lip service to the base. I agree with it being a waste of time. Do you have bills that restrict equal pay for women?

However, they have proposed bills that could build jobs. http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/10/27/summary-of-jobs-bills-stalled

Of course the source must be biased, however, the bills exist and have been stalled by the Dems in the Senate. Obviously Dems will argue their ability to create jobs, but they won't bring it to a vote, so how do we know. So abortion and contraception are not the only worries for the GOP.

@J.B. -- Are people who are not working by choice even included in the official unemployment statistics?

@Avenging Angel....The piece was written to sound the warning alarm of something happening that would lead to 1984. We have to be extremely careful that we are not being manipulated into things that are against our own self-interests. The only way to avoid such a system is to make sure the information being fed is in fact truthful and complete.

i worked in marketing for many decades and I can tell you that the whole profession is about crafting the message in such a way as to limit contrary information and to ultimately limit choices. As a discipline that applies scientific research from the social sciences of psychology and sociology, it is a potent weapon in gaining public support. The watchword is to be careful and ask the right questions.

Obviously Mr Ruble here is the only one that cannot be manipulated, we great unwashed masses do not have the intellect like Mr Ruble to see beyond this ruse.

Sorry, Stella, but from the content of your posts you don't come off as one of Western Civilization's great thinkers. You have very little to offer except slurs and Limbaugh-generated talking points.

@Lyle..Perhaps that is what I was reading into it.

@ The Donny Show
9:56 am on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
No. The dumber the voters the better chance they vote for the Dems. That has been the strategy for the Dems for a LONG time. Keep them dumb, dependent, uneducated, and poor.

Bernie replies;
Your comment lacks value. Consider the uneducated will be less inclined to educate themselves, on the issues of politics that will have an affect on them. They will be all the easier to be manipulated via simple programs to attract their gut vote. Greater the financing , the greater amount of advertisements for the uneducated. Intellects are by their virtue independent from the advertisements. This leaves a target segment of the populace that will be more susceptible to the advertisements’ and that would be the gut feeling uneducated. Now which do we have the most of in this nation. { Educated or Uneducated} Watch come Nov. 6 2012 and you decide.

---Greater the financing , the greater amount of advertisements for the uneducated.

People who are pontificating regarding education of their fellow citizens should take special care to form complete sentences.

You're kidding, right? When did the economy crash again?

@Bren, since when does a comment by a person who uses three disrespectful nicknames for our President (two of them jungle-oriented so as to verge on racist) even require a half-way respectful response?

The economy did do a mini-crash after the debt ceiling fiasco a year ago. The market doesn't like a Congress held hostage by people who are willing to bring the nation into default over ideology.

Sorry, Randy I was intimidated by stella's well reasoned points. stella is quickly emerging as an intellectual powerhouse here on Patch, a unique thinker.

--The economy did do a mini-crash after the debt ceiling fiasco a year ago.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between the stock market and the economy.

@red -- Somebody is just trying to be difficult. You think the market is not part of the economy? Uncertainty affects consumer confidence in the same way it affects investor confidence.

Rees, I agree with the need to pay down our personal debts and have done exactly that over the past couple years. I feel a lot better, and less dependent on the winds of a fickle economy.

But zero unemployment under your scenario conjures an image of an agrarian subsistence level economy... pretty much where we were at before the industrial revolution. It is a vision I reject.

Let's see... saying NO to a Canadian pipeline of oil... taking federal lands off the drilling menu... Saying NO to offshore drilling, while permitting Mexico, Venezuala and China to drill the same areas... and saying NO to drilling in Alaska ANWR doesn't mean we are running out of oil. It just means the current president doesn't like the idea of free-flowing oil at market prices. The landing will be much harder if this enemy of free enterprise remains in office for a second term.

Let's see.... the Keystone XL Canadian pipeline would have sold petroleum to who? Not the United States but to China. So who benefits? Not us.....

It takes literally 40 years from when oil is discovered to when it is produced. So, that would put production at 2052. We don't have 40 years to solve our energy issues and big oil knows that. Why do you suppose they haven't built a single new refinery in a number of decades?

As for Alaska ANWR, here is another fact:

The amount of recoverable oil from Alaska ANWR is equivalent to only two years of United States consumption according to http://oilshalegas.com/alaskaoilanwar.html who are promoters of drilling in Alaska. At that rate does it really make much difference if we drill in ANWR or not?

As for the President:

"Obama says new miles of pipeline could stretch around the earth"

Politifact said "True"
Verify at:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/23/barack-obama/obama-says-new-miles-pipeline-could-stretch-around/

"There are politicians who say that if we just drilled more, then gas prices would come down right away. What they don’t say is that we have been drilling more. Under my administration, America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years. We’ve opened up new areas for exploration. We've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some," Obama said.

Check facts

Rees Roberts
12:27 pm on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Good for you Gearhead. Glad we finally agree on something too. Paying down debt is a key element for self survival looking forward.
Rejecting a vision isn't a viable alternative when we are squarely looking down the throat of conditions we simply have no control over. We will all be hit by this. The question is will it be a soft or hard landing.

Bernie replies;
Comment is off subject. That said energy evolution has followed our needs to progress. A mere 200 hundred years ago we were using whale oil for lamps and bees wax for sealing, waxing, candles etc. Wood and coal for home heating and industries. Then in time we evolved to oil/coal as primary energy sources. Presently we are once again evolving to Alternative energies. Oil companies realize this as well. They have now embraced Alternative energies into their R&D.
Cost of oil rises as depletion increases Alternative energy become more profitable means of energy. Technology are producing systems presently that are compatible and more efficient than oil/coal. This will be the future regardless of all discourse to its progress. End of the world is not at hand, unless….. Hmmmm

----Let's see.... the Keystone XL Canadian pipeline would have sold petroleum to who? Not the United States but to China. So who benefits? Not us.....

You have that backward, Clyde. By stopping the pipeline, President Smart Diplomacy forced our closest neighbor and trading partner to send the oil to China.

Thwarted on US oil pipeline, Canada looks to China

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/thwarted-us-oil-pipeline-canada-looks-china-050249469.html

--It takes literally 40 years from when oil is discovered to when it is produced. So, that would put production at 2052.

Good Gracious where do you get these ideas. Duh, try to follow this. Canada discovered oil sands for which we were planning the excel pipeline in 1848. The price of oil didn't justify extracting it till 2003. So 8 years later we are trying to build transcontinental infrastructure to move the product. EIGHT YEARS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE.

Ten years ago Williston, North Dakota was a quiet agricultural town with a population around 12,000.

Today, because of oil prices and drilling advancements, Williston is home to America's biggest oil boom and its residents number over 30,000.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/youve-never-seen-anything-like-the-williston-oil-boom-2012-3?op=1#ixzz24FG6l7TF

10 YEARS TO A FULL FLEDGED OIL BOOM!!!!

@ scott
2:06 pm on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
So the whole premise of this article is the voter is not smart enough. Is the author? Isn't this the hight of arrogance? Do we then need a government to run our lives? because we are not smart enough!

Article was on information overload. Your elected premise only exist in your mind. Apprehension of what you read is not sufficient. Comprehension of what you read is a more preferred means of establishing an understanding and comprehension. Your premises is false. Rendering your comment as moot.

----Article was on information overload. Your elected premise only exist in your mind.

Look, if English is not your primary language, why don't you post somewhere where they are using it?

Rees, in case you haven't noticed, some of us HAVE decided what is really important. We've seen the country we grew up in begin to evaporate in front of our very eyes from stupid liberal policies and frightening executive order assaults on the Constitution. We have reacted by throwing Democrats out of office at the local, state assembly and senate, gubernatorial, congressional and of course kicked out Russ Feingold. Re-electing Walker by a larger margin. While I'd like to say getting rid of Obama will be the cherry on top, it only means we have dispatched the aggravator of the problem. Reversing his horrible ObamaCare, reforming regulatory oppression, tort reform, Dodd-Frank, eliminating multiple federal agencies are some of the solutions, but with new leadership, faith, and the power of individual initiative we will restore our great country.

The problems facing our country are not that complicated. What is complicated is government interference, and unwinding it. You can thank us later as we continue to succeed, and show the rest of the nation how Wisconsin leads the way.

@ Rees, I'm not willing to concede we have a lack of supply energy problem until we have an energy problem. We have discovered enough natural gas under the USA to become the OPEC of natural gas. Yet, the currant admin squashes fracking at every step, based on the overtly biased and dubious science the enviromental community "crows" about. The problem we have is an admin that thinks windmills and solar power is the answer.

You questioned earlier why no refinery has been built? Enviromental wackos! The same cult that has prevented nuclear power since Three mile island and the China Syndrome. Let's not forget California has constant brown-outs and power failures due to no power plants in 40 years, despite population explosion. Do you honestly think power companies won't invest in more infrastructure so they can sell more power? Please tell me you are not that naive!

A Romney victory will be met with an immediate drop in the price of energy, especially oil, unless the Obama admin reacts in a retalitory fashion by doing something stupid to poison the well, so to speak. I have no faith in the clowns in charge to do what is right for the country, at the expense of their political future. I pray we survive the transision to sanity.

As far as serving the community, any effort that gets the boot of government off your and my neck is worth pursuing, in my opinion. How is that for trusting your own self-direction will always prevail over other-directed (government) initiative?

Gearhead:

I have to agree with your assessment about natural gas availability in the USA. BUT, look at what the infrastructure we would need to use natural gas in cars, trucks, trains and airplanes. How, logically, could that be done? Natural gas is not as easy to use as gasoline. It is more volatile and therefore less safe. You don't use the same infrastructure for Natural Gas that we currently use for gasoline. I believe natural gas will be a good match for electric power generation but not for transportation.

As for fracking, have you done any amount of research what is happening in Pennsylvania? Their water supply is simply not useable. You certainly would not drink it. Drilling companies are even supplying bottled water. For me, that is crossing the line. Gearhead, is that honestly not a game breaker for you? I know of no reasonable person who would want their water supply affected that way.

As for refineries, your comment has not been researched. No application has been been requested or sought after from any oil company. You read the reason in my previous comment.

As for the current admin position on windmills and solar power, I have heard our President say we need all options. Is that really a problem? Give him and me a break.

Why is it there ever no room to agree?

No refinery permits have been granted because the oil companies have long given up on running the gauntlet of the permit process, thanks to chronic pre-emptive lawsuits by the likes of the Sierra Club and NIMBY neighbors. This is why we export crude to other countries to refine, so we can re-import it. Insane!

Natural gas isn't the answer for cars because of the infrastructure issues you rightly note. But neither is electric for the same reason, if you care about being consistent.

I'd like to erect a windmill on top of my otherwise useless antenna tower, but my wife has a fit over the thought of it. And what will my neighbors think? ( hint: NIMBY!)

As for agreeing, know that I love you, Randy & Lyle the same way Beaver loves Wally: You're goofy!

Bingo. Right on target.

So, what do we do about it and how?

Funny that this subject was brought up on PBS Newshour tonight. They interviewed Mickey Edwards who wrote the book The Parties Versus The People. I don't know that I would purchase the book but there is a good summation of the book here. http://www.amazon.com/The-Parties-Versus-People-Republicans/dp/0300184565 The author doesn't know that we can ever solve the problem as long as the two main parties want to control who holds the power.

A start could be by dismantling some of the legislation that has gotten so out of hand and has become so divisive. A prime example is this issue of abortion. It seems since Roe v Wade the left does not want to budge at all from the free for all abortion mentality. It is probably an issue that should be backed up to before Roe v Wade. There was less division on the issue before that. I refuse to support abortion after having had a baby myself.

As a whole our nation has to stop dividing the country pitting one class, nationality, sex, age, against each other. Quit encouraging class warfare and quit rewarding failure. This would be a step in the right direction.

mau

Thanks for sharing what you saw on PBS tonight.

My life experience has taught me that when individuals have a life crisis there has to be a defining moment, hitting bottom, so to speak. Only after that can the individual start on their return to health.

My take on this is this country will have to experience a similar "bottom" before Congress will finally let go of their power struggles. I obviously have no idea what this might be but when I see it I think I will know it.

We certainly live in interesting times.

It will hit bottom when our citizens wake up and realize they are being used as pawns. Divide and conquer is the rule of the game right now. I don't know that it will happen in my lifetime.

My answer to that question would be "No, but I'm better off than I was three years ago and moving forward."

@Brian Dey -- What free market choice is unavailable to you under the ACA -- other than going without health insurance entirely? Most people have no choice in the matter as it is. They have to take whatever plan their employer offers, pay whatever employee contribution their employer insists on, and often not have a free choice of physicians if their coverage is a PPO and they can't afford to go out of network.

Bren-My answer is no, and getting worse. The largest portion of my business expenses is fuel. Unleaded gas is more than twice what they were 4 yrs ago. Diesel, which used to be cheaper than unleaded is now 2.15 times higher than 4 yrs ago, in an economy that won't allow me to raise prices to cover costs. This is directly related to policies of this administration and the unwillingness produce more domestic oil and and granting no permits for new refineries.

With the ethanol mandate, not only is that helping to escalate oil prices, but has inflated food prices. Why? Not just transportation costs, but look at almost every food product. Most contain some type of corn product.

And we, the ones providing employee health care, have already seen a 25% increase for less health coverage to our employees because of mandates put in place already by Obamacare. Keeping children on until 26 and covering pre-existing conditions are welcomed benefits, but someone has to pay for the increased risks and that is the employers and employees. One of the biggest reasons for the gap between the middle class is due to the rising costs of health insurance. Employees would rather have better coverage in lieu of raises. At least that is what my employees are telling me.

For the first time in my nearly 25 yrs of business, we have seen loses, not profits. And now you want toraise my taxes too.

Randy- As I was explaining to Bren, some of the mandates in place like 26 yr old dependents, as well as covering preexisting conditions are practically a good idea, but opens insurance companies up to higher risks, thus higher premiums. The money doesn't just come like manna from heaven. Someone has to pay for it. Ultimately, there will be fewer providers willing to take that risk thus leaving fewer choices. And many small business owners are thinking of dropping their plans all together and paying the penalty to not provide.

@Brian Dey...How unrealistic are you? We just had a financial meltdown teetering on a complete collapse of the world economy. You didn't think it wasn't going to hit your bottom line? The last time we experienced this type of financial crisis began in 1929 and four years later we were in the depths of a world wide depression. It took from 1933 to 1949 to finally come completely out of the depression. It took a war that shut down all domestic production and government funds to finally bail out the economy. The first decade of this century found us involved in two unfunded wars, reduced revenues and a financial system leading directly to full scale collapse. You expect that we would be out of this financial mess in less than four years? Talk about someone who has misread the economy. We'll be lucky to be out of this financial crisis by the end of the decade. To blame the current administration for not being out of this crisis yet, is misplacing accountability. We would be much further down the road if the congress hadn't decided to torpedo any and all efforts the administration wanted to do. At least when FDR took office, he had a congress willing to do something other than play petty partisan politics. These economic times separate the men from the boys. To survive you're going to have to get damn creative. Please don't start whining about the increase in costs. You've backed the notion to bring government to a halt trying to take it back to 1955.

Lyle- Obviously, you did not get my intent. I specifically pointed out Obama's policies that effected my bottomline. Bush had nothing to do with those policies. But I'm game to challenge you on the financial meltdown.

First of all, there was bipartisan support for the Iraq war with more than half of the Dem. Senators voting in favor or 29 of 21, with Dems having the majority to block. In the House, 40% of the Dems voted in favor. For the Afghanistan War, The House voted 420-1 and 98 - 0 on the Senate. Bush must of been one helluva leader to convince that many Dems. All were privy to the same info the President was and voted in favor for both. To claim that they were Bush's wars is disingenous.

As far as reduced revenues, another fallacy. Personal revenue increased 14%, the Corporate tax revenue increased 50%, and customs and duties by 40%. Those are hardly declines. Where Bush failed on policy was not revenue, it was spending (the very policy that Obama is pushing; raising spending). The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 actually increased revenue at a time when revenue was declining under the raising of Corporate taxes under Clinton.

Bush increased defense spending by 107%, domestic and discretionary spending by 62% and Medicare by 131%, Social Security by 51 % and all income security spending by 162%. Overall 35% increase in revenues and 65% spending...

Lyle, Cont... And please stop whining about Congress. His first two years he had majorities in both chambers. Half of his Presidency he owned everything and the only thing we got was Obamacare which the majority in every singel poll taken, don't want and that Congress didn't even read, remember Nancy Pelosi; " First we have to pass the bill to know what's in it."

You know Lyle, you talked about my tone the other day but what about yours? I'm not whining or complaining, just pointing out facts. I'm still in business in spite of Obama policies. You lefties keep pointing to the tax policies but there was nothing wrong with the policies. The raising of the revenues is the problem and your guy wants to spend more. 24% of GDP is government spending under Obama and it was 19.9% under Bush, and the highest since the World War II era.

But why be confused by facts, Lyle.

Sorry last Revenues should be spending

And one more thing Lyle. I believe it was Obama that stated it was a four year proposition, not me.

It took a war that shut down all domestic production and government funds to finally bail out the economy.

Wrong. It took the massive downsizing of government which resulted from demobilization and the foresight to free ourselves right away from the socialism that ultimately bankrupted Britain.

@Brian Dey...What specific Obama policies are you speaking of that directly impact your business? If you are referring to energy costs, I would be more concerned about the price manipulations by oil producers. If I'm not mistaken the first time that fuel went over $4.00/gal was under George W. You won't get any argument from me about ethanol made from corn. That's just plain stupid. I think and hope, the drought will force a change in that stupid policy no matter who wins in November.

I've been through plenty of recessions and this one is different. I don't directly hold Bush responsible and I don't have unrealistic expectations for either the current administration or a new one. This is global and the crisis isn't over. We have yet to restructure banks and Wall Street. I do blame Obama for that and passing up the opportunity to change the system that put us in this mess. He had the opportunity to either restructure the financial industry or pass healthcare reform, he chose healthcare reform. BAD CHOICE! We are still as vulnerable or even more vulnerable than we were before. That's where we should be focused.

How will you feel when Obama-Care kicks in, and funds itself by looting Medicare, which is already financially unstable? You probably won't notice, unless you find your doctor will no longer see you. Huh? What happened? Sweet dreams!

Rees, under Medicare, you still have premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The number of doctors accepting Medicare is shrinking due to Obamacare's set limits for services. Again, sounds good on the surface, but those darned ole unintended consequences that maybe if they would have read the bill before they passed it, could have been addressed.

Gearhead

Where are the facts which proves the Congress approved program is looting Medicare? Show me please.

Why do you take these cheap shots?
====> "You probably won't notice, unless you find your doctor will no longer see you. Huh? What happened? Sweet dreams!"

You are a better person than that. I know, I have met you in person, remember? I will treat you with respect if you will. Are you willing?

Page 2 of 2
Industrial laborers contested by banning together. Combinations as they were referred to was brought to court and declared illegal. By the “Combination Act”1799-1800. Not until 1824 did they overturn that ruling. 10 years later 6 English farmers were convicted of illegal oath-taking [joining a union] and deported to Australia. They were known as the Tolpuddle martyrs
In the U.S. , first trade to go on strike was the US Printers of New York. Followed by {two years later} cabinet makers, one year later ,Philadelphia’s carpenters. The industrial leap started in the 1830’s. sparking the demand for unions. After Civil War unions came to flourish. National Labor Union emerged in 1866. Existed less than a decade but it did persuade Congress to require a maximum of an eight hour day, for Federal Workers.
American Federation of Labor of 1886 founded by Samuel Gompers. He was herd to say “ Show me the country that has no strikes and I’ll show you the country that has no liberty”! Now as Wisconsin to get not the word until 1959 ? Well that brings us back to education. Seek it and yee shall know. {Hint}.. Ike strong supporter of unions and the beginning of the JFK/ LBJ era was on the horizon.

up again this belongs here not there...
Page 2of 2 continued
Note; at that time of F.D.R. the 1% of the population held 43% of the nations wealth. Presently 1.2% hold 40% of the wealth. Middle class lost a big hand. Game nearly over. Strengthen the middle class by infusing health and prosperity becomes the responsibility of the government. Incorrect polices that stimulate the 1.2% will hasten the termination of the game. It is now time to stimulate the middle class to increase liquidity. “if” you wish to keep the game going.
I speculate republicans will want to extract a greater debt from the middle class as they speculate the margin is significant enough, at 3% plus. I consider this naïve gambling and with a few more hands played, the game will be ended .
War is debt to nation. Gone are the days of plunder to the Victors. Germany being saddled with a burdensome debt organized themselves and attacked their oppressors. Observe Allied’ response as victors. Lesson learned did not fine the nations that lost the war. They rebuilt them to keep communism to gain a foot hold in an impoverished culture. Increasing debt to the victors.
Liberal International Free Trade Marketing make war an unprofitable pursuit. “And the WALL comes a tumbling down….

Page 2of 2 continued
Elizabeth Warren constructed the structure for the new agency in collaborations with Frank Dodd and Obama. Republicans have expended $350 million to lobby its repeal and or watering it down.
Health Care reform will create a larger insured consumer base for medical services. Reduction in Health Care premiums rising will be hampered and eventually reversed.
USA is presently at a growing disadvantage on Health Care as it is to its competitors, They are presently receiving outsourcing medical procedures to nations that have Health Care services at ½ to 1/8th our cost to service. BIG leak there.
Our vulnerability has decreased not stagnated as you are inferring. Growth is slow but it is growth that leads all other nations in the same mess.
Curious China is now facing their potential of falling productivity. Could be just a correction, for their past rapid acceleration.
Slow steady growth has its benefits as well. Provides greater security against inflation.
We are on the right path, now if we could remove the obstacles perhaps then we could accelerate weee bi faster. Not to fast though or another problem could arise faster than we could compensate to stir around it.