The Goat Pen

she was saying that exactly 4 years ago last week, the chairman of the fed called the president and the leaders of both parties together on a Wednesday afternoon and said if they didn't act immediately to save the American economy, there simply would BE no American economy by Monday.

Of course Bernanke said that. Consider the source. The 2008 crisis was a crisis, first and foremost, to Wall Street, AIG, Freddie and Fannie, and Lehman Brothers. The apocalyptic language cited above was inspired by bankers who faced the horrors of missing their Christmas bonus that year, or even the agony of foreclosing on their new digs in the Hamptons. They resembled every end-of-the-world preacher trying to sell a new book. Bernanke had to scare the hell out of politicians in order to bail his banker friends out for their decade-long orgy of greed and stupidity.

It was indeed the end of the world for them. I'm not so sure it was the end of the world for the US economy.

Now that the election is over what should we debate? How many years are the repubs gonna cry about this latest loss? Another 4 years?

Okay someone state the true facts for me please:

Unemployment rate - compared to when Obama took office till now. Unemployment claims? New job creation both public and private.

Price of oil - factors on this

These are the two things that directly impact me. That is all I truly care about.

Doesn't matter what you think, high gas prices have affected absolutely no one based on the MSM, besides, it's the price you pay for the brilliant windmill/solar energy strategy we should embrace. One dead ambassador and the White House lying about it has O'bozo up in every poll, that's all you need to know.

Crying it is then.

Republicans traditionally care more about the level of the stock market than the level of unemployment, due in large part to republicans holding more stocks than dems. Hence the old saw "if you want to live like a republican, vote like a democrat," owing to the fact that stocks have done measurably better under dem administrations throughout history.

A lesser reason that the GOP doesn't historically rail against unemployment is the fact that unemployment has traditionally been higher under R presidents than the dems (5.9% under Rs vs 5.4% under Ds since WWII).

Price of gas? There was a chorus here that poo-pooed the notion that a prez had any control over gas prices. That was the summer of '08 when avg. national pump prices hit 4.30/gallon, the highest mark ever and the current record-holder.

As it is, oil prices have mirrored the stock market the last several years. The fall from that $4+ high to a low of 1.80 dovetailed with the stock crash. The climb back to mid-$3 is lockstep with the resurgence of the Dow.

So what you're saying is We're fucked either way.

One would think w/unemployment/economy in the shitter, gas would drop due to lack of demand, and indeed demand is at all time lows....but should anyone question this? Only when a Repub is prez.....Of course O'bozo has the price high by design, that is, unelected EPA Czars have been hyper-regulating refineries causing tight supplies and temp closings...

Oil prices are set by commodities traders who buy and sell futures contracts on the commodities exchanges. These agreements to buy or sell oil at a specific date in the future at a specific price. Commodities traders can create a self-fulfilling propehecy by bidding up oil future prices. Once this starts, it can create an asset bubble.

Unfortunately, the one who pays for this bubble is you!

-formerly toe-approved language wrt gas prices behaving badly in the face of adequate supplies heh

At least you don't deny O'bozo's getting off scott-free on $4/gal gas.

This is how a sitting dem enhances his polling....


Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march "hijacked" by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You'd think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration's holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren't demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we've noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.

Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack, four lightly armed Libyans and five American security offices were on duty. The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines, whose deployment to Libya wasn't a priority.

Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the "never-ending" security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list. In deference to the family's wishes, CNN didn't quote directly from the diary and didn't divulge any private information in it.

His worries are newsworthy, however, and can inform America's response. But Mrs. Clinton's long-time and closest media adviser chose to attack CNN. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines called the network's conduct "disgusting." He then deployed words not fit for a family newspaper in an exchange with a reporter for the Web site BuzzFeed. Mr. Reines may wish to protect his boss's legacy for her 2016 Presidential run, but that won't be enhanced by the appearance of a cover-up.

Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike—on Sept. 11 no less—in this fashion. Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory.

Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.


Feel free to post the NYT investigation.

toe, you just said oprama has ginned up gas prices by tightening demand with 'hyper-regulation'. When in fact supplies are not tight at all.


Gasoline Prices: Unrefined

Wall Street Journal, Sept 26, 2012

Gasoline futures leapt 4% on Wednesday, even though crude oil futures settled back below $90 per barrel for the first time since early August and crude oil stockpiles in the U.S. are robust.

I'm voting for whomever promises to kill the most arabs.

More angst from the right-wing blogs concerning obama sacrificing brave Americans needlessly in the ME:

According to HillBuzz's Kevin DuJan, whose story has been picked up by numerous right-wing and Tea Party sites like FreeRepublic.com and Libertarian Republic.net, [Steven's homosexuality] was something of an open secret:

Of course, my sources have all been talking about Ambassador Stevens' murder by Muslims in Libya: and all of them are incredulous that the State Department sent a gay man to be ambassador to a Muslim country. News reports continue to indicate that the Muslims who murdered Stevens also raped him repeatedly, before and after his death.

"Of course Bernanke said that. Consider the source. The 2008 crisis was a crisis, first and foremost, to Wall Street, AIG, Freddie and Fannie, and Lehman Brothers."

I agree that it is a subject that supports intelligent argument from either side, but typically politicians (nor, IMO, the average citizen) are not terribly intelligent. When the chairman of the Fed calls them all together for an emergency meeting (inducing fear just in the calling of such a meeting) and gravely tells them the economy is about to implode, it's going to get their attention and therefor everyone else's, too. In the long term (as in decades), I'm pretty sure the economy would come back if we hadn't bailed out all of those guys (or most of them, anyway). But in the short term, it would've been a disaster. We'd probably be at 25% unemployment, minimum, right now. Hell, even with the bailouts, we're still sitting at 8%. Nobody is hiring. I'm not really sure why it is the job of the federal government (or if I want it to be their job) to "correct" this state of affairs, but I'm pretty sure that if we hadn't bailed out the boys at the top, we'd be in far worse shape now than we are. I don't know if tickle down economics works like some repubs want everyone to believe, but I'm almost positive that trickle down economics works to perfection when everything at the top goes to shit. Except I don't think "trickle" is the appropriate term. More like Niagra Falls...

" News reports continue to indicate that the Muslims who murdered Stevens also raped him repeatedly, before and after his death."

Doesn't sound like they have too much objection to homosexuality in that case. Nor necrophilia. They're a lively bunch...

Toemeesleather wrote:This is how a sitting dem enhances his polling....

Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.

Feel free to post the NYT investigation.

Love the high dudgeon . . . 2,977 innocents die in 9/11 attack on American soil with 9 months of intel (and a warning from Clinton) alerting us that it was coming and W/Condi/Rummy pooh-poohing the reports. But the American Murdoch Media are trying to pin this on Obama for a shortage of fire extinguishers and the inability to repel a well armed battalion-level force.

Sounds like an O'bozo response on the campaign trail.......BUSH!!

hedge wrote:"Of course Bernanke said that. Consider the source. The 2008 crisis was a crisis, first and foremost, to Wall Street, AIG, Freddie and Fannie, and Lehman Brothers."

I agree that it is a subject that supports intelligent argument from either side, but typically politicians (nor, IMO, the average citizen) are not terribly intelligent. When the chairman of the Fed calls them all together for an emergency meeting (inducing fear just in the calling of such a meeting) and gravely tells them the economy is about to implode, it's going to get their attention and therefor everyone else's, too. In the long term (as in decades), I'm pretty sure the economy would come back if we hadn't bailed out all of those guys (or most of them, anyway). But in the short term, it would've been a disaster. We'd probably be at 25% unemployment, minimum, right now. Hell, even with the bailouts, we're still sitting at 8%. Nobody is hiring. I'm not really sure why it is the job of the federal government (or if I want it to be their job) to "correct" this state of affairs, but I'm pretty sure that if we hadn't bailed out the boys at the top, we'd be in far worse shape now than we are. I don't know if tickle down economics works like some repubs want everyone to believe, but I'm almost positive that trickle down economics works to perfection when everything at the top goes to shit. Except I don't think "trickle" is the appropriate term. More like Niagra Falls...

The defacto primary job of the Federal Government since 1932 has been to prevent another Great Depression.

Was Obama's Illegal War in Libya a Trial Run to Attack Israel?
by Stella Paul, September 25, 2012

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/ ... srael.html

From the American Thinker no less...oft-quoted here by righties.

Makes you wonder how totally freaking nuts the right-osphere will get if Obama holds his lead as we get closer to November.