Skip to main content

Three days ago I saw a tweet of Obama propaganda, an allegedly sincere blast of four graphs demonstrating the very good underlying results of leadership that were being distracted from by the House lawsuit.

I am deeply disturbed and seriously unsettled, not of course with the partisan cheerleading but with the fact that the graphs represent various political disasters and flaming mistakes of horrifying scope, not accomplishments to boast of.

In an evolution of zero fun I will attempt to illuminate the truth so that the little people might possibly not be put through these catastrophes again, we can learn and leadership damn well better. I’m not out to bash Obama—I am a partisan Democrat fiercely wanting to serve and be loyal, how would that help us?

This is not any attempt at changing Daily Kos editorial policy or direction, nor a defiant thumbing of nose to those fine humans or anyone. Simply a statement of truth to horribly stupid and dangerous ideas we should never allow as accomplishments, for once justifying a 1500 word limit, not the usual 750.

Follow me below the liberal constellation of Kosomotapia into this funhouse of failure and futility, gird yourself, perils of screaming frustration and outrage lay ahead.

four bad graphs
These are not good graphs
At the place of honor in stupidity and ass-backwardness is of course the Bush/Obama deficit graph at the top left, a terrible policy result with two amazing political dimensions.

First is the political smoke and mirror absurdity in the historical conventional wisdom attached to the major parties: Republicans are the Party of fiscal restraint and responsibility, Democrats the Party of taxation and social spending.

What absolute total infuriating twaddle. Since Reagan Republicans have been wanton fiscal idiots slashing taxes for their rich masters after stupidly bleating about deficits. Then when a Democrat like Clinton or Obama comes along all of a sudden deficits are totally the instant massive threat to the Republic and spending is cut or slowed.

Incredibly this works in the bought and furtive minds of DC institutional leadership, the Republicans spout nonsense, wreck the budget and then instantly a Democrat is expected to clean it up, oh my god, then they actually do it, Democrats act like moderate fiscal Republicans should!

Everyone acts like this is normal, conventional wisdom just got completely blasted to oblivion but like Josh Marshal says, DC is hard-wired to be a Republican town, the absurdity just rolls on, oh well.

Bad enough politics somehow get turned so backward Democrats can’t spend on social issues so desperately needed, but oh my god in the face of a catastrophically brutal recession cutting the deficit was the absolute worse thing we could do for employment!

When in recession the government borrows to spend, thus spurring needed growth and employment. Absolutely brilliant minds of serious accomplishment at every single American university educated in economics will never disagree with this screaming fundamental truth, every single econ PhD at every university knows this, yet somehow the America I live in got it stupid, got it so flamingly wrong, inflicted such terrible damage on our people when we damn well knew better!

Every time that Bush/Obama deficit graph gets displayed it’s a proclamation of utter stupidity and political failure, why not sky-write it too? Draw your own conclusion as to how Democratic Party leadership allowed this to happen, fact is it did, and the stupidity and failure of it all heavily weighs my soul and spirit down.

Below the nuclear demonstration of failure is another horribly discouraging graph for a liberal Democrat in 2014, it’s the NASDAQ stock market index since Obama took over. Yes indeed Wall Street has done so very well under Obama, that’s the precise demonstration of the failure, the rich elites with money are the only ones who have done well.

The American labor market has collapsed, where is the graph for wages? For the long-term unemployed? For our young people just entering the work force? What about the amazing productivity graphs that gave no payout at all to workers?

All this graph did in allegedly proclaiming Obama accomplishments is show how the rich have made off like bandits while everyone else is still screwed. Doesn’t do much for my political optimism, no.

Top right is another trend that is going in absolutely the wrong direction, oy another example of complete ass-backwardness. Oil production should be going down, not up, climate change is truly here right now and we have to stop burning oil. Now.

I’m completely not interested in the excuses or rationalizations or laziness, an instant goal for a real leader is to immediately stop burning gasoline in America, that’s a fine, fine start for change we have to begin.

Many minds greater than mine would put this oil production graph as the worst failure of the last six years, not something I would fundamentally disagree with. DC is a completely bought and captured town by the oil industry, they were running the place long before the banks elbowed in, and just because DC thinks this is right and justly so doesn’t make it any more wrong or dangerous.

Last in order and magnitude of failure is the ACA signup rate, the failure here is hidden in the graph, yes the implementation has not been a failure—where it has been allowed to occur—but what about the States where the ACA has been blocked?

In a really sick, correctly-termed pathological health care policy approach, huge swaths of Republican-controlled areas of the country have been denied ACA Medicaid expansion, for no good reason but political spite our little people have been suffering and dying!

Put aside the fundamental merits of ACA—which many liberals are very unhappy with—in one way it could have done very much good it was heinously blocked by Republicans. Where is the graph for how many have died since the ACA was denied, primarily in the South?

As far as missing the mark or obfuscating the truth this last graph is the least offensive, it does reach a threshold of failure by not fighting back, oh my god if your people are terribly suffering or dying when does the incredible injustice of it all demand a response?

Not only is the response not here, it’s not anywhere in the general American political culture, somehow the Republicans are maiming and killing little people Americans with a sick, terrible policy approach and CBS This Morning is completely oblivious. There are some State races where the issue comes into play, but what the Republicans have done with ACA is not generally comprehended, not hardly.

All very discouraging and disheartening, yes, and believe me how I wish there were more cheerful elements to write about. Change does happen, however, and the opportunity of 2016 is not that far away.

I think of the great political scientist and writer David Dayen, who often reminds us that the Postal Service could be such a perfect vehicle for micro-banking, our filthy universally loathed banks actually don’t like banking anymore and ignore the little people, much to their pain and detriment.

I’ll go you one better, David, not only can the Postal Service deliver crucially needed banking services to the most vulnerable among us, they can be an employment haven for our veterans too. If you’re a veteran of a foreign war and need a job there will always be one sorting or delivering mail.

So very very much to ask from a little people liberal, isn’t it? I dare one god damn red blooded American to object to this, no one will mind a little care for combat veterans who need a job and stability when they’ve served so deeply.

As we all know this is not the state of the Postal Service now, not at all, a disgracefully besieged federal agency at 20% of its potential. Is it so much to ask, Democratic President of 2016, that the little people have government work for them in the future with the Postal Service? That it performs its critical function, delivers micro-banking, and is a haven for combat veterans?

[sigh] It is not too much to ask, not hardly, and perhaps just this tiny little government dream for the little people may come to be. In the meantime the truth shall always guide us, not the failure represented in the four graphs above.

Originally posted to paradox on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:29 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I misread your header (6+ / 0-)

    And you may want to qualify. These are very good graphs as graphs (as compared to some the RW use). It's just that they illustrate counterproductive policies and trends.

  •  It's political jujitsu (5+ / 0-)

    Both sides do it while the people take the fall. Good diary

    The power of the Occupy movement is that it ....realizes a fundamental truth about American politics… there is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs.

    by orson on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 02:22:15 PM PDT

  •  I really though I'd see the employment graph (12+ / 0-)


    But hey, great points & I agree 110%, TnR.

    Just throwing this out here, U6 is @ 12.2% or about 19 million people are still looking for full time year round work. And we know U6 doesnt count everyone, so call it 22-23 million un or underemployed.

    Remember by 1936 unemployment dropped from 23% to 9.9%, GDP growth in 1934 was 11%, 1935 9%, 1936 13.9%. By 1936 Chevy set a record selling Chevy's, Louis Armstrong set a record selling a record.

    In just 4 years.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 02:47:37 PM PDT

  •  If you're interested in the topic (4+ / 0-)

    of how graphs can deceive, I'd recommend the work of Edward Tufte.
    He can be rather dense, but he's made a career out of analyzing how visual information both informs and disinforms us.

  •  Typical Left-attack on the President (14+ / 0-)

    It's getting old seeing these kinds of BS attack that pretty much has ZERO contribution to the policy conversation except for creating the same echo chamber that's so prevalent on the right.

    1. Deficit:
    Sure, you're right, in that cutting deficit in the short run is absolutely risky and even counter-productive in most situation.  By all means, austerity is what caused a triple-dip recession in the UK, as well as setting back so many European countries.  However, whining that it's happening pretty much ignores how the President had been attacked from the very beginning since the Stimulus as "Spender in Chief".  By highlighting the decrease in deficit, it gives the Democrats an actual legitimate defense on being the "fiscally responsible party".

    Or maybe winning election and actually able to govern is not important to you?  You'd rather do theoretical governing on a piece of paper while the GOP runs the country to the ground?

    And finally, what made your argument total BS on this matter is a simple fact you ignored:  Wars were ended or are ending.  Ending wars to bring down spending had ALWAYS been an important campaign pledge to the President, in both 2008 and 2012.  Claiming that we should maintain War-time spending level even as wars are ending/ended pretty much blows your whole argument away.

    •  Time to suck it up. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:11:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I too disagree with diarist's premise... (5+ / 0-)

        as these are very good graphs for The Democratic presiidential candidate in 2016 and will give that person the needed power to implement a more progressive adgenda--of couse that adgenda will never be progressive enough for most here but then again....President Rand Paul, Marco Rubio??????  Chew on those two for a bit.  

        The more you learn, the less you know.

        by quiet in NC on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:35:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not one of those charts represent (12+ / 0-)

          …progressive values.

          They all represent defensive Democrats in cringing service to Republican feudal values of hurting and burdening and starving the the little people as much as possible -- destroying their futures and the upward mobility of their children -- to make Our Wealthy Overlords wealthier.

          In the fact that you do not see that -- there is no blame. It is merely your fate.

          For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                      -- Albert Einstein:  Far left, emo-prog, socialist.

          by Pluto on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:47:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ralph Nader. nt (0+ / 0-)

            The more you learn, the less you know.

            by quiet in NC on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:51:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, really? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So the ACA chart doesn't help any of the little people?
            I guess I'm one of the 1% who's been helped by the 4th chart.

            So the stock market going up doesn't help any of the little people?  I guess my mother whose 403(b) had finally recovered is one of the 1% who's been helped by the 3rd chart.

            Keep staying in your echo chamber.

            •  On the surface, of course they are helpful (9+ / 0-)

              …to you and your mother. And I think that's pretty great and you are both very, very lucky, indeed, compared to so many others less fortunate.

              But the long term result of the structural policy foundations these charts represent result in vast and continuing wealth inequality across the entire US population and a profound loss of social mobility for the people.

              The most significantly damaging one for the US population economically is the stepped up oil and gas production -- but not for the (environmental) reasons that the author states. But because it will result in a significant loss of of the Dollar's purchasing power over the next few years. (The American people have no ownership share of their own oil, no domestic commonwealth to enrich with the nation's natural resources, because the are privately owned. Americans get no oil discounts because it comes out of their own soil. In fact, they pay tremendous subsidies to the private owners of that oil and get nothing in return. Instead, Americans are forced to buy oil on the global market, where it is driven sky-high by speculators and by demand by non-oil-producing nations.) With the rapid loss of the Petro-Dollar standard, there will be no guarantee that Americans can even print a bunch of Dollars to buy oil for themselves.

              For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                          -- Albert Einstein:  Far left, emo-prog, socialist.

              by Pluto on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:20:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And your economic theory behind that is? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Everyday Magic
                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:21:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I thought the petro dollar went away long ago (0+ / 0-)

                We keep hearing this is going to happen...kind of like how we were always just about to go to war with Iran...

                We still seem to be able to afford to buy oil at market prices...and it if ever happens that it becomes a problem, we'll finally have a chance to reduce our carbon footprint. If we all had socialized petroleum, there would be no hope of doing anything about global warming.

                "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                by Alice in Florida on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 12:31:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Simple economic principle: (0+ / 0-)

                More oil supply results in lower oil prices.

                More demand for oil results in higher oil prices.

                Both supply and demand for oil are the result of production and activity around the world.

                Please stop with the nonsense that oil prices are predominantly  indicative of speculation.

                Until there are more high-effeciency automobiles on the road and that can be produced at faster rates than demand for conventional combustion engine vehicles, the world demand for oil will not decline.

                Would it be nice to see oil demand decrease so that carbon emissions were lower - Yes.  But, in the short-run, lower oil demand would also mean less economic activity and that would likely mean that more people are unemployed.

                What you might wish to consider is how much electricity is being produced by non-coal sources.  More and more electricity is being produced by 'alternatives' such as wind and solar.

                Looking at the deficit is a double-edged sword.  Since republicans and many independent voters are just too stupid to understand that President Reagan grew the economy through deficit spending and that President Bush-II gave the greatest transfer of wealth ever in his tax cuts to the wealthy that produced ZERO economic benefit (and proved supply-side is economic rubbish), then President Obama had little choice but to keep his cumulative Stimulus at an underperforming level.  Moreover, to this very day, republicans and many independent voters  fail to grasp that the Stimulus was a success, difficult to imagine more Stimulus getting passed.

                And just to continue, these same moronic republicans and independents always spoke about trickle-down.  Of course, their hypocrisy shows no bounds - recent record stock market results should be showering the economy with jobs.  On a similar note, had President Obama not seen a reduction in government employees, inapposite of what occurred during both Reagan & Bush, unemployment would be far lower.  Also, it appears that demographics of retired baby boomers have structurally lowered the labor force participation rate.  In other words, economists are not convinced that some of what is being captured in U6 unemployment isn't just people who are voluntarily, and OK with, not working.

                Lastly, single-payer healthcare was not an option.  So President Obama got the best deal he could.  And the fact of the matter is fewer people are without healthcare today.  And were it not for republican nihilism is states that refused to participate in ObamaCare, these figures would be far better.

                President Obama is neither God nor King, stop making it appear as if he really could have done more to make those graphs look 'better'.

          •  They possibly represent Dem losses in the midterms (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Of course if the Dems & Obama proposed infrastructure spending of 900 billion to create 22 million jobs, and let Boehner kill it in the house.... Dems could pou=int at the GOP and tell America "They voted to kill 20 million jobs".

            I think thats a huge winner for Dems in the midterms.

            But hey we arent even allowed to talk about real solutions that match the scale of our problems, cause we got punched & thrown under the bus.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:14:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Typical hippie-bashing response. (9+ / 0-)

      pretty much has ZERO contribution to the policy conversation except for creating the same echo chamber that's so prevalent on the right.

      That is, if the policy conversation is inside the Village. How dare anyone question the right of the 1% to capture all the profits and growth.

      How dare anyone question the wisdom of increasing oil production in the face of climate change. I really notice the right wing calling for more solar and less fossil fuel.

      You are fond of the phrase BS. Probably because that is what you are dishing out.

      •  What village? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark Lippman

        And where did I say anything about questioning the right of the 1% to capture all the profits and growth?

        I was merely pointing out a simple fact, that this pointless bashing of the president by insinuating he's not doing anything other than being a corporate lapdog is complete BS.

        Maybe you need to learn how to read.

        •  I've already determined that there are some (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, duhban, BocaBlue, august88, ickamaus

          members of the community who are very devout in their beliefs but short on substance. I let them define the policy that meets their approval, then I haul out the facts and figures from authentic official sources to demonstrate how much of it has already been achieved. The response . . .
          ~~~crickets~~~.  Or sometimes they change the subject, move the goalpost, or make some other invitation into their rabbit hole.

          In this diary, the size of the deficit isn't a real indicator of good policy or bad. If the deficit grew, it could be because a tax break for the upper bracket reduced revenue. That's not a reason to run a deficit. The deficit isn't equivalent to spending, of course. It's the difference between revenue and outlays. When Obama took office, revenue was at its lowest point since 1950 as a percentage of GDP. Income tax and capital gains tax on the highest bracket has been raised since then. That's progressive policy.

          I've only been here a year and a half and there are some of the most knowledgeable people of any internet community here. There are an awful lot of noisemakers too.

      •  and calling it hippie bashing does? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I mean let's be honest that's becoming the standard 'defense' to what is increasingly becoming a vapid and hollow 'criticism' of the president that has more to do with the criticizing and less to do with actually offering a path forward.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 08:37:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

        nailed it!

        You are fond of the phrase BS. Probably because that is what you are dishing out.

        "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

        by lunachickie on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:03:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Wars were ended or are ending." LOL. (12+ / 0-)

      We are busy supporting Israel by sending them weapons while we can't do anything about Detroit or collapsing infrastructure.

      We are busy putting the screws to Russia and supporting the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with military advisers and CIA consultants.

      We are thinking about jumping into the ISIS mess.

      We are spending billions on the F-35 turkey that couldn't be flown at the British air show last week. Actually, hundreds of billions - so much money that is could single-handedly end poverty in America.

      But, really, we are ending wars.

      What a laugh.

      Tell me another one.

      •  Are you getting your info from RT now? (0+ / 0-)

        I understand not trusting the US media narrative, but that doesn't mean you should be buying Putin's line. His bullshit is even more outrageous than the crap Fox News puts out.

        Anyway, the bit about "ending wars" refers to specific wars, not all war.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 12:38:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oil (8+ / 0-)

    2. Oil:
    It's frustrating that many on the Left seem to harbor this notion that we can solve the global warming crisis by not producing oil in the US as well as making oil super-insanely expensive.

    First of all, the only way to cut down green house gas emission is to make people consume LESS petro product, not by cutting/restricting the supply of petro product.  The fact is, our domestic oil consumption had kept steady since 2009, an incredible achievement considering as the economy is recovering/growing, oil consumption should grow according as well, in traditional economic sense.  The fact is, all the fuel economy policies as well as alternative energy policies are what's making this happening.

    Secondly, it's stunningly ignorant of various environmentalists claiming how raising domestic oil and natural gas production is contributing to global warming.  As I've already stated, it is the CONSUMPTION, not the PRODUCTION, that should be our main focus.  It's this kind of illogical argument that drives away support on various matters, such as Keystone-XL and fracking.  When you have academics changing position on Keystone-XL by stating that the global warming factor is flawed (because it's not going to make people consume less oil), it's pretty clear that this line of reasoning should be abandoned.

    Just for the record, I'm against Keystone-XL and for more transparent and regulated fracking process as well as methane monitor.  However, I'm holding these positions not because of the absurd argument of "regulating industries to death will combat global warming".  I'm against Keystone-XL because of potential destruction of natural habitat as well as potential contamination of precious aquifer.  I'm for transparent and regulated fracking process because it is currently unregulated, understudied, and opaque in nature.

    Cutting domestic production will do absolutely NOTHING to help global warming.  We had declining domestic production between 1985 and 2007, and yet, our consumption went up like mad.  The ONLY supply/production policies we can do to help with global warming is to make sure the production is environmentally sound, both of which are policies of the Administration.  Discouraging or even prohibiting domestic production will only shift it to overseas.

    The only downside I've been seeing during the past 6 years would be that our Natural Gas consumption has gone up at a pretty fast pace.  However, it still doesn't mask the underlying trend, that we've "bent the curve" on energy and petro consumption, and we are less dependent on petro than we were before.

    •  To say nothing of the fact that... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Reaniel, Odysseus

      the Iraq war was fought to gain access to foreign oil.  The further we can get from foreign oil the better.  Of course the best way to develop alternative energy but we need to ask the GOP gonna do that for us?

      The more you learn, the less you know.

      by quiet in NC on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:43:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All Oil Is Foreign Oil (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, Alice in Florida

        Yes, foreign oil is the worst kind, especially Mideast and Russian oil. But there really is no way to avoid just foreign oil. The US exports and imports huge amounts. Oil is a global fungible commodity.

        The further we can get from oil the better. The foreign oil along with all the rest.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:26:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  2005 was the peak year for crude oil consumption (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in the US. It's down about 10% from that level.

      •  More Exports Than Ever (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe that's true, but the large rise in production has increased our exports to record levels. It's global oil consumption that contributes to global warming, not just the consumption counted in the US. And besides, a lot of the global oil is consumed in manufacturing and shipping in China, India and other global production that's governed by the US supply chains, consumption and commercial hegemony.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:28:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see anything in disagreement here. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I was just giving some affirmation to the OP's point about cutting consumption, otherwise cutting production wouldn't make a lot of sense. The US still imports crude, even with the increase in domestic production and reduced consumption.

          The exports are in finished products like diesel which is another story.

        •  It's illegal to export crude. (0+ / 0-)

          Almost all US exports are refined product.  I see no particular reason why it is bad for the US economy to capture the gain in value between crude and refined products.

          For the first time, we are exporting some gas well liquids, under the theory that they are "refined".  That's a step closer to crude, but again, it's not necessarily threatening.

          Yes, it's bad to have long supply chains.

          And yes, we need to stop using fossil fuels ASAP.  But breaking transportation of that addiction is going to be very hard.

          -7.75 -4.67

          "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

          There are no Christians in foxholes.

          by Odysseus on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 06:23:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We have to leave it in the ground (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 08:32:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oil/Gas Production Is Killing Us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice in Florida
      Secondly, it's stunningly ignorant of various environmentalists claiming how raising domestic oil and natural gas production is contributing to global warming.

      So the increased movement of oil and gas from the ground to consumers isn't contributing to the warming from the emissions of the consumption, right? Thinking it is constitutes "ignorance", huh?

      Consumption is increased by the increased supply. Increased supply lowers prices. Prices are the constraint on consumption. Lowered prices means more consumption. Ergo, increasing the supply lowers prices increases consumption increases emissions accelerates climate change. Period.

      If US gas/oil production shrank or just grew slower, prices would rise and consumption would shrink, reducing emissions and climate change it produces.

      Thinking otherwise is not "ignorant" it's crazy. These "various environmentalists" (whoever they are) are actually right, and you couldn't be more wrong.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:25:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  smh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The fact that you believe "US gas/oil production shrank or just grew slower, price would rise and consumption would shrink" means you didn't even read what I wrote.  So I suggest you first go and LEARN TO READ.

        I clearly stated that, as far as historical data goes, increased price and decrease domestic product did absolutely NOTHING to decrease consumption.  The only periods of stable consumption prior to 2008 was 2005~2007, when the economy was showing signs of stress and slowdown.  Otherwise, our production dropped between 1985 and 2005 by more than 40%, and yet, our consumption ROSE by more than 30%.

        Your logic is flawed and based on purely wishful thinking.  It makes as much sense as supply-side economics, and that makes you ignorant.

        Our current relative stable consumption in time of economic growth is unprecedented, and this actually causing quite a few economist abandoning their old idea of "oil consumption is relative to economic growth".  Indeed, you no longer hear economists writing about how we should be consuming more oil, as it is a sign of "true" economic growth/recovery, since maybe 2 years ago.

        Oh, and, yeah, cutting down domestic production is totally going to make overall greenhouse gas emission less.  Those super oil-tanker is totally not emitting green house gas, and the extra miles on those freight trains are totally not contributing more emission. /snark

        •  "LEARN TO READ" (0+ / 0-)

          Fuck you. Goodbye.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 08:35:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe the reason for "stable consumption in (0+ / 0-)

          time of economic growth" is that newer cars (per govt requirements) have much higher MPG ratings these days? Maybe this has less to do with your notion that people use less when supply is greater (?) and more to do with people driving efficient cars? Remember "cash for clunkers"? Between 1985 and 2005, people were buying bigger, less efficient cars...that was the heyday of the non-hybrid SUV. It wasn't decreased domestic production that caused people to use more gas, it was a combination of cheap foreign oil (OPEC in disarray) and big-ass, inefficient cars.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 12:53:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  smh (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, I've addressed everything you've wrote, so if you are really writing what I just saw you writing, you really need to learn how to read first.

        Your logic is ignorant because it's about as wrong as supply-side economics, and it can be proven false by actual data.  Our domestic product went down by roughly 40% between 1985 and 2005, and yet, our domestic consumption went up by more than 30%.  Restricting domestic production will do absolutely NOTHING to tamper consumption.

        The most recent periods of stable consumption (prior to 2007) was 2005-2007, but that was mainly caused by the already unstable and slowdown of the economy.  However, as our economy continues to recover/grow, our consumption is actually not rising at similar rates as before, and it can be contributed to the policy changes.  Indeed, various economists have abandoned the old notion of "consumption equals growth", and we no longer hear them talking about how the slow rise in petro consumption marks the slow of "actual" growth.

        Finally, yeah, sure, domestic production totally contributes more greenhouse gas emission.  Those super oil tankers that carries oil/gas to us to replace any domestic production that you'd like to see gone totally don't emit any greenhouse gas, and freight trains that needed to run extra mile totally are making more greenhouse gas. /snark

    •  AGW trumps armchair petroleum economics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carol in San Antonio

      You write:
      "Cutting domestic production will do absolutely NOTHING to help global warming."

      You seem to be stuck in a backward looking, petroleum economics thought bubble that doesn't give sufficient weight to the seriousness of AGW/CO2 pollution. Hansen  believes it's GAME OVER if we move forward with development of Canada's star sands:

      If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
      It's stunningly short-sighted of you to not weight these concerns much more heavily.
      •  And? (0+ / 0-)

        Did Dr. Hansen do any research as to how much CO2 emission will actually be reduced by not touching any of the oil in North America?  That not developing any of the oil in North American will actually reduce consumption in North American?  That practices in non-US/Canadian oil fields and refineries will result in reduction in emission?  Or that the increase travel time of petro product due to less North American product will result in reduced emission?


        He wrote an op-ed.  About the devastation of us burning every single drop of oil there is to our world, something everyone except for deniers would agree.

        Yet, he doesn't state the reality that even if we somehow restrict North American production, it's not going to do a damn thing to consumption (decreased production 1985 to 2005 while increased consumption at the same period).  That we'd end up having more Middle East, South American, African, and Russian oil on the market, with less than desirable standards on their fields and refineries.  Not to mention longer travel time for petro product itself means more overall emission.

        The reality is, the best and most effective way to combat global warming is to change modes and means of consumption.  Not trying to restrict domestic oil production, which does nothing to the rate of consumption.  The only thing we can do on production is to make sure any process, whether it's extraction, transportation, refinery, with as little environmental impact as possible.

        I'm against Keystone XL because it doesn't address the concern about the natural habitat and aquifer issue.  I've moved from "need more transparency" on fracking to "stop it unless you can solve it" because it's clear that we do not yet have all the technology to do it safely with less impact.

        My point is simple:  as long as there's a demand for petro in the world, I'd rather it be us producing it than some other places where regulation is less than satisfactory.  In the mean time, we should focus ahead with all possible means to change consumption.  We're still a far way from that goal, but the current trend proves that we are moving away from fossil fuel, and our economic growth is no longer closely tied to petro consumption.

        •  Who knows, really? But there ample research.... (0+ / 0-)

          If CO2 pollution isn't reduced pretty much immediately, you'll have a lot of huge insurmountable problems. It needs to happen (globally).

          Your grandchildren won't want to live in the world where a much of the tar sands have been burned so other options need to be pursued now, with urgency.

          Hansen did the research that supports that. He's pretty much the "father" of modern climate modelling and AGW study:


          •  Well, its not going to be 'reduced immediately" (0+ / 0-)

            significantly enough to even slow, let alone stop GW.  If we are very determined and very lucky, we might make non-fossil sources cheap enough that economics will lead to an at first slow, the accelerating as they approach plant age, decline in non-transportation fossil fuel use.  (Transportation is a special problem.)

            The simple reality is the next 50-80 years of warming are locked in.  What we are trying to address now is the time after that, and if disaster will become catastrophe.  Sucks but its true simply bc of the atmosphere life of carbon.

    •  Without wanting to disagree with your (0+ / 0-)

      main point, production of oil and gas does contribute to global warming in at least two ways that come to mind:

      1. the actual energy consumed to bring the stuff out of the ground and deal with it, and

      2. natural gas leaks and the flaring and other burning of natural gas in situ.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:49:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stock Market and Health Care (6+ / 0-)

    Since these last two pretty much exhibits the same BS nature and doesn't really need long reply, I'd do them together.

    3. Stock Market Index:
    So what's wrong with highlighting the increase of the stock market?  Again, it's back to the point I've raised in the first reply.  Somehow, refuting an attacking point from the right makes you an enemy of the left.  We've had the doom and gloom of "OMG THE STOCK MARKET IS GOING TO CRASH AFTER [insert Obama policies, such as Obamacare, here]" attack since the beginning of the administration, that highlighting the rebound and further gains in the stock market IS a necessary action.  Yes, the labor market has not yet fully recovered, and yes, the wage issue is huge.  But the way you're framing it all in your diary sounded as if the President hasn't done anything to try and push for policies that would help with this matter.  I guess the stimulus never existed, obamacare never helped the lower income and the poor, the President never did any high-tech manufacture initiatives, and he certainly never talked about raising the minimal wage.  He's totally in the pocket of Wall Street, and he's done nothing to try and solve the problems you've raised.

    4. ACA:
    Yeah, because the President hasn't been calling for the various states to expand Medicaid, after NFIB V. Medicaid.  Never happened.

  •  I wish the President (4+ / 0-)

    was a tyrant that rewrote the laws like the Republicans accuse him of being.  But he is not.  

    I wish he could have got more social spending done, but the reality of Democracy got in the way.

    I wish more states would have accepted Medicaid expansion, but the SCOTUS got in the way.

    Same for many more issues.  Long term unemployment, higher minimum wage, more tax credits for alternative energy, etc, etc, etc.

    Instead of bitching about what didn't get done, or didn't get done the way you wanted it, why not offer real solutions.  REAL solutions, not wishes.

    Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

    by AppleP on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 06:15:11 PM PDT

  •  You ask: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BradyB, kurt
    Where is the graph for how many have died since the ACA was denied, primarily in the South?
    Right here:


    Here's how to read it.

    Pick a State that refused Medicaid Expansion -- Texas, for example. Find the number of preventable deaths per 100,000 people of those people denied Medicaid in 2014 -- in Texas, that would be 94.

    Take the population of Texas -- 27,194,258 -- and divide by 100,000. There are 27,194 groups of 100,000 people in Texas.

    Now you multilpy 27,194 by the 94 unnecessary deaths per -- which gives you:

    In the state of Texas 2,556,236 persons were deliberately killed in 2014 by withholding available medical care from them.

    That's 2,556,236 political murders of innocent humans in Texas in 2014.

    You might think that Wendy Davis might make that her signature campaign slogan.

    But she won't. Because it will not work in a place like Texas where the people relish their genocide.

    The US has a eugenics-based health care system -- where the sickest and poorest are killed off each year in massive numbers.

    If the PPACA taught us anything -- that's the way Our Corporate Overlords run the USA.

    And, our Constitution and two-party binary political system are designed to keep it that way.

    Help your children emigrate. Educate them abroad. And the real reason that is imperative can be found in your other four charts.

    Nice work, by the way.

    For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                -- Albert Einstein:  Far left, emo-prog, socialist.

    by Pluto on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:40:26 PM PDT

  •  You appear to have zero understanding of how (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kathy Scheidel, Reaniel

    fiscal policy works.

  •  Excellent diary! T&R. (& a friendly suggestion) (0+ / 0-)

    Wonderful diary! I hope this gets widely circulated.

    Two small editing suggestions, if I may, to help us old codgers see it better:
    Could you print the graphs individually, rather than all four in one jpg? The fine print is hard to see. :-)
    Could you provide subheadings (in bold or numbered) in your text, to make it easy to see where you shift to discussing the next graph? Again, just to make it easier to read.

    Thanks much, very insightful diary! :-)

  •  Awesome timing and coincidence (0+ / 0-)

    I am right now working on updating the 2011 post that is where one of those charts is from, Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law.

    But this time I am including a section on how the austerity this represents has hurt the country!

    Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: @dcjohnson

    by davej on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

  •  Sorry I didn't get to this before the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    comments/recs closed.

    But thanks for saying what needs to be said. News of a recovery has been greatly exaggerated. And completely distorted. For political reasons not beneficial to pursuing and validating the Party platform...

    I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    by Words In Action on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:32:52 AM PDT

  •  I will quibble about NASDAQ, short term (0+ / 0-)

    I'm middle-middle class (maybe the lower edge of middle-middle), and the soaring stock market has done nothing but good for my 401K. Say what one will about 401Ks compared to old-fashioned pensions, but if my overlord corporation folds it does not get to take my 401K with it, whereas the Robber Baron Congress my corporation has helped to buy would be allowed to steal the pension fund.

    The only cure continues to be a constitutional amendment that strips corporations of personhood, speech rights, religious rights, etc., and makes it constitutional to limit campaign $$$. Elements of the right and center also want this kind of amendment so securing it must be one of our principal aims in the coming 10-15 years.

    Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

    by raincrow on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 02:33:30 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site