At the gas station.
Gasbuddy.com Historical tracking.
And if you expand that out a little to include all of Bush's presidency, it looks like this.
It's still considerably lower than it was just prior to Obama's inauguration. If we're playing the game where gas prices are directly tied to a presidency, then if anything, Obama's mere presence in the White House magically plummeted gas prices. Apparently it was under $2 for about 6 months.
Not to digress and get caught up on the gas thing, because as I implied, who is in the White House has next to no bearing on gas prices and has far more to do with inflation, supply & demand, and OPEC controlling the price.
I included national parks because I thought some of them extend across state lines. But I agree that states could (and should) be in charge of those as well.
I've come to realize as I've gotten older that the federal government really isn't needed for my everyday activities. Just ensure that no outside force (terrorists, military, disease, etc) is going to prevent me from experiencing outside activities.
And I completely agree with that, at least theoretically.
The less government is involved in my life, the better.
As it relates to this article, however, can you name one president in US history who has practiced this model of government?
Did Reagan cut every single government program besides the military, interstate system and a few other bare necessities?
That's the point of this article, to get back on topic. People pretending that we have Karl Marx in the White House, when in reality the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is the healthcare reform plan, which as stated, is
not the radical privatization of health care that people claim. The government is not taking over the health care industry.
PolitiFact calls that claim the "Lie of the Year".To summarize:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
Next to that, the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is propose "the Buffett Rule" which will only raise taxes for the richest 2% of the country. 98% of the country's taxes remain the same. I know I'm in the 98%, and I'd venture to say that probably everyone on this board is as well. If you make over a million dollars a year, then you have reason to be unhappy with this tax plan. Basically, all this is is a reversal of the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended in 2010). We're not talking the People's Republic of China here.
Aside from an economic socialist, the other thing this article is disputing is that he's some pushover pussy. Tell that to Bin Laden, Gaddafi, and Anwar al-Awlaki. He also sent Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to face a military commission. You still have a chance to ask him, although that window is quickly closing. He's anti-Israel? Tell that to the Israeli military,
whom he sold 55 GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators to (Bunker-Busters as they're called on the skreets), and whom
he stood up for at the UN when Palestine wanted their statehood. I thought he was going to close Guantanamo?
This is the point of the article. That the actual reality of Obama's presidency are a far cry from the generally accepted perception. Facts be damned.
Of course, the article also goes into bashing the liberal critics for saying he's a shill for Wall Street, etc., but since that doesn't pertain to anyone here, that portion of the article was ignored.
210 Replies
37882 Views