Obama's N. American agenda hits congressional drag

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    Clinton's virtue with respect to prosperity was that he didn't interfere with economic growth. That cannot be said of Mr. Obama.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Feb. 20, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Yes, happy2bhere, Clinton's time in office produced a wonderful economy, no thanks to "Conservatives" however.

    Clinton's famous budget balancing feats coincided with the dot com boom. You remember the dot com boom, don't you.

    It all started in 1993, when the Internet as we know it, was deployed and made available to the masses. The Clinton administration, recognizing the Internet's vast potential, assigned Vice President Al Gore to promote it as a business conduit, and it caught on fast. Remember the "Information Superhighway?" The Dot Com Boom was on and the economy thrived.

    In conjunction with the tax increase for high earners that Clinton had already pushed through Congress, to the din of squawking Republicans, a considerable portion of those vast dot com profits poured into the Federal Treasury . . . and thus we had balanced budgets and budget surpluses for the first time in decades.

    The Clinton administration made its own luck in SPITE of the obstructions laid down by "Conservatives." Those balanced budgets never would have happened with a "Conservative" Republican President in office.

    BTW, Esquire's observations are accurate.

    Facts are facts.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Actually I really didn't disagree with NAFTA. Ultimately whatever is good for the American economy is good for Americans, as I subscribe to the theory that a rising tide float all boats.
    Clinton by the way is considered a hero of the Democrat Party right now. So, if he did follow the conservatives, it was to his benefit. His is considered a good economy, one that Hillary will undoubtedly campaign on going back to to get elected. She certainly won't try to sell us on continuing with Obamanomics.

    Which brings us to Esquire

    Your pejorative attacks only prove that you have no substance to counter my arguments. Thanks for the win, but then I usually do as I am intellectual not emotional (like most liberals) in my analysis. See you later on another subject.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    @ Mountanman, the oil is intended for export. The pipeline will deliver to a U.S. port. The benefits for the U.S. are overstated and relatively minimal. I respect your views on using less imported oil, but this project won't change that.

    @ happy2bhere, dude, you are all over the map. How about a focused argument with some substance instead of cobbling together Fox talking points. (Even when the GOP agrees, or when it is their idea, they refuse to act. They are playing a game of election maneuvering, not acting in the interests of the nation.) But hey, if it's just about the obsessive hate for Obama, I guess you are getting your way.

  • freedom in 2017 SLC, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    gary o
    Just for your information, barry is running the government by reading polls. surprized you didn't know that.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    Esquire - your comments are right on.

    happy2bhere -

    You say, “. . . polls show [Global Warming] is not even on the top 20 issues American care about . . .”

    So you want to run the government via polls? Kind of like “Dancing with the Stars” huh?
    Do you believe that opinion is shared by most “Conservatives?”

    And you criticize Bill Clinton for approving NAFTA? Me too.

    Clinton resisted at first, but then he succumbed to “Conservative” pressure and approved of NAFTA. He let “Conservatives” get their way again. Bad move in retrospect.

    But what’s the moral of that story?

    . . . NEVER let “Conservatives” get their way.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:54 a.m.


    You seem to forget that the environmental impact study does not show any real danger or damage to the pipeline. And you can't argue that it is not safer than transporting it by other means that more often have spills. Also, a do nothing Congress is merely in the eye of the beholder. Our constitutional system was set up for just that type of government. Too me when our Congress does nothing, and therefore is blocking what I see as bad legislation coming from a bad President, they are not doing nothing, they are doing what I elected them to do. That is why many, even on the left, are calling Obamas recent overreaching executive orders the real danger to the country. I'll bet you don't want a 2016 Republican president to use that power. Well, it might happen. Then what will you say?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    @ Esquire. I never said we are not an oil exporter but we still do import a lot of oil. The Keystone would be good for everyone in America! It would create lots of jobs!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    @ happy2bhere, nice try. The numbers show that the current U.S. House of Representatives (is that clear enough for you?) is the most ineffective, do-nothing Congress in modern U.S. history. Truman's "Do-Nothing" Congress was much more effective.

    The Keystone is all about transporting Canadian tar sand oil to U.S. ports for export. The jobs boost is temporary. It's not a win for the U.S. Nebraska farmers/landowners are losers, and they sued and just won in blocking the pipeline. It's not necessarily the Obama Administration blocking the pipeline. The decisionmaking process is proceeding - it is premature to attack there. The non-oil company folks in the heartland are the ones pushing back.

    Your argument about the House not switching (I agree) and not running for re-election are irrelevant. The Administration can make a decision based on the merits, and the impact of fossil fuel, watersheds, eminent domain and other issues can be considered rather than political gamesmanship. In the end, the pipeline will NOT have benefits for the U.S. of any significant degree other than we are the conduit for Canada's exports.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 8:22 a.m.


    You left out the word "White" when you mentioned the House.

    And, the Keystone is a much safer way to transport oil than ship, railcar, or truck. Also, it means more jobs and growth in GNP. Plus, if we in America make ourselves energy independent and always an exporter of oil, then we can ween ourselves off of caring what happens in the Middle East and that oil mess, which has caused us to go to war over there, as I sure your would agree. To me it's a win/win all around, and would be for Obama. And if there is a President that needs a win right now it is him. He doesn't have to run for re-election again, and even if he keeps the Senate in 2014, no one believes the House is going Democrat. So, this would be about the best Obama could do for the country. Real progress. Not trying to sell the country on global warming, which polls show is not even on the top 20 issues American care about. Jobs and economy are number 1.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    @ Mountanman, we are a net exporter of oil. And the Keystone product is destined for export outside North America. Let's not exagerate the situation.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Congress is a drag on everything. Worst Congress ever, especially the House.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 20, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    Obama is wrong about Keystone, totally wrong! He would rather us buy oil from our enemies abroad and ship it in tankers than buy oil from our neighbors and transfer it in a pipeline in order to create jobs and improve our economy!

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    It's always so interesting that Democrat politicians in Congress don't want the trade agreements with places like Mexico because it might cost domestic jobs, especially union ones. Yet when a Democrat like Clinton or Obama becomes President, they seem to be all for it. It occurs to me that if more of the manufacturing jobs that are currently being done by illegals and low wage immigrant workers were kept in places like Mexico, then there would be less of the illegal immigration problem coming to America. That of course would not be good for future Democrat votes. I understand why both Clinton and Obama face opposition from their own party on this issue. Ironic. The Republicans should get together and go all on for Obama, thus not looking like the "perceived" party of "NO."

  • boneheaded, but not a smidgen SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    barry's agenda is a drag.....on everything and everyone.