Are you better off, just the same, or worse off financially after over three years of Obama?

First the pipeline will not do one thing for us but ruin our water supply if we let them put it through our country and if it did not one drop stays here it goes to China.
The reason Canada wants to run a pipeline is because if they didn't have one then
they would have to ship it to Texas and that cost a lot of money something big oil do not want. People seem to think we are not drilling well right now there is more drilling then
when bush was in but people just do not check the facts for themselves they listen to
the Fox's news telling more lies about the drilling of oil. Obama did the right thing to stop the drilling because of BP and this shows how Obama had the guts to do this.
Today they are back drilling and for those people who think this is going to make the price go down are flat out wrong. Do people really believe that big oil is going to kill the golden goose making billions in just the first quarter? Cheap Canadian Hydrocarbons is
not cheap for us is allowed in and just let them do what they want just ask the people in Nebraska. They found out the this CHEAP PIPELINE was running right through there under ground water supply and they said no to this pipeline. Right now big oil is
doing fracking all over the place and pumping chemicals with thousands of gallons of waster into the ground. Now big oil will not tell us what the chemicals they are
using . They have polluted the water and in some places people are getting sick
and there people who can set the tap water on fire because of this chemicals they use in the ground. One worker lit a cigarette from the water that was coming up from the ground. We can not let big oil just do what they feel like doing and we need to change
the things big oil can do and if we do not then there will be know future for us or the next generation.

Remarkable how Bush opened up exploration and development of all our national resources and the price of oil fell from $140 dollars a barrel to $33 dollars per barrel almost over night. So now you can try another defense for this occupier. You have been mislead on the changes taken place since Obama. He came in and closed down almost all of the areas Bush had opened up for exploration and development. Then there was the Gulf oil spill and that just gave him the excuse to close down the gulf. All that has it's effect on the gas prices. It is Obama's fault. Watch the video really amazing.

http://www.theblaze.com/stori...

http://townhall.com/columnist...

Five dollars per gallon of gas by 2012! A former president of Shell Oil considers this likely. The average price on Christmas Day for a gallon of regular gas reached $3.28 in Los Angeles County, the highest price since October 2008. In one month, the price rose 13 cents, up 35 cents year to year.

Where are the calls to sic Obama's Justice Department on Big Oil to hold the oil companies accountable for "market manipulation"? Why aren't we hunting down the amoral "oil speculators" responsible for repealing the law of supply-and-demand in order to line their pockets?

During President George W. Bush's administration, we constantly heard demands to hold the President accountable for "Big Oil's price gouging." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., just two years ago, knew exactly whom to blame for "skyrocketing" oil prices: "The price of oil is at the doorstep; $4-plus per gallon for oil is attributed to two oilmen in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate."

In 2007, when the average national price ranged from $2.17 to $3.22, then-Sen. Barack Obama demanded that the Federal Trade Commission investigate Big Oil for "price manipulation." In 2008, presidential candidate Obama urged the Justice Department "to open an investigation into whether energy traders have been engaged in illegal activities that have helped drive up the price of oil and food."

Obama also called for "a windfall profits penalty on oil selling at or over $80 per barrel." As of Christmas 2010, a barrel of oil sold at slightly above $90. What happened to the windfall profits tax?

Have you thought that maybe they were using that money to research green energy? After all, doesn't the government have strings tied to that money? You're right about one thing, I can't stand the sucker. GWB had sense enough not to keep throwing good money after bad. This administration does not.

Now on to the auto industry. $58 billion dollars have not been paid back. You need to do your own research. Don't repeat what you hear in the media.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/...

10 fastest American cars

As part of the loan agreement, Chrysler was given until 2017 to return the bailout funds. If it had taken the full term, the interest accrued on the loans could have significantly reduced the government's losses.

Overall, $1.3 billion will not be recovered from the bankrupt Old Chrysler, but Massad still called it a "major accomplishment."

That's because the government originally expected it would lose much more on the auto bailout. Initial estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 2009, predicted the government would lose $40 billion on the overall auto bailout.

Now it estimates, by the time the $80 billion program is completely wrapped up, taxpayers will have lost $14 billion.

The Treasury Department also considers the auto bailout a success because the industry has recently shown signs of a recovery.

http://reason.com/archives/20...

Uncle Sam gave GM $49.5 billion last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy. (If it hadn't, the company, which couldn't raise this kind of money from private lenders, would have been forced into liquidation, its assets sold for scrap.) So when Whitacre publishes a column with the headline, "The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full," most ordinary mortals unfamiliar with bailout minutia would assume that he is alluding to the entire $49.5 billion. That, however, is far from the case.

Because a loan of such a huge amount would have been politically controversial, the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan. (It asked for only a 7 percent interest rate—a very sweet deal considering that GM bonds at that time were trading below junk level.) The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8 percent equity stake in the company—arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return. (The Canadian government likewise gave GM $1.4 billion as a pure loan, and another $8.1 billion for an 11.7 percent equity stake. The U.S. and Canadian government together own 72.5 percent of the company.)

But when Whitacre says GM has paid back the bailout money in full, he means not the entire $49.5 billion—the loan and the equity. In fact, he avoids all mention of that figure in his column. He means only the $6.7 billion loan amount.

But wait! Even that's not the full story given that GM, which has not yet broken even, much less turned a profit, can't pay even this puny amount from its own earnings.

So how is it paying it?

As it turns out, the Obama administration put $13.4 billion of the aid money as "working capital" in an escrow account when the company was in bankruptcy. The company is using this escrow money—government money—to pay back the government loan.