Monday, December 31, 2012

Coming Attractions

Well, looks like we made it through 2012. It was a tough year in some ways and a really good one in others. Anyone out there care to make a prediction about things that might happen in the world during the next 365 days?

52 comments:

free0352 said...

Big fat recession.

jim marquis said...

We shall see. I actually think the economy will continue to improve.

free0352 said...

What on Earth makes you think that?

jim marquis said...

Well, for one thing the Dow is going to take big jump tomorrow.

free0352 said...

Avoiding a crash is not growing jack or shit. The ObamaCare taxes are coming and they will hit small business hardest. They will cut to under 30 weekly hours, they will lay off workers and outsource more. Taxes are going to go up, and hence "THE EVIL RICH" will raise prices. Last but not least, this government will likely borrow another 2 trillion by this Summer which will raise prices even more.

You'll see a spike in the DOW in the next few months as people invest their tax returns, but soon enough it will drop, drop, drop. It won't be like last year which was simply stagnant. This year all these new taxes will reap what Democrats have sown.

And that is only if we can avoid a fucking civil war this year thanks to Diane fucking Feinstein. Of course on that I feel more confident, because while Boehner is a pussy he can't afford to piss off the NRA. We've already holding his Speakership over his head and he won't cross us. I bet it never even comes to a debate in the House.

Snave said...

I see:

- Armageddon (JUST KIDDING)

- The dawning of the Age of Aquarius (JUST KIDDING)

- Continued gradual economic recovery for the U.S. (not kidding about this one, or about any of the following items)

- Meaningful spending cuts to Medicare, the military and a number of other things one or both sides hold dear after some actual compromise between left and right, just before the debt ceiling date

- People will still get to keep their guns (don't worry, Free, the NRA has too much power and has too many politicians in its pocket)

- More mass shootings

- People will still get to worship whoever or whatever they want

- Further fracturing of the Republican Party, fueled by dislike of the "tea party" on a national basis and fueled by people blaming them for our national political climate

- A decline in ratings for FOX "News" and its programming, and for Rush Limbaugh and other syndicated right-wing talk show hosts

- A majority of the public will be satisfied with the Affordable Health Care act as more of its provisions start taking hold

- Continued non-involvement by the U.S. in Syria

- Little or no progress on peaceful solutions in the Middle East region, and not due to lack of trying on the part of the U.S.

- Continued winding down of military operations in Afghanistan

- More economic problems in Europe that will affect our stock market, but the stock market will finish 2013 about where it started 2013

- Another major storm or two of the magnitude of Sandy

- The price of gasoline continues to go down, gets below $3 a gallon

- Republicans and Democrats who are already running for the 2016 presidency will get skewered and will take themselves out of the race early

- More intransigence from the Republicans in the House will contribute to large amounts of money donated to Democratic House candidates for 2014.

And to make us forget about the "left versus right" stuff here at home for a bit:

- A serious action of some kind will be taken against Iran over their development of nukes, possibly including military action

jim marquis said...

Wow, great list there, Snave. What makes you think the price of gas will go down below where it is now?

Steve said...

My predictions for 2013:

1) Democrats, on seeing that raising taxes on the top 2% does nothing for out-of-control spending, will insist that additional taxation is necessary.

1a) Unfortunately, even with the higher taxes, the government will still continue to take in the same percentage of GNP- which hasn't changed regardless of whether the tax rates were as high as 90% post-WWI (or was that WW2?) or at their lowest point.

1b) Democrats are going to continue to be pig-ignorant that if you tax 100% of those making 250k+ it still will not cover the CURRENT government outlays. We don't have a taxation problem- we have an out-of-control government spending problem.

1c) More people will be laid off or have their hours cut so that businesses do not have to cover all of the Obamacare mandates- except for those that have one of the 12,000 waivers like the public unions or the state of Massachusetts.

2) Assault Guns will be the target of our more liberal members of Congress, even though they can't name the last time a true assault rifle was used in a mass shooting. And, they will continue to refuse to acknowledge that in those communities that you take guns away (Chicago), the violent crime rate jumps dramatically.

2a) They will also be completely blind to those situations where those with concealed carry permits have completely stopped or lessened a violent crime taking place, regardless of the number of YouTube videos showing exactly that.

2b) They will also refuse to acknowledge that the only people who follow the laws are not the lawbreakers, who will get their hands on guns- leaving the law-abiding ripe for the picking.

3) The economy will continue to "improve" at the worst recovery rate from ANY recession in this nation's history.

3a) Republicans will be blamed for not giving Obama everything he wanted, even though history has PROVEN that his economic policies DO NOT WORK, and have NEVER worked.

4) Small businesses, hardest hit by the taxes raised by Obama, will close their doors or cut their hours to the point that more people have to take the government option for health care.

4a) Of course, we all know how efficient the government is at anything- so costs will skyrocket more than the 20% that health care costs have risen in the LAST 4 years.

5) Obama will fill 2 Supreme Court seats.

But, you keep on with those rainbows and unicorns, Jim. Perhaps one day you'll get smart- but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

-- S.

clif said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
clif said...

1) Democrats, on seeing that raising taxes on the top 2% does nothing for out-of-control spending, will insist that additional taxation is necessary.

Nice clairvoyance, but no actual proof except for right wing talking points on this one.

The out of control. spending includes handing oil corps lots of tax payers money to pump oil, even though they have made record profits doing so.

It also includes billions of aid for countries which are much better fiscally to pay for their own defence programs, and putting their troops on the line instead of ours.

Nice tax right off and perks like corporate jets, etc. which would help trim the deficits Bush et all, ran up AFTER scuttling the Clinton plan to PAY DOWN THE DEBT, after he had already balanced the budget. Rememberer Greenspan carrying GOper water telling the GOper controlled congress paying off the Government debt was a bad idea??????

Greenspan Was Worried that the U.S. Would Pay Off It’s Debt, Causing the Fed to “Lose Control of Monetary Policy” … So He Suggested Tax Cuts for the Wealthy to INCREASE the Debt

It's the right wingers who run up the debt then lie and blame it on the democratic party like YOU are here.

The country was on the path to fiscal sanity UNTIL the Bush administration decided to destroy that.

Thar is a fact.

clif said...

More people will be laid off or have their hours cut so that businesses do not have to cover all of the Obamacare mandates-

No proof at all just right wing factiods from their rectoids.


except for those that have one of the 12,000 waivers like the public unions or the state of Massachusetts.

You mean the state that already has a program to fully implement a health care option that The Affordable Health Care Act is implementing to the other 49 states? Or are you suggesting the cranius up the rectus idea of scrapping their plan and then implementing almost the exact same plan from scratch?

clif said...

Your gun fetish is duly noted,

Enjoy stroking yer gun.

clif said...

The economy will continue to "improve" at the worst recovery rate from ANY recession in this nation's history.

Lets see, the GOper wall street idea of outsourcing good paying middle class jobs for the last 30 years combined with replacing those jobs with minimum wage jobs which pay less means those who used to fuel the economy, the expanding middle class is shrinking.

Shrinking middle class, means less spending over all, which means less ability for the economy to grow, combines with extravagant expenditures for the optional wars Bush decided to fight, like instead of going into Afghanistan in 2001, sending in all the troops necessary to actually get Bin Laden and then coming home, means he added trillions to the debt with his ill advised tax cuts and war costs at the very same time.

add this to the stupid idea of allowing no real over sight of the wall street crazies and goons who trashed the world s economy, and you'll find the same result in 2008 the GOpers achieved in 1929. the only difference was what was left of the safety net allowed people not to lose most everything at the same levels proportional to how bad 1929-32 was.

clif said...

#a, History has proven two things time and time again.

A consumer based economy cannot co-exist with a political structure that places the demands of the wealthiest above the needs of the poor and middle class, because those are the people who actually fuel the true consumer economy.

Tax cuts do not create jobs other wise the tax increase of 1993 would not have resulted in 22 million new jobs over the next 8 years, and Bush's ill advised tax cuts would not have only produced a paltry million jobs over the same time period.

Out sourcing helps the Wall Street barons and corporations like Walmart, but destroy the job base the middle class was built on since the Great Depression. the middle class grew UNTIL Reagan's clown posse changed the rules and then the middle class stagnated, till the late Bush admin when they have been losing ground ever since. It is the policies to help just the highest income levels at the expense of both the poor and middle class the GOpers follow and demand as the only option, which is destroying the foundations of the US economy.

Until we change course to policies that build the middle class and aid the poor to get a leg up into the middle class, the economic gutting of the country will not stop.

clif said...

Of course, we all know how efficient the government is at anything

US Government operates Medicare at cost structure levels private insurers cannot, they demand additional tax payers money to do the same thing, at a higher costs.

The US government in DOD before privatising most of their non military ops, and some military ops did so at a much lower costs to the tax payer.

Black water could have never recruited 18 year old teens off the street and given them the training and experience the US military did, and the US military p[aid much less which is why many e-5 6's quit serving to cash in, and the DOD footed the bill.

The government can save money on many many things, but GOpers don't get to put their snouts in the GOper welfare piggy trough, so they demand privatisations, and never ask what the costs, after implemented.

Your GOper talking point is not aligned with the facts history provides.

Simple economics, not for profit organisations doing the exact same thingy, always have lower costs then any for profit organisations. the difference is called the profit.

clif said...

Obama will fill 2 Supreme Court seats.

You better hope they are only Ginsberg, and Breyer, not either Thomas, or Scalia ......

If he gets three the right wing majority is over there also.

clif said...

BTW there is one thing that isn't on anyone's radar, but that will change the foreign policy of this country quite soon;

Hugo Chavez conscious and aware of 'complex' condition

Hugo Chavez is conscious and fully aware of how "complex" his condition remains three weeks after difficult cancer surgery in Havana.


He isn't doing very well, especially if his kidneys are shutting down.

A change of leadership there will have ripple effects both in the local region, and possibly with how we and Venezuela interact diplomatically.

One of the wild cards of 2013.

Steve said...

Clif:
If you tax, at 100%, those making 250,000 or more, you don't approach what the government is spending.

What was the entire Democratic meme throughout the election season? "The rich should pay their fair share" - with no hard numbers, no definition of fair, etc.

Let's take a look at Federal government spending:
Pensions: 0.9 trillion, 23%
Health Care: 0.9 trillion, 24%
Defense: 0.9 trillion, 24%
Welfare: 0.4 trillion, 11%
Remainder: 18%.

So- Pensions, Health Care, and Welfare (all social programs, none of them enumerated in the Constitution of the United States) account for 58% of the Federal Government outlay, while Defense (which IS enumerated in the Constitution) doesn't reach half that amount. Which one does Obama want cut again? All together now: Defense.

The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (I refuse to call it Obamacare, as Reid and Pelosi were the driving forces behind it)- well, since passage, health care costs have gone up 20% on the average family. Wasn't this supposed to drive DOWN health care costs? Hasn't the Congressional Budget Office continued to raise the 'price' of the AHCA-2010 since inception?

As far as Republicans driving up the deficit... odd, things were not doing THAT badly under Bush II until the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. After that, it was like cutting an artery how spending went out of control. If you remember the latter half of 2008, the (D) House and (D) Senate passed a whole hell of a lot of continuing resolutions so that government would continue to function. President Obama actually signed the 2009 budget in March 2009 (the last budget the Senate has actually approved, as a matter of fact... they haven't voted on a single budget coming out of the House of Representatives in the last 4 years.)

As far as laying people off or cutting down hours- not "right wing factiods from their rectoids", but actual, honest reports of what CEOs will have to do in order to avoid the more onerous 'mandates' of the AHCA of 2010. (Maybe that's why health care costs have gone up- because 2500 pages of laws requires health care organizations to hire more lawyers than health care providers).

I don't own a firearm, nor do I have a gun fetish. Nice avoiding the facts (Chicago, the violent crime rate has gone up) on this one.

I could go on disputing your 'disputes', but it's rather obvious you're getting high off of the promise of rainbows and unicorns and refuse to take a good, long look at what is REALLY going on in this country (and insist on blaming everything on those of an ideological bent different than yourself.)

Put down the glue, Clif.

Steve said...

Oh- and by the way- under Reagan's policies, the middle class INCREASED their economic outlook. Guess it had something to do with less than 6% unemployment. Of course, we won't see that under this President- not with Democratic control of the Senate (refusing to pass any House budgetary bill).

Snave said...

I think gas prices will continue to go down because we will soon be the largest producer of oil, and because they have steadily been going down for quite a while. Of course there will be a point where that will stop, but I think there is still a ways to go.

I love how so many conservatives were blaming Obama for high gasoline prices. Sure, prices have been going down since Obama was re-elected, but they were already going down prior to Election Day.

Lowering gas prices will do nothing to get people to stop burning fossil fuels, but if lower prices increase use and thus create a demand for more oil, there will more drilling/fracking/etc. for more oil. And quite a bit of it will be exported too... so all around, that's more dollars for the oil companies, I'd guess. And I suppose more jobs for people who want that work.

So as it continues to boom a bit, I think prices will go down a bit more. The lowest they'll get? Who knows, but I'm guessing under $3 a gallon.

Snave said...

Also, I forgot about the Supreme Court Justices. I would agree that Obama will appoint two, and I think they will be moderates who get approved without a whole lot of difficulty.

I'm waiting for a conservative response about how any appointees from Obama won't be anything but liberals, but then I remind myself that's what I thought about John Roberts when he was approved... "This guy won't be anything but a rubber stamp for conservative causes."

Guess I was wrong on that one, eh. 8-) I thank him a little bit every day for his decision on the Affordable HEalth Care act. Now if he had just thought a little differently on a couple of others... LOL!

But I think you really never know how some of the SC nominees are going to turn out, so making blanket assumptions about how someone would turn out if nominated by president so-and-so? Pretty much pointless.

free0352 said...

He may appoint some Judges, but none of them will be seats currently held by Republicans.

We'll drag them in on hospital beds tied to their oxygen machines first.

clif said...

things were not doing THAT badly under Bush II until the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.

show how little you know about real economics,

Goldman Sachs saw the writing on the wall in 2005 and began buying derivatives to bet AGAINST the economy.
so did quite a few other long term investors who knew the wall street created bubble had to go bust.

clif said...

PS numbnuts, the US Constitution gives the US Congress the power of the purse, to include spending, since they have it,

... c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l-l-y .... ,


The legal US Government entities they created which the US Supreme Court has NOT defined as unconstitutional, means all the things you screech ain't consti-toosional, really are, dippy shi-ite.

free0352 said...

You can choose to drink poison. It doesnt mean you should.

Steve said...

Clif, bills raising revenue (ie: taxation) is to originate in the House of Representatives, ratified by the Senate, and then finally on to the President's desk.

Guess you missed all of Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

Oh- and guess what? the Senate has called to the floor every single Annual Budget as proposed by the House of Representatives. Until 2009, that is- and not since.

Calling me a... what was the phrase- a dippy shi-ite- is just you looking into the mirror and projecting your own inadequacies when it comes to knowing what it is you're talking about.

----

Reagan: Started one of the largest periods of average median wealth across all ethnicities that has, for the most part, grown. This leveled out in 2000 (staying stagnant), and then started a definitive nose-dive under Barack. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2011.PNG)

----

Snave: Gas prices were at thier lowest point in November 2008. Man, how I wish we had $1.61 per gallon again... actually had someone CHEERING pre-election that the gas prices were going down to $3.20 per gallon- until I pointed out that they were double what they were when Barack took office. At which point, he deleted my comments to his cheers from his Facebook wall. (Guess he couldn't handle the truth any better than clif.)

(http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=us)

-- S.

clif said...

Clif, bills raising revenue (ie: taxation) is to originate in the House of Representatives,

So you admit the president doesn't spend one red cent the House doesn't authorise?

Good for you dippy shi-ite.

We are getting somewhere.

clif said...

As for gas prices here is a chart from 1919-2011

If you look the rapid rise started in the second half of 2002, was stalled and fell during the wall street melt down when their world wide investment games bubble burst, but since mid 2009 has resumed upwards at about the same pace.

One very important chart to compare this to is a chart of the actual crude plus condensate production world wide.

This chart will do


Notice a different rate between the 1995 rise to 2004, and the almost lack of rising production from 2005 to today.

Comparing the charts produces a simple fact.

When the planet could keep producing more and more crude oil each year, prices were relatively stable, and when the pattern of year over year production ceased, price rose.

some interesting facts about production are interesting,

The North Sea fields (Brent) started peaking in the late 1990's and have been in decline ever since.

The Cantrell Field (Mexico) peaked around 2004 and has been declining also.

Prudhoe Bay (Alaska) peaked in 1998.

Nothing any where near their size has been discovered let alone ready to produce crude oil the life blood of the modern industrial state and worlds economy.

However the population of the planet is still increasing with quite a much larger number of people on the planet with the economic where with all to buy the oil and products produced from it, which means price must rise top level demand with supply.

Two very important facts must be considered.

1. No field currently under development can produce reliably at the rate the declining fields used to produce. This includes both oil sands and fracked shale deposits. Both those newer sources have much higher costs of production then the way the Texans and Saudis produced oil for decades, drill a hole and watch the oil flow.


This has a very direct influence on the price oil can come to market, which is going to relate to the price any product of oil costs. $1, $2 gas is gone. In fact in a few years the good old days of $3.50 gas will be remembered fondly.

The price will keep rising as long as more people are competing for the same amounts of oil year after year, and when Ghawar (Saudi Arabia) the largest oil field ever discovered goes into decline, which some think is either very close or happening right now, the rapid rise in prices will simply escalate.

clif said...

2. No drill baby drill is gonna ever get the US out of the hole we are in cause we have produced the largest fields here in the last century, and none exist that can fill in fast enough, or with enough product at the rate we need for our economy. BTW Reagan tried it back in the very early 80's, spend billions having the Oil Corps drill lots of dry wells in the lower 48.

Want to see the Chart for US production.

Here it is

Notice how far we have fallen from the US peak in 1971. The second lower peak in the mid to late 1980's was from both off shore Gulf Oil and Prudhoe bay. which helped stroke the US economic recovery much more than any politician ever did.


That small up tick is everything 2009 forward is what everyone thinks will save us???? Not likely. But that is Bakken oil, which cannot over come the declines of the lower 48, off shore gulf, and Prudhoe Bay.

We ain't gonna get enuf crude oil in the future to keep the planets economy growing at the rate it grew for the last 160 years. we are starting to hit the ceiling of production of crude, which means either we find a different source of energy to power the economy, or admit we have to as a planet to live with less: IE stagnant then shrinking economy world wide.

That is what we currently have right now no matter what ideology is followed, or economic system is used.

It isn't a political problem, but a problem of Physics, Chemistry and Geology. No economic gamesmanship or political hijinks can over come the physical laws we know rule the planet.

free0352 said...

We're the Saudi Arabia of coal. We could cure high energy costs tomorrow if the administration would abandon it's green energy pipe dream and take real steps to free us of petroleum dependence. Coal based liquid fuel is the answer. They already do it in many countries.

Steve said...

Clif, note that when I correct you on your serious lack of reality, you fall back to name-calling, saying I'm a dippy shi-ite. There's no need for that; let's keep it respectful and civil (if at all possible.)

----

(3 Jan, 12:12 am): Medicare may operate at cost structure levels private insurers cannot- becuase private insurers MUST follow strictures put in place by the federal, state, and local governments (while Medicare does not have to). In addition, Medicare does not cover half of what other private insurers do, 'dictates' (not negotiates) prices to their liking, and take forever to pay (sometimes up to 6 months past the procedure, according to friends of mine in the health care industry). There's a reason that doctors are now refusing new patients due to whether or not they have Medicare.

Since you are so against for-profit organizations- do you work? Who pays your living wage? Must not be a for-profit organization. YOU must be non-profit, yourself, right? Or, do you depend upon government handouts for your housing, your food, your fuel, your heating, your entertainment, etc?

----

(3 Jan, 3:14pm) Goldman-Sachs started betting against the U.S. Economy in 2005. Funny, George Bush and John McCain raised Fannie & Freddie in 2003, while Schumer and Frank were voraciously defending it. Congress was taken over by the Democrats in 2006, who continued to say "Everything is fine, nothing to see here" - up until the housing market burst, leading to the second-longest depression since the Great Depression. The recession is the second-longest on record. The economic collapse happened due to Democratic policies, and continues to fall further into the hole due to Democratic policies.

You can't borrow your way out of debt- yet that is exactly the position that this Presidency (and Congress) espouses. When the Federal Government spends 1 Trillion dollars more than it takes in through taxes (and needs to borrow the money from other countries, such as China), then insists that 'the rich aren't paying their fair share'- well, if you tax those making 250,000+ a year at 100%, and it still will not cover what the Federal Government puts out every year, perhaps it's not a taxing problem, but a spending problem.

-----

(3 Jan, 3:19 pm; 3 Jan, 11:17 pm)

Here, we show a complete lack of understanding on your part. Note that I said that, of all the various branches, the House of Representatives is responsible for raising revenue, and point out exactly where it enumerates that: Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States.

You respond with "So you admit the President doesn't spend one red cent the House doesn't authorise (sic)?" -- here is your comprehension challenge; I was talking raising revenue, and you turn it around to spending- and then you go off calling me the "dippy shi-ite". Once again- stop projecting.

(continued)

Steve said...

(4 Jan, 12:03 am)

The BP oil spill happens; the Department of Energy unilaterally closes down all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. To date, they've not granted more than 15 permits for us to start up production there.

What they HAVE done is spend billions on oil production- for Venezuela and Brazil. What they HAVE done is shut down the Canada-to-US oil pipeline, for the crude oil to reach our refineries. With POLITICAL decisions like this, of course no amount of physics, chemistry, or geology is going to increase oil production.

Heck, if your side allowed for drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago, our gas prices may have been lower than when President Obama won the election in 2008 ($1.61, if you followed the URL I provided above).

Please, enlighten me how closing the Gulf of Mexico and stopping the pipeline will help put Americans back to work? Enlighten me how this will help to keep our gas prices low?

Please enlighten me how putting stranglehold regulations on our coal industry helps keep energy prices low? Please enlighten me how backing failed technologies (solar panels) and high cost to low output energy technologies (wind) helps our energy prices?
You can't, so I'm imagining another round of name-calling and skirting the issue.

-- S.

clif said...

I was talking raising revenue, and you turn it around to spending-

Dippy shi-ite all the revenue they raise is for spending, thaty is how the constitution lays out the funding of the government.

clif said...

What they HAVE done is shut down the Canada-to-US oil pipeline, for the crude oil to reach our refineries.

Yo dippy shi-ite, crude already reaches US refineries, just not the gulf coast so it can be sold on the world market at much higher prices then the mid west refineries that already refine it pay.

Nice right wing lie you told there.

clif said...

Heck, if your side allowed for drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago, our gas prices may have been lower than when President Obama won the election in 2008 ($1.61, if you followed the URL I provided above).

Pure unadulterated right wing bullshit here.

The price of gas is directly tied to the price of oil numbnuts, and the small amounts Anwar can contribute to the planets economy isn't enough to forestall the inability to find LARGE fields which produce at rates fast enough to return to the era of raising production.

BYW dippy shi-ite, where do ya thunk the oil from Alaska's north slop[e actually goes?

To the highest bidder on the world market.

In fact as amazing as it might seem, some of the oil refined in Alaska comes from;

Petroleum products being sold by Alaska producers, even within our state, may come from other countries altogether. The list is long: Canada, Iraq, the Arab Gulf, Mexico, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, Angola, Australia, Russia.

Why you might ask when alaska has more oil production in their state then they use?

Well the oil market is a world wide market with each tanker going top the highest bidder for each contract for oil.

Sometimes the oil refineries in Alaska get out bidded for Alaskan Oil and have to go on the worlds market to get the oil they need to refine for sake in the state .

The EXACT same thin g will happen if and when the keystone pipe line is build all the way to the gulf coast.

Here is a map that exposes the LIE you told about no pipelines for canadian crude to reach US markets;

Map

The pipeline they want is directly to gulf refineries but more important to export markets which will actually RAISE the price citizens of the USDA pay for gas because like Alaskan Oil they will be bidding against the entire planet for it.

The USA currently gets Canadian oil, ALL OF IT, except for what Canada uses of course, the keystone plan is to force the US to bid against the world, simple as that.

clif said...

enlighten me how closing the Gulf of Mexico and stopping the pipeline will help put Americans back to work?

The first half your screeching is because the oil corps were irresponsible with their safety measures, and we don't need another disaster like the gulf coast under went, which cause quite a bit of economic damage, not to mention the ecological damage.

Tell the oil corps to stop photo copying plans that don't work and come up with one that do, and they will have the same access they had before the disaster their incompetence and greed created.


The second is a LIE, which I have proven.

clif said...


Please enlighten me how putting stranglehold regulations on our coal industry helps keep energy prices low?


no stranglehold dippy shi-ite.

Just the simple economic fact that the industries in the US that USED to use coal are switching to a less costly CLEANER energy resource. Have been for years and will continue.

clif said...

Since you are so against for-profit organizations- do you work?

Never said that, nice way to try to twist what I said dishonestly.

Like the LIE you told about the keystone pipeline, you want to create a strawman argument to get to the right wing extremist talking points.

Quit LYING

clif said...

if you tax those making 250,000+ a year at 100%,

see another statement NOBODY is proposing so your can dishonestly create a strawman argument.

Why are you so dishonest?

clif said...

Please enlighten me how backing failed technologies (solar panels)

NASA and DOD would disagree with your dishonest statement here,

So would the Germans, Danes and lots of other people not stuck on right wing stupidity and lies.

clif said...

high cost to low output energy technologies (wind)

I wonder if T. Boone Pickens, and the sates of Iowa, Indiana California and Texas would agree with your less then honest statement, since all of them have invested and get a portion of their energy from the wind. sometimes over 25% of a daily need for the state ... like Texas recently achieved.

clif said...

The economic collapse happened due to Democratic policies, and continues to fall further into the hole due to Democratic policies.

No proof unless your deluded enough to accept the right wing lies and spin they use to try to ignore the 30 years of right wing ideology which have resulted in the very same economic conditions that happened the last time extreme right wingers ideology ran the county, 1920-1932.

Steve said...

Clif, once again all you can do is launch personal attacks. This goes more towards your character; I have sympathy for those of you in your life. So much for your "inclusiveness"; anyone reading this thread can see the amount of vitriol and hatred you're spewing. Anyone who knows anything about economic policy (which I do) knows who is lying, and it isn't me. I actually feel sympathy for those in your life; you're one angry and insulting SOB.

Fact: Gas prices are almost double what they were when Obama took office. Undeniable.

Fact: Opening up ANWAR would have have put more crude oil out there, which would have lowered prices- regardless of where it was sold to. (Duh!)

Fact: Approving the pipeline would have resulted in 25,000 new, sustainable jobs (maintenance, manufacturing, etc.)

Fact: The Housing Market is what burst, leading to our latest recession. In 2003, Bush II and McCain tried to raise red flags, but these concerns were pooh-pooh'd away by Frank and Schumer.

Fact: You can't spend your way out of bankruptcy- but that's what this President and Democratic congress wants to do.

Fact: The cost-per-kilowatt is lowest for nuclear, coal, and gas. Solar and Wind have never produced the same cost-per-kilowatt, even with 35+ years of subsidies (Carter was the first President I am personally aware of that wanted to push Wind farms and solar panels)- and it won't be in the near future. Economics aside, putting US taxpayer dollars into companies that file for bankrupty (!) isn't a solid investment, but that's what's happened under this POTUS.

FACT: As for the BP Oil Spill- the US Government HAS spent money for companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, those are Brazilian companies, not US companies. (Of course, drilling in less than 5,000 feet of water would be a heck of a lot safer- but your side won't allow for such considerations, will they?)

Fact: I was just expanding the "for profit" margin. Since you're so anti-profit, you must have your way completely paid for by the government. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime; pay a man's housing, food, medical, entertainment, he votes Democratic for the rest of his life.

-- S.

Steve said...

Oh- and by the way, Clif- the policies I follow are not "right wing lies", but common sense. You can't spend your way out of bankruptcy; you have to make your own way in the world because no one owes you anything; don't continue to throw good money after bad.

If these sound like "right wing talking points" to you, perhaps that's due to your own position being so far to the left that you're giving minute-by-minute proctology exams to Keith Olbermann.

-- S.

clif said...

Gas prices are almost double what they were when Obama took office. Undeniable.

Right, because the oil corps cannot bring more crude to market WORLD WIDE even with prices higher then they have been in any ones lifetime.

It isn't a very hard concept to understand, with all the money they have even had, they cannot drill enough holes in the right places to make the crude that isn't there to come outa the ground, any where on the planet, it isn't something the president can do much about since the rise began in 2004 and has only interrupted when the entire planets economy crashed.

Not a political thing even though YOU dishonestly try to make it one.


It is a question of how much they can produce, and crude plus condensate has not risen enough to keep pace with demand so prices rise,

You do understand the law of supply and demand, and the fact oil which gas is made from is fungible, IE sold on a world wide market to the highest bidder.

Gasoline prices track oil prices, and given the fact crude extraction is a world wide phenomenon, your less than honest attempt to blame President Obama for the rise is simply ridicules except for those extreme right wingers who blame everything bad on him, no matter the real cause.

Your fact is true, just not the insinuation your trying to make from it.

clif said...

Opening up ANWAR would have have put more crude oil out there, which would have lowered prices- regardless of where it was sold to.

Not really.

Quote;

The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have any significant impact on world oil prices. [25] Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. "The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

"Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."


Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Report #: SR-OIAF/2008-03

Released Date: May 2008 when G W Bush was president ..........

Funny when facts from the government when George W Bush was running it, are introduced how your talking point shrinks to just another bit of right wing propaganda.

A dollar and a half per barrel on $100 per barrel, heck a few puts or calls will erase that one on the oil market.

clif said...

Approving the pipeline would have resulted in 25,000 new, sustainable jobs (maintenance, manufacturing, etc.)

Nice way to try to avoid the reason they oil corps want the pipeline, and ignore the LIE you told.


IE What they HAVE done is shut down the Canada-to-US oil pipeline, for the crude oil to reach our refineries.

This map shows that is a LIE.

see all the pipelines going to the black dots, which are the refineries in the US that refine crude from Canada.

Now see the green doted line that goes directly to the gulf ports ........... that is the pipeline they want to build, which goes around LOTS of refineries for some reason.


The blue doted line alternate routes to get the oil to world markets outside the US if the Keystone pipeline isn't built.


Your sudden change from we cannot get the oil to refine to it's the jobs shows the deceptive way you want to twist the facts because you know you got caught red handed lying.


Screech all you want about the way I call you on it, but you lied and I called you on it with the facts to prove it.

clif said...

The Housing Market is what burst, leading to our latest recession.

Yes except you leave out the dishonesty way wall street used that market to create investment products, which were not worth what wall street and the rating agencies claimed they were, which resulted in trillions in losses when the truth of how much wall street had lied came out.

Which is why I pointed out the simple fact Goldman Sachs KNEW they were selling here;

Timberwolf Continues To Stalk Goldman Sachs

On April 17, 2007, BYAFM purchased Point Pleasant securities with a face value of $15 million (with a unit price of $81.72) for $12,258,000. BYAFM and Goldman entered into a Repurchase Facility under which Goldman could make a margin call if it decreased its mark (unit price) on the Point Pleasant securities. On April 27, 2007, Goldman made a margin call on BYAFM for $3.2 million, $3.091 million of which was attributed to the Point Pleasant securities. When BYAFM questioned the margin call, Goldman revised it down to $700,000, with approximately $600,000 attributable to Point Pleasant, reflecting a drop in the unit price of the Point Pleasant securities to $76.72. After further discussions between Goldman and BYAFM, Goldman further revised the margin call to $35,000 based on the representation that the decrease in the unit price was due to a system error. Shortly thereafter, Goldman reported that there was no margin call and that the unit price was still at the purchase price level. In response to an email on May 21, 2007, in which BYAFM inquired about Goldman’s valuation of Point Pleasant, [GS salesman] Maltezos wrote “For end April, these were marked at the same level [BYAFM] bought the bonds at, i.e. 82-23 (81.71875%).” On June 12, 2007, Goldman made another margin call on BYAFM and indicated that the unit price had decreased to $75. Maltezos told BYAFM that “the 75 mark for end-May is the first adjustment we’ve made since you bought the bonds.” BYAFM alleges that Goldman did previously lower its internal mark on the Point Pleasant securities, but withdrew the margin calls to give BYAFM a false sense of security so that Goldman could induce BYAFM to buy more toxic securities that Goldman sought to offload.”

Notice the date, April 2007, long before the crash?

They were selling CDO investments they KNEW were not worth what they claimed, and then selling shorts on those very investments.

No Fannie/Freddie involved at all in this even though you want to try to use that right wing talking point top move from Wall street who originated this type of scam to something you right wingers want to attack for ideological reasons.

Then screech when called on it, well TFB

clif said...

You can't spend your way out of bankruptcy- but that's what this President and Democratic congress wants to do.

NO bozo, the real history is President Clinton had a plan in effect to pay down the debt.

The republicans after 2001 didn't want to do that, so they scuttled that plan and then used tax cuts top further in-debt the government, and of course two war off the books for seven years didn't help either.

Then when the planets economy goes belly up because of the ignorant shenanigans of wall street, far right extremists want to do nothing, no matter the severe damage, like how the screech about helping the people from Hurricane Sandy.

The two ways out of the situation is One return to the way Bill Clinton had set up to pay down the debt, and then help grow jobs so more revenues are available,

and TAX CUTS do not create jobs that one has been proven.

But infrastructure improvements do, given the need all across the country millions of them.

New technologies that are sustainable do, they create jobs that can be sustained.

No off shoring good paying middle class jobs, both help the economy and government revenue problems.

That is how you get out of bankruptcy, instead of ripping the fabric of the society to shreds so a few hundred thousand people can get richer and richer.

clif said...

Economics aside, putting US taxpayer dollars into companies that file for bankrupty (!) isn't a solid investment, but that's what's happened under this POTUS.

You mean like battery maker A123 Systems which Bush gave money to in 2007.

Or do you mean Solyndra, the company the Bush administration helped for two years before President Obama took office. In fact, the Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office. Oh yea the Walton Family was putting money into the company before the Chinese dumped their solar panels on the market causing a steep price decrease, and the resulting bankruptcy.

A few facts you left out.

clif said...

As for the BP Oil Spill- the US Government HAS spent money for companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.Unfortunately, those are Brazilian companies, not US companies.

Funny how you try to link the BP spill with US moneys, instead to the fact BP, Transocean and Haliburton all failed disastrously in the necessary due diligence to prevent the disaster.



(Of course, drilling in less than 5,000 feet of water would be a heck of a lot safer- but your side won't allow for such considerations, will they?)

I'm not sure your statement is true,

Since oil leak, rigs return to work but few new wells being drilled

July 10, 2012

In June, the number of drilling rigs operating in the federal waters off Louisiana’s coast climbed to its highest level in three years, although industry members say most of that activity is taking place in water depths of less than 500 feet.

“The trend in the Gulf as a whole is positive. The rigs are returning. The rigs that left the Gulf are returning. Companies are rehiring people that they had to let go,” said Nicolette Nye, a spokeswoman for the National Ocean Industries Association.

In mid-June, figures from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources showed 46 rigs were operating in federal waters off the state’s coast. Nineteen of those rigs were working in water at least 500 feet deep.


Hmmm seems your statement is certainly NOT TRUE is it???


Forbes also disagrees with your less than true statement;

Recent Rise In Shallow-Water Oil Drilling At Gulf Of Mexico Producing New Opportunities

In the search for exciting energy investment plays, the Gulf of Mexico still remains a hive of activity that gushes huge oil money. But the opportunities have narrowed, mostly to the major oil exploration companies — and most of them are no longer as undervalued as they once were.

But one sector in the Gulf that has become more active with a number of little-known companies participating is in oil drilling in the shallow waters, as opposed to deep-sea exploration where Big Oil remains dominant.

Shallow-water drilling activity has recently mushroomed as demand has started to spiral amid scant supply of drillers, dominated mainly by mid-and small-cap oil drilling companies.

That has drawn extra-attention to Hercules Offshore(HERO), a provider of shallow-water drilling and marine services to the oil and gas exploration and production industry mainly in the Gulf of Mexico. Day rates for drilling equipment have started to rise following the increase in demand from shallow-water operators, says John Keller, analyst at investment firm Stephens, in Little Rock, Arkansas.


Seems that your statement doesn't line up with the facts, reality or investors ........

Not true, sorta a lie I would think, if I didn't know you would never do that :^)

clif said...

Since you're so anti-profit

Never said that at all.

Nice way to create a dishonest straw man argument when you dishonestly try to put words in my statements I did not.


pay a man's housing, food, medical, entertainment, he votes Democratic for the rest of his life.

why is it then the fact blue states like NY, NJ, Mass and California send more money to the federal government then they receive back, but red states like most of the former confederacy receive much more then they send,

Sorta turns your little jingle on it's pointy little head doesn't it skippy?