Here comes Obama The Blamer. Blame Bush, Blame oil companies:
In his weekly address to the nation Saturday, Obama sought to redirect consumers’ anger with his administration to anger with Congress for allowing companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron to receive $4 billion from the federal government every year.
“Your member of Congress should be fighting for you. Not for big financial firms. Not for big oil companies,” Obama claimed.
“In the next few weeks, I expect Congress to vote on ending these subsidies,” he continued. “And when they do, we’re going to put every single Member of Congress on record: They can either stand up for oil companies, or they can stand up for the American people.”
Lefties think ending these subsidies wouldn’t force the oil companies to raise gas prices because big oil already makes so much money. Really? Their net profit margin is 7.9%. Out of all the industries they rank 91st in profits out of 216 industries listed.
The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available…That figure also doesn’t count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business.
Not paying their “fair share”? Here’s a staggering fact: The Tax Foundation estimates that, between 1981 and 2008, oil and gas companies sent more dollars to Washington and the state capitols than they earned in profits for shareholders.
…As for the “subsidies” that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren’t direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They’re deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.
Hmmmm, how about those green subsidies? Now those are real subsidies with millions of dollars in cash handed over without any due diligence and when those companies go belly up the tax payers are left holding the bag:
…Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.
The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.
Any whining from Obama about giving subsidies to GE? Google?
How about ACORN?
If eliminating government subsidies for oil companies might make gas less expensive, why wouldn’t eliminating government subsidies for General Electric make, say, refrigerators cheaper? Wait, the latter subsidies are for “green” projects so they’re okay.
Hell, GE made about $14 billion dollars in profit last year, and paid very little in taxes:
A new analysis issued this week by the nonprofit, liberal advocacy group says that based on GE’s annual report for 2011 — filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last Friday — the industrial conglomerate had an effective tax rate of only 11.3 percent. That undercuts company statements that its U.S. tax rate for last year was a considerably higher 25 percent. Whichever is accurate, the figure is far below the official U.S. corporate-tax rate of 35 percent.
The analysis, which compiled GE’s profits and tax payments from 2002 to 2011, also concluded that the company has paid about $1.8 billion in federal income taxes on $81.2 billion worth of pretax U.S. profits since 2002, an annual average of 2.3 percent.
Any whining about that from Obama?
No, instead he will continue to pound an industry that employs millions of people across this country, an industry that makes very little profit wise when compares to other industries, and an industry that is providing a indispensable service.
While doling out millions to the green industry that continues to go bankrupt.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAaqkqBYR6I[/youtube]
See author page
This chart shows 1977 to 2012 Energy Related Tax Preferences.
Note that since 2009 renewable energy is far more heavily subsidized by tax carveouts than any other energy sector, including fossil fuels.
But Obama likes to claim that the tax code disproportionately favors oil companies over renewable energy companies.
He’s such a liar.
How about Obama eliminate all energy subsidies?
Someday the moronic Lib’s will figure out corporations and companies do not pay taxes…their customers do. All taxes are paid by the population not by any specific entity.
That is a win-win statement for Obama, and a lose-lose statement for any member of Congress. It’s akin to saying, “heads I win, tails you lose”.
AND, it’s completely devoid of all integrity and honesty. This is the Obama we conservatives know. A liar, and a thief.
Fact – Oil “subsidies”, as related in the article by Curt, are not “subsidies” in the traditional sense, but tax deductions. Now, considering the amount of taxes paid by the oil and gas industry, compared to other industries, Obama is actually saying that he want them to pay even more. That is right on par with his class warfare rhetoric on individuals. Those who make more, pay more, even if they are already paying much, much higher amounts than others.
Fact – Any additional cost to a producer, which a tax increase would be, is passed on to the consumer. No matter what industry we are talking about. Obama wants people to believe that oil and gas companies either won’t raise the price of fuel, if these “subsidies” end, or, that if they do it’s purely due to greed.
Of course, they could always vote “present”, like Obama did, not committing themselves to one side or the other. That, though, would be a loser because the majority of the ignorant, sycophantic left in Congress would vote to end the subsidies, claiming a “win” for the people. Then, when gas prices increase, due to an increase in the cost of doing business for the oil and gas companies, the dishonesty will continue, and those same people on the left will cry foul, and claim oil and gas company greed is the reason for the increase in cost.
Sorry, Obama, but smart conservatives are on to your ‘playbook’. We can spot the lies from miles away. Lack of integrity is easily seen when truth is on your side.
Obama. A liar and a thief.
Newt Gingrich is telling people that a republican vote will bring them $2.50 per gallon gasoline, and Obama is being called a liar?
Still clueless, eh Greg?
Well, Curt… seems you beat me to the punch in posting a start on O’zero’s energy policies designed by history challenged idiots. One of my Fox Biz faves, Lizzy MacDonald had an article today noting that Obama’s energy stance taxes the brain for logic.
Liz pointed to a World Economic Forum study that noted oil and natural gas production accounted for 9% of new U.S. jobs. North Dakota is a perfect example of this with their oil fields development. And in fact the over 50 workers are moving, accounting for over a quarter of the new hires in 2010.
But this isn’t anything new to those that study history. I’ve mentioned before that Newt’s House pushed thru the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995, which spurred oil and gas development, leading to that increase in drilling and production that started in 1998-99, to the crash of 2008. It is some of these leases that O’idiot enjoys s talking points and lies today, when he brags about increased production.
As far as the increased taxes goes, the UK’s 18% decline in North Sea output due to their 50% taxes ought to be a lesson for the energy illiterate. But I don’t expect Obama and his admin cronies to learn from history, being as they are clueless to history.
Instead, they are following the well worn and overtrodden path to blaming speculators. As I pointed out before, Seeking Alpha’s Igor Greenwald attempted to inject a bit of reality to the blame game with his his May 2011 post, In Defense of Speculators”.
What it comes down to is that speculators are no different than any other stockholder gambler… which includes almost half of the US workforce, vested in the stock market via pension plans or 401Ks. They are simply betting whether a product will become more expensive and rare, or more prevalent in the market place, based on policies.
And as long as policies block US energy production at every avenue, there is no reason for speculators to assume that the US will ever attempt to become energy independent… as we have all the resources to do.
@MataHarley, #5:
Clueless, if clueless is defined as not being indoctrinated. I decide what to believe or disbelieve for myself. I’ve decided that the oil Newt is selling is mostly snake oil.
Great, obviously you have “decided what to believe or disbelieve” yourself. That, however, apparently is based on partisan talking points instead of scientific realities of advancement of shale oil production. It’s had it’s fits and starts because it was shelved when the more direct production of crude became available. And when you consider technology, deepwater and fracking, they are perfect examples of relatively recent improvements that decry past limitations.
However, if you wanted to present yourself as someone open and tolerant of all energy resource opportunities… from alternative supporting (but not primary) to other alternative energy sources… from the US, you have only proven yourself to be extremely deficient in research and knowledge.
@Greggie: I don’t know where you live, but have you ever heard of North Dakota? Mata touched on it here and here is a comment I made on another FA thread:
And why are they having to sell the oil at a discount?
If President Obama really was concerned about the high price of gasoline, he would make it easier for the oil from North Dakota to get to market.
What was it liberalchild said about Newt which mirrors your own biases, Greggie? Oh yeah, “He won’t. He Can’t. He lies.”
Great line, but it more aptly applies to Obama.
.
.
@Greg:
I called Obama a liar for misrepresenting the issue to the people, Greg. In so doing, Obama is implying that by dropping the “subsidies” for oil and gas companies that it will lower the price of fuel at the pump. I’d like to know exactly in which version of “reality” does an increase in operating costs result in a lower consumer price. Maybe you can help me out here.
And, I also called Obama a thief. I did so because of his above lie. He is thieving America’s future right out from under them.
So, again, Obama is a liar and a thief.
Many Americans have digested the fact that the entire environmentalist rationale for pursuing “green energy” technology is built on fabricated global warming — recently renamed “climate change” — science.
To continue to pursue a path based on such deceit — that the earth is warming and we must convert to “renewable” energy sources ASAP — is to invite enslavement to an economy dominated by energy produced by Obama’s political cronies and controlled, ultimately, by a central government.
American Thinker
has an article that deals with the idea of OIL as a biofuel.
A renewable.
Something Obama SHOULD embrace!
Of course he won’t …… not enough cronies would benefit.
@Greg: Clueless is not being able to understand facks and systems. Usually, those who are clueless are stupid or indoctrinated. I think that is what she was saying.
People on the eastern seaboard will automatically see their prices for heating oil/gasoline/diesel fuel increase in the fall. The closing of the Conoco Phillips Trainer Refinery, along with the closing of another refinery in New Jersey, will affect the cost of transportation of refined oil products from the Texas refineries. And the reason stated for the closing of these refineries? Over burdensome federal regulations that would require updating that was cost prohibitive and not worth the investment.
So, when people in New York and other eastern states cannot afford to heat their homes this coming winter, who will they blame? The gas station owner who earn 3 cents per gallon? The oil companies whose profit margin is less than Budweiser, Microsoft or Heinz Foods? Gasbuddy.com is already reporting an Exxon station just blocks from the White House that raised its prices to $5.69/per gallon. But hey, don’t worry about those high gas prices in D.C. The government critters are buying that gas on federal credit cards paid for by you.
And perhaps you might be interested in reading a state report that spells out the true division for “subsidities” given by the federal government for the different types of fuel:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
And remember this; the “subsidities” that are given to oil companies are in the form of tax breaks for R & D and the depletion of inventory. The subsidities given to “green” energy sources are in the form of hard dollars paid to those companies right out of the federal taxpayer coffers. But in order to continue the ruse against the oil companies that Obama must to justify his attack against fossile fuels, he has to call “tax breaks” “subsidities” to sell it to the clueless.
@MataHarley: #8
What Greg is saying is that he has decided, on his own, to believe whatever his king tells him to believe.
I can’t believe that a lot of people are like I was most of my life. I believed the politicians when they said, “I won’t raise individual taxes. I will only raise corporate taxes.” I finally realized that I pay the corporate taxes every time I buy their products.
Even if we don’t go to the Fair Tax or a flat tax, I would like to see corporate taxes eliminated. We pay those taxes for the corporations whenever we buy their products. Individual taxes would go up, but prices would come down, so they would average out. Without corporate taxes, they would be able to expand their businesses, and they would bring their headquarters back to the USA, meaning more jobs.
One trick the propaganda media uses is to report the TOTAL income from the oil companies. Like many other big corporations, the oil companies own other companies and are in many countries, and some of them have nothing to do with oil. The propaganda media adds these to their TOTAL income. If they don’t now, they used to.
Would switching to electric cars save oil? How much fuel does it take to mine the material that goes into the batteries, or ship the stuff to the country that the batteries are made, then ship the batteries to the country that puts the batteries in the cars, then ships them to the country that they are sold? How much land is destroyed in the process? It takes more energy to make a Toyota Prius than it does a Hummer.
http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/03/toyotas_prius_is_less_efficien.html
You also have to take into the equation that it takes some form of energy to create the electricity that powers the cars. A huge percentage of that electricity comes from coal generators. The article also mentioned what are we going to do with the used batteries that can’t be used any more? I never thought about that. Does anybody have any ideas?
@Smorgasbord: The difference between you and them is you were willing to look and understand the issues. People like Greg can never do that. You are right about the cost of all of these alternate fuels and “green” energy sources actually use considerable carbon sources. Look at wind energy, when the wind is not blowing, there needs to be a source of energy to make up the amount of energy needed to replace the wind source. That means there needs to be a power plant that can replace all of the wind energy. Coal or nuclear can not be brought on line quick enough to replace the wind. It likely means we need natural gas plants of equal out put. I wonder how much energy it takes to manufacutre the wind machines that have a life span of less than 20 years. Do they ever make enough energy to pay for themselves with out subsidizes?
@Randy: #16
A lot of the wind generators are standing idle. Different articles I have read over the years say the high cost of maintenance is the reason. The blades have to be replaced often. One thing I don’t understand is why are we buying them from China?
My opinion on nuclear power is that whoever wants it should sign an agreement stating that if an area close to them is the best place to store the waste, then they won’t fight it.
Nobody knows how long the waste will be radioactive. They know it will be for thousands of years. In that length of time the area where it is buried could have had an earthquake and opened up the area to the radiation, or become a river and the stuff is washed downstream, or the water table becomes higher than the waste and the drinking water becomes radioactive, or any other event could happen. If you have seen different shows about the earth, you know that some deserts used to be an ocean, and some mountain tops used to be under water.
@Smorgasbord:
We are buying the blades from China because GE, the one company that did manufacturer the blades in the U.S., moved their facility to China and closed the U.S. plant. I guess this is why Jeffrey Immelt was appointed to Obama’s “jobs” committee. Immelt is helping create jobs, just not here. Not one GE product is still made in the U.S.
Also, China has the sole market for the “rare earths” that are required to make the batteries and they [China] are not about to sell those rare earths to us. Pretty simple; China has cornered the market and Obama continues to push the market.
But stupid people buy into stupid plans, like electric cars. They never stop to think that the Volt they just purchased that was over priced and may blow up, gets its electricity from a coal/gas fired power plant. You see, Obama the Lightworker just magically creates electricity for their Volt.
EXXON made 9.4 BILLION DOLLARS in the last 90 DAYS of 2011 41.1 BILLION in one year. They love the high price at the pump.Greed is good??
@Richard Wheeler: What were their expenses? Overhead? Cost of doing business?
Or do you just want to focus on one figure to demonize them?
Pay attention y’all. Michelle says the bummer is relooking at the KeystoneXL pipeline. Let’s see what the price of oil does if he does approve the pipeline. http://michellemalkin.com/
Anticsrocks We’re talking Net Profit after deducting All costs. They’ve said higher prices at the pump were the reason for Record profits.
And I thought these athletes and Bernie Madoff made too much.
Randy In my mind there has never been a question the pipeline would be approved.–only when.
Did they now? And where would they have said that, rich? Care to provide a link? I’d be highly surprised if you could.
Or perhaps I should take you right to the Exxon Perspectives site and prove you’re collecting talking points from any one other than the source?
The first thing you need to understand is that Exxon, a relatively small oil company in the world, is comprised of multiple operations in at least a 100 different countries. Yet you seem to be laboring under the delusion that one small segment – their refining business, selling US gasoline, diesel etc – brings in the big bucks when in fact that constitutes only about 3% of their entire business operations.
Reality check…. 75% of their earnings are from projects outside the US. There is no big bucks in gas sales, rich.
I’ve tried to explain this here before. Exxon and other oil companies with refineries do not produce enough oil to supply the US… even when it’s down in consumption like now. They import crude they buy on the global market to supply their refineries. They pay high prices for those barrels to do so, and the price of a barrel is the largest single deciding factor of what the pump price will be.
Last year they were making 7-8 cents per gallon on fuel and other refined products sold in the US last year. Wow… get rich quick that way, eh?
The refining industry is volatile, and is only an adjunct to the main business of E&G, rich. When consumption is down and prices are high, they have to shave down. What is helping them in the last year or two is the demand for diesel in South, Central Americas, and Europe. In which case they get better premium for those sales… and they pay the taxes for their profits as well. But it’s a business that goes up and down, and like any business, they have their good and bad years.
Despite the lionshare of Exxon’s earnings coming from foreign operations, they still maintain 40% of their workforce in the US. Ergo, they invest more money in the US than they actually make on US operations.
Many of us have also tried to point out that evil big oil is way down on the windfall profits list. That’s mostly held by drug companies and banks. Personally, I like the oil industry better. I make no apologies for an industry that has been instrumental in our lifestyle being far above average, and enabling technological advances… including that keyboard you’re typing on. Petroleum based product, if you didn’t figure that out. Food wrapping, clothing, even those Apple products that the OWS whiners can’t live without. Funny that we don’t hear anyone screaming about Apple’s extreme profit windfalls, don’t you think?
@MataHarley: Thanks Mata. 🙂
I was going to take him to the woodshed, but you beat me to it! lol
Mata and Anticsrocks To suggest Big Oil hasn’t seen increased profits through higher prices at the pump simply defies logic.
Next you’ll say the stock market’s rise of over 45% since Jan. o9 is only a mirage.
@retire05: #18
Like taking away tax breaks (not subsidies) for oil companies won’t raise gas prices.
@Richard Wheeler: What if “big oil” has seen more profits? If they are only making a few cents on a gallon, then I think you need to direct your ire at “big government.” They make obscene money off of every gallon of gas, and yet still want more taxes for “infrastructure.”
???? Moving those goal posts again, rich? You said:
I’ve corrected you…. meaning “they” – being Exxon, specifically – could not have said that because their refining industry, fuel sales to domestic US market is not only just 3% of their entire earnings operations, but that their profit margin is small on US consumption of their refined products.
Now you’re jumping from “record profits!!!” to a new term, “increased profits”.
Slick move there, slick… but you’re not fooling me, and I’m calling you on your BS. First you say “record profits”, and now you want to play innocent and say “gee, it’s logical if they made more per gallon, that their profits would increase”.
duh…. but you directly, and unequivocally attributed “record profits” to high gas prices, and had the gall to suggest that Exxon, themselves, said that. You’re in the danger zone of BS on this one, rich.
So let’s play the math games for some of that “logic”. And for that,let’s assume all other factors are equal… i.e. state and fed taxes, distribution, crude prices, etc.
If Exxon was only making $.03 profit per gallon one year, and made $.08 profit per gallon the next year, are their profits “increased”? Sure to the tune of approximately $178 million more profit annually. That would be based on the EIA’s estimate of finished gasoline production in 2011 as 8.8 million gallons daily. Of course, that includes all fuels… conventional, reformulated, diesel, etc.
Can that “increased” $178 million more profit annually measure up to anything close to “record profits”?
Let’s see… in 2010, they spent $198 billion buying crude oil and products to used to make refined products, like gasoline.
But they made $178 million more…..
The first half of 2011, Exxon’s tax bill was $6.7 billion.
But hey, they made $178 million more…
From 2009 to the second quarter of 2011, ExxonMobil’s capital and exploration expenditures in the United States totaled about $19.8 billion dollars – $3.4 billion more than their U.S. operating earnings during that period.
But whoopee… they made $178 million more.
Now try convincing anyone that something akin to $178 million increase, because of higher fuel costs, is the main reason they are having “record profits” again, richard.
Again, the bulk of their money is made not only overseas, but upstream of the refining process.
BTW, if you look back almost a year ago to date, you’ll see that the gas prices were noodging the $4 mark, and everyone like you was babbling the same ol, same ol. New day – same story and same pathetic excuses. The nation needs energy independence ASAP, and that means opening up all resources now.
I always love it when you hold up the stock market numbers when it’s good, but are conspicuously silent when it does one of it’s extreme sways the other way. Some of us notice you’re only a fair weather market watcher/commenter, rich.
I’ve told you many times that I’m quite happy US workers, about half of them vested in the market, aren’t also losing their shirts there in this economy. I would like it to stay healthy. The difference between you and I is you think this is a sign of improvement, and I think this is a result of central banks – globally – injecting taxpayers cash into the markets everywhere.
Good gawd… with essentially free loan money from the feds to the banks, I would expect them to be making money hands over fist. With the EU, Germany and the IMF, bailing out the EuroZone (including US cash going to Greece), investors feel confident that the governments – aka the taxpayers – will always be the safety nets of big banks and failed welfare state nations.
The problem with this approach, rich, is that it’s a negative feedback loop of debt that will collapse. What’s holding the US a’float, and our dollar, is that Europe is so much worse than we are. That’s precious little to bank on when wishing for a healthy financial future, since GDP growth is still dangerously low, and is projected to be that way in the foreseeable future.
It’s also disconcerting that the US policy wonks are busy following the Eurozone on their path of self-destruction by increasing the welfare state with unsustainable entitlements, thereby increasing unsustainable debt.
The piper will need to be paid for this can kicking way of governing/spending, and it won’t be a pretty sight.
So no… the stock market performance is not a “mirage”. Nor is it a leading indicator of economic recovery. Unfortunately, with the amount of debt, the market is just an indicator of how well it can function when using taxpayer money to fund it’s risks, essentially removing the real market regulators of profit and loss.
This is not a sustainable path, and there are many an economist and investor with wary eyes on the future. The trick is to gamble now, and be out before the house of cards collapses. And it will collapse again.
*hands Rich some salve for the vicious burn received at the hands of Mata*
Anticsrocks You know I love Mata. I’m here because of her and Word and fellow Marine Skooks. Where the heck is AYE. He is missed.Can’t get anything past that guy and a great keeper of the archives.
On the other side people like Dr. John and Hard Right remind me why I ‘m a Democrat.
I gotta say Mata’s crystal ball’s been a little murky of late For the last year and 4000 points on the Dow she’s been doom and glooming us about an impending collapse.
She’s hung to Newt as his precipitous collapse now leaves him finishing last behind Ron Paul in ILL.
She believes Romney could still lose the nom. and has no chance against Obama. For weeks I’ve predicted he goes over 1144 on June 5 and CAN BEAT BHO with a judicious V.P. pick.
We’ll see
For the record Fox could learn something about “Fair and Balanced” by watching how Curt operates.
Semper Fi RJW
Now @rich, you can’t be dissing my crystal ball. I never put a time stamp on market performance, nor would I.
However every investor/economist knows we precariously dance on thin ice because the Eurozone’s financial future – and the status of the failing welfare states – will affect our US markets. As long as the central banks – ours and theirs – continue to pump taxpayer money to hold the market intact and give the financial institutions a risk free pass, it will swing erratically up and down based on events. However it is not sustainable using that spiral of debt. And only a fool would believe it would.
And speaking of embellishment and hyperbole…
Apparently desperate to make a false accusation and point, some serious exaggerations have been necessary. LOL Our high of approx 13200 this past week or so would make that 4000 point swing as a low of 9200. Perhaps you aren’t up on the wonderful Internet tools at our disposal, but as you can see we haven’t been that low sinc Q3 of 2009. pffft…
As a matter of fact, leaving out last year’s common yoyo swings of 400 points, the lowest we have been in the past year was 10655… a swing of about 2545 points from the 13200 approx high. Our current levels are right now at what they were in the summer of 2007, just before the crash… thanks only to taxpayer and central bank infused cash and increased global debt.
And if you want a zoomed in, adjustable view, just look at the volatility of the last two years. Few will deny that with pathetic GDP growth here and globally, and the debt levels – plus a Eurozone so far NOT out of the woods – we’re still on shaky ground.
Then let’s talk about the Bernanke stated goal of tanking of the US dollar value to manage the debt, which also does nothing for US stability. As long as our currency and economy are stable and improving, our reserve currency status may remain. But even that’s a question of late, as the talk still abounds about making a multi-currency reserve status instead. That will be the kiss of death.
Like I said, I hope it stays healthy and high, but I see a very unstable future with the global economics and debt. The feedback debt loop is a dog chasing it’s tail. At some point, he’ll either catch it, or collapse. So it’s only a matter of time before the piper has to be paid. If you want an exact date, you’ll have to wander down the road to the nearest neon palm in the window. But it’s a pretty darned safe bet that down is going to happen.
I know that Newt hasn’t got a chance, but the latest Gallup poll shows what support he has would be split evenly between Santorum and Romney. At this point, I can’t even go for that idiot Santorum anymore. So I’d like Newt to stay in, just as I would like Ron Paul to, for the same reasons… Newt stays focused on energy policies, and Paul stays focused on spending, the Fed Reserve and currency. Those two issues are huge to me, and neither Romney nor Santorum can hold a candle to the other two in that messaging.
I suspect Santorum will continue his meltdown, as he’s done the past three weeks by focusing on contraceptives, imaginary US statehood requirements, a new war on Internet Porn, and his belief that the economy isn’t an issue. duh…. I hate to break it to ol’ Rick, but we’ve already tried clueless as a POTUS criteria, and it didn’t work this past four years under the clueless Obama either.
So I’m looking forward to voting for Newt in my own primary (at least I can have a clean conscience, and go down fighting for what I believe in), and waiting to see how Romney’s planning to get the last of his delegates at the convention. Then again, now there’s calls for Santorum to drop out, so maybe he’ll end up as the nominee before because he outspent everyone else in the process, and Santorum folds. Somehow, I’m doubting that.
MATA Wow –that was long. Doesn’t matter what Rick.Newt or Ron do.Romney secures nom before convention on June 5TH and battles BHO to the finish. Dow up nearly 5000 points since BHO took over and talking heads have missed an incredible rally and don’t know with ANY certainty when it will end.
Sure they know when it will end, rich. When the government money runs stops flowing.
Mata re #33 “when the government money runs stops flowing” What does that mean and more importantly when will it happen so I can get short?
With less than 25% turnout in my home state, it is little wonder Romney got it. He always does good when folks stay home.
What a winning strategy for this fall!!!
@anticsrocks: ##35
It almost makes a person think that when the republicans pick the lessor of three evils to run for president, that if the right person became an independent candidate, they could take the republican vote. The problem would be that they could take just enough republican votes to get Obama elected, except that it won’t be Obama running.
Smorg #36 Truly a statement that could only be penned by an insomniac around 3 A.M. LOL
@Richard Wheeler: #37
I’m a night person. I have always had problems getting up for an 8-5 job. Being a truck driver I could drive when best for me. When I could, I would drive through the night, going through the major cities, usually with my cruise control on straight through, then when it was time for me to sleep, I would pull into a truck stop where drivers would be leaving early to beat the rush hour traffic, and I always had a place to sleep.
The last 6 years I ran a regular route and delivered only to Home Depots. I would leave in late morning or early after noon. One route I had I was home every day. I delivered five different routs. One route I didn’t leave until 4 PM. I would usually get home between midnight and 2 AM. If I worked at a place that had a 4-12 shift, I would chose it.
After I retired I told myself I won’t set any alarms unless I need to get up for something. I was going through the emails just before going to be and figured I would reply to you.
Evidently the deference of being an insomniac and not being an insomniac is 24 minutes, since you posted your reply to me at 2:36 AM.
Please answer a question for me. I really want a SERIOUS answer to a SERIOUS question. Why do liberals always find even the most insignificant things to nit pick about someone you don’t like just because they are not a liberal?
I don’t like it when a republican condemns a democrat because of their looks, or a democrat does the same thing. That has nothing to do with anything. I have tried to talk to liberals in an easy going manner, but they ALWAYS get irate and go into a tirade. Why? Is that part of liberal training?
I can talk about any subject: Sex, taxes, politics, the economy, global warming, etc., without trying to condemn the person I am talking to because they disagree with me. Believe it or not, sometimes I have changed my mind on some things because I am open minded on anything and want to hear what others have to say. When they talk in a calm, relaxed voice I will listen more to what they have to say.
You are like my mother who always tried to PUSH people into her kind of religion. Nobody wanted to be around her because she was like you in the sense that if someone disagreed with her, they were always wrong, and she was always right, and she let everybody know they were. People are like chains. Have you ever tried to PUSH a chain? If you get one link to follow you, the rest will follow.
@Smorgasbord: You asked:
I believe this video draws the historical distinction between Conservatives and Liberals.
PLEASE, moderators – could someone please embed this video?
The Battle of Big Ideas, Part 1: CONSTRAINED vs. UNCONSTRAINED
I think that if you watch this great video, it will answer your question.
Basically it comes down to flaws and personal responsibilities.
.
.
Smorg I don’t dislike you personally You’ve said you’re a night person, We are fostering to adopt 2 little girls and I’d awoken late
You were on suggesting BHO won’t be running in Nov.
Thought that bizarre and commented. Simple as that.
Anticsrocks “Flaws and personal responsibilities” Sure
rich, if you have to ask “what government money”, and it’s effect on the market performance, I fear your grasp of what’s going on is worse than I thought. And I sure can’t bring you up to snuff in your preferred short KISS sentences.
Mata In my opinion the primary reasons for the markets’ strength are historically low interest rates and improving corporate profits. The stock market as a leading indicator is foretelling an economic recovery,albeit and as Romney says “Not as rapidly as we’d like to see.”
Well, rich… that’s a “simple/KISS” explanation. It’s too bad you don’t, or can’t, expand on the repercussions. Interesting that the stock market is a “leading indicator”, yet the stock performance prior to the crash sure didn’t “foretell” what was coming, did it? Nor is this a sustainable stock market bubble now.
INRE government infused cash… which you casually characterize as “low rates” only… and it’s effect on the markets take Nov 30, 2011, for instance.
Central banks, but US and ECB, are monetizing debt, flooding the markets with trillions which indebted global governments use to buy up their own bonds… monetizing debt. Geithner’s been doing a lot of that monetizing, tag teaming Bernanke’s policies, for a while now.
But there’s some funny stuff going on with US Treasuries… Because in the months following that, and noted in Jan of this year, foreign central banks were dumping US treasuries at record rates. Also read Jeff Nielson’s “Maximum Fraud in US Treasuries Market”.
Yields were high (part of the reason for dumping), and yet.. mysteriously the US Treasury prices did not follow with the usual decline and stayed at record highs. And just who was buying them up, covertly, at these artificially high prices? And who is on the hook for the risk? Taxpayers and investors… the same who are on the hook for creating an environment of risk free money for the financial institutions, of course.
Now add the recent actions of some of the foreign central banks who were buying up US stocks outright… which ZeroHedge rightly pegs as the “next leg of the ponzi scheme”. i.e. the central banks robbing from the taxpayers to keep the market a’float.
This penchant for stripping investors of their funds to favor the financial institutions (think MF Global, where the investors lost their shorts, but somehow JP Morgan was made whole) has ZeroHedge’s Tyler Durden wondering when the next run at the global banks is going to happen. The problem, as he points out, is that it’s not the system that is corrupted, but the regulators.
The fact is, rich, it’s far more complex than “low rates”. The reality is that the governments, via central banks, infuse cash into the markets, borrow for the central banks to buy up their own bonds, and all using taxpayers money when they are already in unsustainable debt. Of course there are corporate profits… especially the financial institutions. They have no risk with virtually zero interest to invest/profit, and the taxpayer is subsidizing their money infusion.
Ponzi scheme, negative feedback loop, unsustainable publicly held debt. These are all accurate descriptions of what’s going on in the stock market. It cannot last. And I hardly consider those like Tyler Durden or Jeff Nielson, a Canadian economist who writes for both The Street and Seeking Alpha – as well as his own blog – uninformed, hyperbolic alarmists.
First, rich… a purdy picture for you. The increase in the federal balance sheet of Treasuries and MBSs.
Now let’s compare the Fed’s QE to the DJIA performance… below from 2007 to Mar 2012
Think the US is holding up US treasuries, and that the QE is affecting the stock market much?
This first graph comes from a great article by Adam Hamilton in Futures Mag, April 2011. dealing with how the end of government infused cash and central bank policies will affect the stock market.
When that ended, and after the printing of the above linked article, Bernanke embarked on Operation Twist in Sept 2011… another clever name for yet another version of QE…. with dissent coming from both Republicans and three regional Fed bank presidents.
My statement stands…. the market goes down when the central banks stop infusing cash to keep it artifically a’float. At some point, the genuine regulators of profit and loss are going to have to assume control once again.
Mata As I’ ve mentioned before my years as a broker at Merrill Lynch taught me guys like Durden and Nielson are about as accurate in stock picks as that smart monkey throwing darts at the WSJ. They are only experts in hindsight.Inceased corporate profits,higher dividend yields and continued low interest rates will continue to fuel the market. When rates rise as they will as economy recovers,,the stock market as a leading indicator will correct.
I believe the real estate market,a lagging indicator, will stabilize and head back up,as it always does,as early as the 4th quarter 2012 or 1st half 2013.
BTW You,me, or any high priced talking head can’t be SURE of any projections. Have Durden and Nielson been long the better part of this 4500 point move? If proven I’ll give them credit due.
I BELIEVE a safer bet is the Kentucky Wildcats
I see… so I document samples of perspectives that lead me to my opinion as to why we’re on a dangerous merry-go-round, which you cast off as petty. And you provide your gut feelings and negative personal opinions about higher profile economists as your reasoning.
nuff said, hey?
Mata The stock market is by nature a high risk investment. If investors could get 6-8% in C.D.’S they would and money would move out of equities. We AGREE that historically low rates have fueled this rally.
Charts show past performance and provide 20/20 hindsight. My intent was not to deride the experts but merely inquire if their money was where their charts were?
rich, the discussion by those linked, and myself, is not about what stock “picks” they have, or would be doing. It is about the entire market rally, and how it’s being fed by the flow of money from government (i.e. taxpayers cash). Stop moving goalposts and stay focused.
I’ll remind you of the conversation:
I’ve now explained to you “what it means”, and the purdy pic above shows you the federal balance sheet since Obama took over.
@Richard Wheeler:
Gee, Richard.
You, of all people,* should know that every financial pundit has to publish his holdings.
On CNBC, Fox Business, and other outlets, those reports come after any fund or investment is mentioned by name.
Every time.
I think it is the law.
@MataHarley: Mata, you should not discount Rich’s gut. It could be substancial!
Randy Unlike you old Army guys most of us old Marines stay in pretty good shape. At 67 I ‘m still jogging and lifting weights.
Nan I believe if talking about a fund or individual equity they must divulge their ownership.
@anticsrocks: #39
So, liberals want to have their way all the time, but if someone else wants something that would interfere with a liberal’s wants, the liberal should win every time.
@Richard Wheeler: #40
I find it bizarre that anyone with an open mind can look at the certificate and not see that it is a fake. This tells me that you are either one of the dedicated liberals that will fight to the death for your king, or you are one who just likes to start something and see how far you can go with it.
I hope it is the first, because that means you are ignorant of what is going on and that you just don’t want to check things out for yourself. I used to be that way, and there were enough of us that we let the politicians vote in all kinds of stuff for themselves. That is why I blame myself for the mess we are in, but I am also trying to fix what I can. Saying there isn’t a leak in a boat, doesn’t get it fixed.
@MataHarley: #46
If he won’t admit that it is easy to tell that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, why do you think he will believe anything else he is shown. Is it possible he is just playing with you? If you want to play with him, that is your choice.
@Smorgasbord: I am of two thoughts on this subject. Since his father was a subject of the crown, I am thinking that made Obama the same.
That being said, as far him not getting on the ballot in enough states so as to disable him from gathering enough electoral college votes is an interesting scenario. So on one hand I think it would be a remarkable outcome if this were to happen and on the other, I think I would rather see him trounced in the general election so that it isn’t an eligibility issue, but rather an indictment on his policies that have damaged this great country. We all know how thin skinned he is, imagine the caterwauling and hand wringing from not only Obama himself, but the MSM, Acedemia, and the entire left side of the aisle, so to speak, that would arise because it wouldn’t be “fair” to keep him off the ballots. No, ’tis better to let the American people speak redefining hope and change to hoping he loses the election and changing the ‘occupier’ (if you will) of the Oval Office.
There are a whole host of issues that bother me about Obama and his natural born citizen status, I will admit is probably at the bottom of my list. The clusterf*ck that would come about if it were proven in a court, conclusively, beyond all shadow of a doubt that he was not eligible to be POTUS would boggle the mind.
What to do with all the bills he has signed into law?
What to do with all the EO’s he has signed?
The judicial appointments, not only to the Supreme Court, but at the Appellate levels as well.
Then there are all the other appointments a President makes.
To borrow a phrase from Romney’s communications director, we can’t just shake the etch-a-sketch and go back to 2008. There would be no do-over.
Again, if it were to be declared, then would Biden be named President? Or would he be ineligible as well? I would suppose that since he was voted into the office of the Vice President, that eligibility would not be an issue with Biden.
For these reasons, and the plethora of issues that would crop up, I feel the best course of action is to vote him out of office and repeal the laws put into place by him, and then if investigations continue and he is found ineligible we would have the luxury of time to work things out.
And if, after he is out of office and it is found that he duped the American public, I think that legislation preventing this from happening ever again would be called for.
But as I said, citizenship status aside, he carries so much baggage, that it ought to be easy pickin’s for the GOP this fall.
Obamacare
Gitmo
The Stimulus
Solyndra & the Green Energy debacle
Turning the EPA into attack dogs against any person or business trying to make a living
Saying he would cut the deficit in half
His two very weak liberal SCOTUS judges
His Attorney General and the Fast & Furious baggage he carries
All his radical associations that are coming out of hiding thanks to the legacy of work Breitbart left behind
The Keystone Pipeline
Shutting down oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
Privatizing the Student Loan industry
And I could go on and on, but the point is that even without the eligibility issue, we have enough ammo for an two elections.
I know you were commenting to Rich, and that I stuck my nose into your conversation. I just wanted to throw my two cents in about Obama’s citizen status.
Maybe after the election this fall, when he loses, we could make him ambassador to Iran. They seem to just love him there…
@anticsrocks: #55
In reference to your comment about Obama possibly not being on some state ballots, you said:
The way I see it, if Obama comes down, that means the democratic party will come down with him, since they KNOWINGLY ran an illegal, and the propaganda media will be brought down because the public will want to know why they hadn’t been reporting on the stuff leading up to his arrest. Thinking of Obama in handcuffs just put a smile on my face.
Voided
Voided
Voided
Voided
Unfortunately, the results of Obama being declared ineligible aren’t all good. Joe would take over if he can prove he is legally qualified to be president. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have to prove he has a high enough IQ to be president.
Letting Obama run again, to me, is like letting a drunk take me home. They might make it OK. I believe the republicans GAVE Obama the election. Remember all of the compliments McCain gave him, including that he thought Obama would make a good president?
As I have mentioned different times, I don’t believe that we have two parties any more, just one with two branches. I’ll take the consequences of Obama being ousted rather than the consequences of him being elected again.