Official Political Thread
- Thread starter Bill Cosby
- Start date
- Status
Let's see how many of these politicians that say they are for businesses and jobs do with this debate. Banks fill up so many politicians pockets, but those same politicians claims they're for business that can add jobs.
We'll see.
BANKS vs MERCHANTS
We'll see.
BANKS vs MERCHANTS
Beyond these factors, it's far from clear that another short-term effort to jolt the economy ? either through the "investment" favored by Democrats or the tax-cut panacea favored by Republicans ? would be effective or wise. Lawmakers have already enacted not one, but two, major stimulus laws since President Obama took office ? the first in early 2009, passed largely on party lines, and a second, at the end of last year, passed on a bipartisan basis.
After all of this medicine, another dose of stimulus would be more like pushing on a string than a cure for the patient.
Focus on national debt, not another stimulus
After all of this medicine, another dose of stimulus would be more like pushing on a string than a cure for the patient.
Focus on national debt, not another stimulus
blockquote>
Agreed, which is why, as a conservative myself, it is very frustrating that we can't seem to find that sack of potatoes anywhere in our party.
Are we at the place where those qualified, electable, desirable, etc from either side just don't want to get involved in the trash that is politics?
Intrusive, 24/7 media plays a role, i'm sure...
Why is it that our best people, on either side of the political spectrum refuse to get involved & put together a plan to get us moving out of some of the problems we now find ourselves in?
This post was edited on 6/8 1:30 PM by 3rex
This post was edited on 6/8 1:32 PM by 3rex
Agreed, which is why, as a conservative myself, it is very frustrating that we can't seem to find that sack of potatoes anywhere in our party.
Are we at the place where those qualified, electable, desirable, etc from either side just don't want to get involved in the trash that is politics?
Intrusive, 24/7 media plays a role, i'm sure...
Why is it that our best people, on either side of the political spectrum refuse to get involved & put together a plan to get us moving out of some of the problems we now find ourselves in?
This post was edited on 6/8 1:30 PM by 3rex
This post was edited on 6/8 1:32 PM by 3rex
Did a bunch of blind people make that list?
A more appropriate title would be:
"19 women who I wouldn't necessarily describe as ugly all things considered and 1 hot chick"
A more appropriate title would be:
"19 women who I wouldn't necessarily describe as ugly all things considered and 1 hot chick"
I glanced at the article, and maybe I'm missing the point of it, but why would the federal government be entertaining a cap on credit/debit card transaction fees? The act of processing a card transaction is a "product" just like everything else, what business is it of the fed to place a cap on it?
IMHO, Romney is the only one who could beat him. Not a fan personally, but I don't think anyone else can beat him.
49% disapproval and $14T in debt bring many people into play. It will be a very close race no matter who gets the GOP nomination and the swing voter block will only be 5% or so.
49% disapproval and $14T in debt bring many people into play. It will be a very close race no matter who gets the GOP nomination and the swing voter block will only be 5% or so.
GWB's disapproval #'s were hovering around 50% going into November 2004. People generally disapprove of those they know but trust them moreso than the devil they don't.
Still, if the economy is still struggling to add jobs by next summer Obama is in serious trouble. The economy weighs on swing voters' minds moreso than debt/deficits (see: voting results of 2000-2008). $14T is just a number another staggering number to most and is meaningless without a comparison to GDP.
This post was edited on 6/8 3:14 PM by Mime-Is-Money
I think the most interesting thing this election will bring is the notion that Obama is the only person who can attract young voters and then get them to the ballot box. They didn't show up for his party last fall, do they still believe in hope and change?
I highly doubt I'll be voting for Obama next year, but one can only wonder what will happen if he does manage to get the seemingly untouchable block of voters to come back out and support him again.
Also, Mods, please kill the other one and pin this one please. TIA.
I highly doubt I'll be voting for Obama next year, but one can only wonder what will happen if he does manage to get the seemingly untouchable block of voters to come back out and support him again.
Also, Mods, please kill the other one and pin this one please. TIA.
In other news, OPEC continues to suck.
Interesting couple of blurbs from the article:
"Independent oil analyst Jim Ritterbusch said OPEC’s decision shows that oil-producing countries are more interested in cashing in on high oil prices right now than in stabilizing energy markets. He thinks that Saudi Arabia, which pushed to increase production, will quietly crank up exports anyway.
“They can afford to take a long-term view of the market,” Ritterbusch said. “They don’t want countries to turn to alternative fuels. They don’t want people on buses.”
Marc Ostwald, market strategist at Monument Securities, said the objectors to a production increase may have had one theme in common. “They are using foreign exchange reserves from oil revenues to subsidize....food price inflation to avoid the fate of Egypt and Tunisia,” he said.
Analysts say that the high cost of life, particularly food prices, and unemployment were key drivers in the uprisings there."
OPEC loves relatively high, but stable, gas prices for many reasons. The only way we combat this is to decrease the demand for their exports.
Interesting couple of blurbs from the article:
"Independent oil analyst Jim Ritterbusch said OPEC’s decision shows that oil-producing countries are more interested in cashing in on high oil prices right now than in stabilizing energy markets. He thinks that Saudi Arabia, which pushed to increase production, will quietly crank up exports anyway.
“They can afford to take a long-term view of the market,” Ritterbusch said. “They don’t want countries to turn to alternative fuels. They don’t want people on buses.”
Marc Ostwald, market strategist at Monument Securities, said the objectors to a production increase may have had one theme in common. “They are using foreign exchange reserves from oil revenues to subsidize....food price inflation to avoid the fate of Egypt and Tunisia,” he said.
Analysts say that the high cost of life, particularly food prices, and unemployment were key drivers in the uprisings there."
OPEC loves relatively high, but stable, gas prices for many reasons. The only way we combat this is to decrease the demand for their exports.
King Abdullah spent 170 Billion dollars in order to buy away the threat of riots. He did this with oil money. I heard this morning that Saudi Arabia needed $25 dollars a barrel to break even 30 years ago. It's currently $85, after the 170 billion in spending by Abdullah (was $68 until recently), and will be $110 per barrel by 2015. We either need to nut up and start exploring our own oil reserves or really push alternative. This ***** footing business isn't making anyone more secure.
Agree completely. We have to lift restrictions on offshore drilling, both deep and shallow, and open up ANWAR. Lift restrictions on new refineries.
- "But it won't be online for 10 years!!!1" ...that may be true, but A.) we could have done it 10 years ago and be sitting better today B.) Speculators, on the safety of knowing more oil will be coming online will start adjusting current prices downward C.) OPEC will crap themselves and start getting more of their product out of the ground and sold now ahead of our new capacity.
- "It's bad for teh environment!!!1" ....if that is the case, what was PBO doing encouraging Brazil to drill more? Is the ocean different near them than near us? Other nations don't see a problem drilling in the gulf, why the hell wouldn't we want to crowd them out? That oil is coming out one way or another environmentalist peeps. I don't think the UN is going to ban offshore drilling anytime soon. The thought that we handcuff ourselves when it is going to happen one way or another is pretty unnerving.
^ditto. Don't care which side she's on (reference to Miss Cupp).
This post was edited on 6/8 4:13 PM by Mime-Is-Money
This post was edited on 6/8 4:13 PM by Mime-Is-Money
The only downside to drilling, in my opinion, is that it's another band-aid. We need a real renewable option. The technology is there, it has to be, but I also understand why we can't convert over night. You think the unrest in the middle east is bad right now? Wait until all of those leaders don't have oil money to dangle over their complacent masses heads. Our economy is centered around oil and it's too important a product to remove in an instant. Smart Oil companies are getting into other technologies ASAP so as to not be left behind.
As usual, I think a hybrid solution is the only option. Do some drilling now to ease the pain of cost while investing some of the profits from not being gouged in renewable technology.
Great point RKD about the speculators. They are the true ********/cheats in this whole ordeal.
As usual, I think a hybrid solution is the only option. Do some drilling now to ease the pain of cost while investing some of the profits from not being gouged in renewable technology.
Great point RKD about the speculators. They are the true ********/cheats in this whole ordeal.
Oh I'd lift restrictions on nuke plants too. Have one in every metropolitan area. If it is been safe enough to have a plant near _________ for ________ years than it is safe enough to be located near me.
That completes my simpleton energy plan. Abundant, US sourced, energy. Our economy would boom beyond imagine.
Somebody get on that.
Not really. The potential reserves in ANWAR and off shore are a drop in the bucket to the global supply, which determines crude prices. The price we pay at the pump isn't dependent upon domestic production. Plus, OPEC can just cut production to stabilize prices.
Environmentalists don't support this decision but Obama made it for two reasons. First, Brazil's off shore reserves (in the Atlantic, not the Gulf) are quite massive compared to ours. By investing in Brazil's infrastructure, it'll shift our demand for foreign oil away from OPEC to capitalistic, democratic ally. Second, he's fallen victim to NIMBY tendencies after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill last year. His administration cares less about the environmental degradation from fossil fuel extraction and combustion carried out by foreign parties.
On the bright side for a gas-driven economy, the sooner we get the proven Brazilian oil reserves to the market to the world market, the less influence OPEC has on consumer prices at home.
Good stuff Rex.
The immediate help on pricing would be to call off the EPA and all of the different gas blends. That would cut at least $1 per gallon immediately. Stupid idea from one of the most out of control government agencies in history.
Not only drill, baby, drill but refine, baby, refine. Then, instead if sitting on our asses enjoying the new found wealth to most Americans, find a better way to use energy during our happier time.
Of course, with the EPA controlling everything from your toilet, to light bulbs to energy expansion, it will never happen. Reduce the power of the EPA and you get relief.
This post was edited on 6/8 4:18 PM by ukbob
The immediate help on pricing would be to call off the EPA and all of the different gas blends. That would cut at least $1 per gallon immediately. Stupid idea from one of the most out of control government agencies in history.
Not only drill, baby, drill but refine, baby, refine. Then, instead if sitting on our asses enjoying the new found wealth to most Americans, find a better way to use energy during our happier time.
Of course, with the EPA controlling everything from your toilet, to light bulbs to energy expansion, it will never happen. Reduce the power of the EPA and you get relief.
This post was edited on 6/8 4:18 PM by ukbob
Irish:
Good point about why tech can't be converted overnight that often gets overlooked. That part of the world will be even more a shitstorm than it already is once the jig is up for them.
As far as the 'bandaid' idea, my take is pretty simpleton there as well. The true replacement tech will not show it's face until it is needed. What I mean is:
"Necessity is the mother of invention"
We think there is a need for it now, but really we are just pining for a different tech while we have tons of cheap supply (albeit a lot of it untapped by our own accord). Hypothetical: Say we have free flow of oil for 50 years, around year 40 we see there is without a doubt 10 years left and boom ===> outta here.
The private sector, esp 'big oil', will swing 100% of it's weight into this new tech, whatever it may be, as a replacement. They won't just lie down and die, they like profit from what I hear and have a lot of shareholders to answer to. They will be the cack and balls that swing around and establish an alternative, it just won't happen as long as there is a cheap, abundant source right in front of them.
Good point about why tech can't be converted overnight that often gets overlooked. That part of the world will be even more a shitstorm than it already is once the jig is up for them.
As far as the 'bandaid' idea, my take is pretty simpleton there as well. The true replacement tech will not show it's face until it is needed. What I mean is:
"Necessity is the mother of invention"
We think there is a need for it now, but really we are just pining for a different tech while we have tons of cheap supply (albeit a lot of it untapped by our own accord). Hypothetical: Say we have free flow of oil for 50 years, around year 40 we see there is without a doubt 10 years left and boom ===> outta here.
The private sector, esp 'big oil', will swing 100% of it's weight into this new tech, whatever it may be, as a replacement. They won't just lie down and die, they like profit from what I hear and have a lot of shareholders to answer to. They will be the cack and balls that swing around and establish an alternative, it just won't happen as long as there is a cheap, abundant source right in front of them.
GWB's disapproval #'s were hovering around 50% going into November 2004. People generally disapprove of those they know but trust them moreso than the devil they don't.
Still, if the economy is still struggling to add jobs by next summer Obama is in serious trouble. The economy weighs on swing voters' minds moreso than debt/deficits (see: voting results of 2000-2008). $14T is just a number another staggering number to most and is meaningless without a comparison to GDP.
This post was edited on 6/8 3:14 PM by Mime-Is-Money
You really don't think people are worried about the debt?
"Independents, by 49% to 34%, also say their bigger concern is that raising the debt limit would lead to more spending and more debt. Nearly half of Democrats (48%) say their greater concern is that not raising the debt limit would lead to a government default, but 38% say they are more concerned that raising the debt limit would lead to higher spending.
National Debt Poll
Democrats in general hate this country and they could care less about our national debt. If they cared, they wouldn't have endorsed Obama who compounded our debt even way more than Bush. Obama has almost thoroughly destroyed any chance of an economic recovery.
Couple of quick points:
1) the problem isn't necessity, or lack of demand, it's distribution (namely infrastructure and supply chain logistics) and scale. The reason we consume so much in fossil fuels is because our infrastructure has been built around their distribution over the last 100+ years. This obviously drives down the price of the status quo compared to renewable alternatives.
2) The majority US's supply isn't "cheap". Most reserves are will be extracted unconventionally and are not economically viable unless the price of oil per bbl stays above a certain amount. We've used most of the cheaper, conventional sources.
3) Big Oil is also making investments in alternative energies. It's still a drop in the bucket compared to the capital allocated towards their core business but they see the viability of renewable energy products as well as the necessity of a diversified product offering.
Absolutely not. Obviously deficits are a big concern (see: 2010 elections). Just that there is, and will be, a greater focus on the economic condition:
This post was edited on 6/8 5:14 PM by Mime-Is-Money
So Breitbart goes on Opie and Anthony, passes the photo around the studio, studio camera catches a glimpse, someone grabs screenshot, and now a photo of Weiner's cock is out and about.
And it couldn't happen to a dumber ******* than Weiner.
And it couldn't happen to a dumber ******* than Weiner.
hate to nitpick but:
- under GWB our national debt rose from ~ $6T to $10T for a 74% increase.
- the estimated increase under Obama, if he is in office until 2016, is $8T, with a starting point of $11T, for a 70% increase.
With current estimates, which are always subject to change, our total debt as a % of GDP is slated to decrease.
Actually, what am I saying? I love to nitpick.
- Status