LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
vetteman said:
Figured you for a being a big stupid dummy with nothing to contribute.:rolleyes:

Here what it does, clown:

A Simple Rule Of Thumb Regarding Oil And How It Impacts The Economy
Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 24, 2011, 4:10 PM


From Deutsche Bank, this is useful:

According to our analysis, a $10 increase in oil prices translates into roughly a 25 cent increase in retail gasoline prices. Every one penny increase in gasoline is then worth about $1 billion in household energy consumption. (In decimal terms, it is actually $1.4 billion.) Therefore, a sustained $10 increase in oil prices translates into $25 billion in additional household energy spending. Assuming this price rise crowds out spending elsewhere in the economy, effectively acting as a tax, means that a sustained $10 rise in oil prices reduces annual real GDP growth by 0.2%.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-impact-on-the-economy-
2011-2#ixzz1nLTGQOrq

Another reference here:

http://pragcap.com/what-is-the-impact-of-rising-gasoline-prices
Click to expand...


So when money goes to Exxon, Baker-Hughes, and Chevron, it counts as leaving the economy? These aren't companies, they're the IRS?

This idea is what your argument depends on?
 
I don't have a link, but it was just on the news that it will take gas reaching $4.25/gal just to cancel out Obama's payroll tax cut in terms of its impact on the average family. The payroll tax cut feels invisible to most people though, while gas station signs are everywhere.
 
mercury14 said:
I don't have a link, but it was just on the news that it will take gas reaching $4.25/gal just to cancel out Obama's payroll tax cut in terms of its impact on the average family. The payroll tax cut feels invisible to most people though, while gas station signs are everywhere.
Click to expand...

I recently paid $4.50/gallon. I am voting none of the above.
 
mercury14 said:
I don't have a link, but it was just on the news that it will take gas reaching $4.25/gal just to cancel out Obama's payroll tax cut in terms of its impact on the average family. The payroll tax cut feels invisible to most people though, while gas station signs are everywhere.
Click to expand...

Unfunded payroll tax cut thanks to the Republican's ability to "compromise..."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73260.html

;) ;)
 
02-23-12

4est_4est_Gump said:
Should we start a pool on when he starts letting loose with the strategic reserve?



;) ;)
Click to expand...

As White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week "Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the president's been in office. Oil production is now higher than it's been in eight years."

Industry analysts say production is rising -- not because of President Obama, but in spite of him.

"Today on federal land, the area where the president has control, production in the Gulf of Mexico is down 30 percent. Lease sales in Rocky Mountains on federal lands are down 70 percent," Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute said.

He says the president has put 85 percent of the outer continental shelf off limits and overall, is only making 3 percent of the areas under his control available for development.

Numbers from think tanks and the federal Energy Information Administration confirm those numbers.

Nevertheless, steadily rising gas prices are a political liability. That's why the president now takes credit for the results of policies he ran against in 2008. One ad lambasted McCain by tying him to the Bush energy policies, saying "McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years."

The president initially wanted to drive up oil prices to make renewable energy more attractive.

His cap and trade plan was too harsh even for Democratic allies and failed. Nevertheless, Obama still seems to deny that drilling would reduce prices.

"You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices," he said at a speech in Florida this week.

Exploration and development do take years. But analysts argue the administration can't now take credit for decisions about drilling made years ago by President Bush and his predecessors.

"That production is a direct result of leases issued before this administration and as result of development on private and state lands," Gerard said.
On private lands, oil production is booming. In North Dakota, the oil and gas are on private or state land and beyond the president's control.

The state has gone from producing a small amount of oil to some 450,000 barrels a day.
Unemployment is 3.3 percent, the lowest in the country. And the state has a budget surplus in the billions.

Gerard thinks North Dakota isn't the only place. He says if the President would unleash the energy industry, the US and Canada have so much oil and gas that, along with renewables, we could become energy independent.

"We could be energy self sufficient right here in North America in 12 years, but that takes political courage," he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others are now talking about releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oil-production/?test=latestnews#ixzz1nOh4gmeh

Because there's an election coming up and Iran's not going away any time soon...

;) ;)
 
What I love most is seeing Democrats get what they vote for!



:cool:

I cannot wait to vote for Obama! FORE! more years!
 
Once it had become clear to Obama that there was no chance to pass legislation to force CO2 control, he vowed to find other ways to "skin the cat" (his words). Three of these subterfuges are underway, disguised in various ways to hide their true purpose.

1. Doubling mileage standards for automobiles by 2025 -- meant to reduce smog and other urban pollution, as well as the need for imported oil -- thereby improving national security. But the EPA, which has already drastically tightened existing standards, is quite open about the real purpose -- to reduce CO2 emissions. In essence, EPA has preempted the role of the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), which has the statutory responsibility for setting CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, there is little chance that auto companies can produce reasonably priced cars that people will want to buy and -- note the irony -- are safe to drive. (Oh, Ralph Nader, where are you when we need you?)

2. In its December 2011 rule of 1,117 pages, EPA sets unrealistic limits on the emission of mercury from coal-fired power stations; it is part of their scheme to get rid of coal as a fuel, even though coal is the cheapest domestic energy source and requires no imports. The U.S. is blessed with abundant coal resources; over 50% of electric power was generated from coal, though the percentage has now dropped to 45%. The Chicago Tribune foresees a rise of 40%-60% in Midwest electricity rates; nationwide, the respected national economic consulting firm NERA predicts an 11% rise and a loss of 144,000 jobs by 2020.

The lame excuse the EPA is using is "to protect the children," but again, the science is lacking. In any case, most of the mercury emitted into the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Human sources, like coal-burning power plants, are located mostly in China or other regions outside the U.S. and outside EPA jurisdiction. In other words, mercury pollution is a global problem, much like CO2; U.S. power plants contribute only 0.5% of all emissions.

The Bush administration had already promulgated plans to reduce U.S. emissions; any further tightening by the EPA will produce little marginal benefits but huge additional costs -- all for the sake of some reduction in CO2 emissions. As usual, the EPA greatly underestimates costs by a large factor and hugely inflates benefits, claiming prevention of 11,000 premature deaths a year. In addition, EPA double-counts benefits; only 0.1% can be assigned to the reduction of mercury emissions.

3. Finally, we have the much-discussed Keystone XL pipeline, which is supposed to bring oil from Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf coast. Obama has decided to stop this pipeline in order to ingratiate himself with extreme environmentalists, who oppose the project -- as just revealed in the San Francisco Chronicle of Feb 16. Their weak excuse is that an oil leak in Nebraska might produce pollution to the underlying aquifer. Of course, there is no reason why oil should leak over Nebraska -- and in any case, some 20,000 miles of various pipelines already cross the state. The real reason: production of oil from tar sands requires large amounts of heat and thus emissions of CO2.

Opposition to this capricious action by the White House is non- partisan. It involves labor unions, who see "shovel-ready jobs" disappearing; it involves national security concerns; and it involves the general public, who want cheaper and more secure oil from nearby sources -- not from overseas producers in the Persian Gulf, brought here by tankers.

In his 2008 election campaign, Obama promised to make electricity prices "skyrocket." He seems to be succeeding beyond all expectations, as a combination of White House policies is raising fuel prices. But as the cost of essential energy jumps upward, households are sliding into poverty; they can no longer afford to buy treats for the children; it's more important to keep them from starving and freezing to death. "Skinning the cat" may be a neat way of getting around the express wishes of the Congress and the public, but it is sure to backfire against the Obama White House in the November elections.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_skins_the_cat.html#ixzz1nP1POgPM
 
In San Diego, unions are fearful of a new pension reform measure referred to by supporters as Comprehensive Pension Reform, or CPR, that has qualified for the June 2012 ballot. Instead of simply gearing up to fight this political battle, the unions petitioned one of those ridiculous commissions that most Californians have never even heard of, the Public Employment Relations Board, which is unfriendly turf for taxpayers. The union said placing the initiative on the ballot amounted to an unfair labor practice, and PERB called for an injunction to stop the election until it could complete its sham proceedings.

In essence, the unions and this unelected board insist that the people of San Diego have no right to vote on pension reform. This is just the latest reminder of the totalitarian ethics of a public-sector union movement that doesn’t care about anything other than protecting its benefits.

...

Where does that leave us?

Economist Allan Meltzer once quipped that “Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. It doesn’t work.” Americans have been witnessing this axiom on a broad scale, as government efforts to prop up industries, bail out the financial sector, and protect select private businesses from failure have only caused a prolonged financial crisis. Without failure, there is no day of reckoning and no effort by the failed party to make the fundamental changes needed to avert future crisis.

The problem in the public sector is that government never is allowed to fail. There never is a day of reckoning no matter how poorly a government agency may provide its so-called services. Often, the worst agencies are rewarded for their failure by being granted additional public dollars. California governments have continually ramped up pension promises, but governments can’t go out of business, so they just keep piling up the debt.

When there’s no money left, officials play games with the numbers or—as Gov. Brown continues to do—make it their main objective to raise taxes.

Since reform can't take place because of union control, some have proposed wider use of the bankruptcy option so municipalities can reorganize their debt. The main critics of the bankruptcy option are the unions. They know that bankruptcy would enable governments to abrogate these unaffordable contracts. The public-employee unions championed a bill, signed into law by Brown in October that makes municipal bankruptcy more cumbersome by forcing localities to get approval for such actions by additional committees.

Some even see the bankruptcy option as something that should be allowed for states. In January 2011 GOP pols Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich ignited this debate with a Los Angeles Times op-ed titled, “Better Off Bankrupt” that argued that an organized bankruptcy process might help states overcome staggering budget deficits. But other conservatives, concerned about the impact of bankruptcy on bond markets, have been campaigning against this idea. They note that the highly publicized Vallejo bankruptcy ultimately did little to reform that city’s super-sized pensions for public employees.

I’m not advocating for bankruptcy per se, but what happens when all other reform options are taken off the table? What happens when the politics of a state won't allow the reforms necessary to save that state? In other words, what happens when failure is not an option? If the likes of Harris and PERB and the unions continue to get their way, we very well may get to see the answer here in California.
Click to expand...

Steven Greenhut
Reason.com

PS - The Post Office is sending out pink slips all over rural Missouah...

;) ;)
 
Go tell it to Obama, the man who steadfastly refuses to raise revenue according to your calculations, terrified that the Bush tax cuts did pay for themselves...

How are we going to fund Social Security?

Borrowing from the trust fund?

It's an insurance premium.

Look it up...

While you're at it,

Unemployment benefits are on a premium basis too.

PS - Be sure to check your tire pressure; it's your patriotic duty to save charging time on your Volt...
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
Oh fuck... I'll do my usual spam of non-sequiturs while also playing logic police!
Click to expand...


The Bush tax cuts cost what, fifteen times Obama's payroll tax cut? Just guessing here and it's probably much more. How come only Obama's cut needs to be funded?

Answer the question, hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
mercury14 said:
The Bush tax cuts cost what, fifteen times Obama's payroll tax cut? Just guessing here and it's probably much more. How come only Obama's cut needs to be funded?

Answer the question, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

It's because Obama's tax cuts are short term gimmics that don't provide a stable and lasting foundation to create the circumstances where business and people can invest with some semblance of confidence. They don't create the mindset of stability and in fact the risk of political whim causing significant changes in the currency, regulations or tax policy is still a factor when Obama is still in the President's chair.

Long term reductions in the marginal tax coupled with regulation restraint create an environment conducive to investment and return that will encourage more people to take the risks needed for innovation and growth.

Although American energy, industriousness and creativity will get us back to growth patterns at some point despite the worst of Democrat governance, these Obama gimmics will cause our economy to grow slower than it might otherwise under an administration that values growth, improving standards of living and freedom rather than one that uses business leaders as scapegoats (except, of course, the ones that donate to the democrats) and a schizophrenic tax policy.

The Bush tax cuts resulted in increased economic activity, more job creation (we got to 4.6% unemployment) and much higher tax revenue due to the increased economic activity and larger % of the population earning a paycheck rather than taking handouts from the government. As far as Bush tax cuts and the debt, the debt was shrinking rapidly after we got over the economic and political shock of 9/11. It's more than quadrupled on an annual basis since the Democrats took over the Senate and the House (Reid and Pelosi) and a couple years later won the White House (Obama). There's where the real cause of the debt has to lay.

If you don't understand this difference (as explained to you dozens of times), then you are once again reiterating that you have a third or fourth rate education).
 
Last edited:
4est_4est_Gump said:
Go tell it to Obama, the man who steadfastly refuses to raise revenue according to your calculations, terrified that the Bush tax cuts did pay for themselves...
Click to expand...

Time for the latest installment in the ongoing saga of "Bitchslap the Half Breed"

Congressional Budget Office...come on down! you're our next contestant!

CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit

And here's a very pretty graphic for the Chief to ignore!
http://www.cbpp.org/archivesite/1-25-05bud-f1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
222
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
406
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top