Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2014, 03:14:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83382 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 122
3751  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential, Who said Ponzi? (continued) on: September 15, 2011, 11:03:59 PM
Krugman: (GM posted this previously in the thread) "Social Security...in practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics..."
----
How about Chris Matthews and ... Tim Russert:

 Mr. Russert: "Everyone knows Social Security, as it's constructed, is not going to be in the same place it's going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."

Mr. Matthews: "It's a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point."

Mr. Russert: "Yes."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576570670305899208.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_RIGHTBelowPepperandSalt
----
The list of who compared Social Security to Ponzi might be limitless.  But if SS is a Ponzi scheme and everyone knows it, why is it off-limits for a serious candidate to say aloud what a Nobel Naureate and Meet the Press star host also have said.

What article in the constitution gives congress that power anyway?
3752  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / US-China: 'Eclipse' by Arvind Subramanian on: September 15, 2011, 10:34:27 AM
'The Economist' editorializes on a new book forecasting China to become the world's predominant economy and superpower.  The author says there is little the U.S. can do; the editorial questions that.  Obviously the full script for what happens next in the world has not been written.  My view is that the economic rise of competing economies is a good thing, except if they are our military enemies.  With China, who knows.  Also I don't agree with his numbers; we aren't down to a 13-12 economic advantage over China right now.  With the U.S., a real  challenge coming from elsewhere should be reason enough to get focused on getting our own act back together.

http://www.economist.com/node/21528591
The celestial economy
By 2030 China’s economy could loom as large as Britain’s in the 1870s or America’s in the 1970s

Sep 10th 2011 | from the print edition



IT IS perhaps a measure of America’s resilience as an economic power that its demise is so often foretold. In 1956 the Russians politely informed Westerners that “history is on our side. We will bury you.” In the 1980s history seemed to side instead with Japan. Now it appears to be taking China’s part.

These prophesies are “self-denying”, according to Larry Summers, a former economic adviser to President Barack Obama. They fail to come to pass partly because America buys into them, then rouses itself to defy them. “As long as we’re worried about the future, the future will be better,” he said, shortly before leaving the White House. His speech is quoted in “Eclipse”, a new book by Arvind Subramanian of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Mr Subramanian argues that China’s economic might will overshadow America’s sooner than people think. He denies that his prophecy is self-denying. Even if America heeds its warning, there is precious little it can do about it.

Three forces will dictate China’s rise, Mr Subramanian argues: demography, convergence and “gravity”. Since China has over four times America’s population, it only has to produce a quarter of America’s output per head to exceed America’s total output. Indeed, Mr Subramanian thinks China is already the world’s biggest economy, when due account is taken of the low prices charged for many local Chinese goods and services outside its cities. Big though it is, China’s economy is also somewhat “backward”. That gives it plenty of scope to enjoy catch-up growth, unlike Japan’s economy, which was still far smaller than America’s when it reached the technological frontier.

Buoyed by these two forces, China will account for over 23% of world GDP by 2030, measured at PPP, Mr Subramanian calculates. America will account for less than 12%. China will be equally dominant in trade, accounting for twice America’s share of imports and exports. That projection relies on the “gravity” model of trade, which assumes that commerce between countries depends on their economic weight and the distance between them. China’s trade will outpace America’s both because its own economy will expand faster and also because its neighbours will grow faster than those in America’s backyard.

Mr Subramanian combines each country’s share of world GDP, trade and foreign investment into an index of economic “dominance”. By 2030 China’s share of global economic power will match America’s in the 1970s and Britain’s a century before (see chart). Those prudent American strategists preparing their countrymen for a “multipolar” world are wrong. The global economy will remain unipolar, dominated by a “G1”, Mr Subramanian argues. It’s just that the one will be China not America.

Mr Subramanian’s conclusion is controversial. The assumptions, however, are conservative. He does not rule out a “major financial crisis”. He projects that China’s per-person income will grow by 5.5% a year over the next two decades, 3.3 percentage points slower than it grew over the past two decades or so. You might almost say that Mr Subramanian is a “China bear”. He lists several countries (Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, Spain, Taiwan, Greece, South Korea) that reached a comparable stage of development—a living standard equivalent to 25% of America’s at the time—and then grew faster than 5.5% per head over the subsequent 20 years. He could find only one, Nicolae Ceausescu’s Romania, which reached that threshold and then suffered a worse slowdown than the one he envisages for China.

He is overly sanguine only on the problems posed by China’s ageing population. In the next few years, the ratio of Chinese workers to dependants will stop rising and start falling. He dismisses this demographic turnaround in a footnote, arguing that it will not weigh heavily on China’s growth until after 2030.

Both China and America could surprise people, of course. If China’s political regime implodes, “all bets will be off”, Mr Subramanian admits. Indonesia’s economy, by way of comparison, took over four years to right itself after the financial crisis that ended President Suharto’s 32-year reign. But even that upheaval only interrupted Indonesia’s progress without halting it. America might also rediscover the vim of the 1990s boom, growing by 2.7% per head, rather than the 1.7% Mr Subramanian otherwise assumes. But even that stirring comeback would not stop it falling behind a Chinese economy growing at twice that pace. So Americans are wrong to think their “pre-eminence is America’s to lose”.

Bratty or benign?

If China does usurp America, what kind of hegemon will it be? Some argue that it will be a “premature” superpower. Because it will be big before it is rich, it will dwell on its domestic needs to the neglect of its global duties. If so, the world may resemble the headless global economy of the inter-war years, when Britain was unable, and America unwilling, to lead. But Mr Subramanian prefers to describe China as a precocious superpower. It will not be among the richest economies, but it will not be poor either. Its standard of living will be about half America’s in 2030, and a little higher than the European Union’s today.

With luck China will combine its precocity in economic development with a plodding conservatism in economic diplomacy. It should remain committed to preserving an open world economy. Indeed, its commitment may run deeper than America’s, because its ratio of trade to GDP is far higher.

China’s dominance will also have limits, as Mr Subramanian points out. Unlike America in the 1940s, it will not inherit a blank institutional slate, wiped clean by war. The economic order will not yield easily to bold new designs, and China is unlikely to offer any. Why use its dominant position to undermine the very system that helped secure that position in the first place? In a white paper published this week, China’s State Council insisted that “China does not seek regional hegemony or a sphere of influence.” Whether it is precocious or premature, China is still a tentative superpower. As long as it remains worried about the future, its rivals need not worry too much.
3753  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: September 15, 2011, 10:19:45 AM
GM: "Rubio has my vote when he runs for president."

Yes.  I will waive my two-term Governor rule whenever he makes the jump - Rubio has an upside risk of greatness well worth taking.  That video is without notes, presumably without knowing the questions.  He is succinct, articulate and right on the money with each answer.  He connects the immediate question, a 'jobs' bill with what we should do now and a clear vision forward.  He never loses sight of what makes America great and what is the proper role of government.
3754  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / George Will: Economy should render Obama speechless on: September 15, 2011, 10:10:02 AM
George Will is making good sense today, calling out economic foolishness for what it is.  The cost of saving each job that wasn't even saved was 5 times the median income.  Layoffs at Bank of America and the Postal Service: "Such churning of the labor market would free people for new, more productive jobs — except that to reduce unemployment, the economy needs a 3 percent growth rate, triple today’s rate."

Economy should render Obama speechless
By George F. Will
Thursday, September 15, 2011 - Updated 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — In societies governed by persuasion, politics is mostly talk, so liberals’ impoverishment of their vocabulary matters.

Having damaged liberalism’s reputation, they call themselves progressives. Having made the federal government’s pretensions absurd, they have resurrected the supposed synonym “federal family.” Having made federal spending suspect, they advocate “investments” — for “job creation,” a euphemism for stimulus, another word they have made toxic.

Barack Obama, a pitilessly rhetorical president, continues to grab the nation by its lapels but the nation is no longer listening. This matters because ominous portents are multiplying.

Bank of America, which reported an $8.8 billion loss last quarter, plans 30,000 layoffs out of a work force of nearly 300,000. The Postal Service hopes to shed 120,000 of its 653,000 jobs (down from almost 900,000 a decade ago). Such churning of the labor market would free people for new, more productive jobs — except that to reduce unemployment, the economy needs a 3 percent growth rate, triple today’s rate.

Consumers of modest means are so strapped that Wal-Mart is reviving layaway purchases for Christmas. The Wall Street Journal reports that Procter & Gamble, which claims to have at least one product in 98 percent of American households, is putting new emphasis on lower-priced products for low-income shoppers.

During the debt-ceiling debate, The New York Times [NYT], liberalism’s bulletin board, was aghast that Republicans risked causing the nation to default on its debt. Now two Times columnists endorse slow-motion default through inflation: The Federal Reserve should have “the deliberate goal of generating higher inflation to help alleviate debt problems” (Paul Krugman) and “sometimes we need inflation, and now is such a time” (Floyd Norris).

For two years, there has been one constant: As events have refuted the Obama administration’s certitudes, it has retained its insufferable knowingness. It knew that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8 percent. Oops. Unemployment has been at least 9 percent in 26 of the 30 months since the stimulus was passed. Michael Boskin of Stanford says that even if one charitably accepts the administration’s self-serving estimate of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus, each job cost $280,000 — five times America’s median pay.

The economic policy the “federal family” should adopt can be expressed in five one-syllable words: Get. Out. Of. The. Way.

Instead, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department has become a venture capital firm for crony capitalism and costly flops at creating “green jobs,” praises the policy of essentially banishing the incandescent light bulb as “taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

Better to let the experts in his department and the rest of the federal family waste other people’s money.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0915economy_should_render_obama_speechless/
3755  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Way Forward for the American Creed - Marco Rubio on the Jobs Plan on: September 15, 2011, 09:46:55 AM
This is an excellent, short  interview, it covers the Obama plan, what is okay in it, that overall it isn't a serious attempt to grow jobs, what needs to be done, what works, the amazing potential for growth we have right now if we would just do a few things. 

It would save me a lot of time and trouble writing my views on the issues if I could just post a quick video of Marco Rubio answering a few basic questions each morning.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/14/rubio_on_obamas_jobs_plan_only_job_he_is_trying_to_protect_is_his.html

Just 2 1/2 minutes, please watch.
3756  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 14, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
Evan Bayh, yes.  Kucinich from the left.  What does he have to lose?  Jim Webb's name  (D-VA)  came up on the board - he's not afraid of offending anyone.  We were arguing about whether Gov. Huntsman uses chopsticks properly; Sen. Webb was Secretary of the Navy.
3757  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics, Also NV-2 on: September 14, 2011, 12:38:15 PM
19 point gain in NY-9, surpassed only by a 20 point gain for the GOP in Nevada district-2 post-Obama.  McCain and Obama tied at 49-49 in 2008, Mark Amodei R-NV2 just won it 57-37.  Nevada districts 1 & 3 are in the south population centers, NV-2 is all the rest of the state.
3758  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Economics - Keynesian Stimuli on: September 14, 2011, 10:39:53 AM
Besides that the Keynesian Stimulus doesn't work in the first place, these failed Obamanomic attempts weren't Keynesian anyway.
-------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/5/and-now-a-word-from-a-job-creator/

Mike Whalen, The Washington Times,Mon 9/5/2011  
And now a word from a job creator …

As a job-creating entrepreneur out here in the hinterlands, I am amazed at the Keynesian priests in Washington calling for more stimulus fueled by debt.

“The Rev.” Paul Krugman, “the Rev.” Robert Reich and their many cohorts argue that the stimulus was too small to offset falling aggregate demand and that the prescription for our laggard economy is another, bigger stimulus.

Those who talk about Keynesian economic theory think economic contractions are worsened and prolonged because consumers and businesses hunker down in caution, causing aggregate demand to fall. We can all agree this has happened.

According to the Keynesians, the remedy for today’s economic problem is for the federal government, as the single biggest actor, to “prime the pump.” As government money starts to ripple through the economy, consumers and businesses will be encouraged and cautiously respond with limited increases of their own. Vroom! The economic engine steadily revs up in billions of responsive steps until happy days are here again. This pump-priming reaction is termed the “multiplier effect.”

I think John Maynard Keynes would be horrified at the slavish adherence to this simplistic strategy by so many policymakers and economic thinkers, as his theory was much more complex. This thinking might be correct under circumstances other than those in which we find ourselves. If the ratio of our national debt to gross domestic product was low - say 25 percent - and the federal government had run surpluses before the downturn, this college freshman-level Keynesian analysis would have great weight. Put another way, if Uncle Sam were a rock-solid financial entity with low debt to value and he had judiciously used debt for capital improvements that were accretive in value, as the biggest dog on the porch, a stimulus might work.

But with a national debt of more than $14 trillion and unfunded, future “off the books” debt of Social Security and Medicare combined at $104 trillion in present value, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve, Uncle Sam ain’t the man he used to be. This in turn makes American businesses that are sitting on a pile of cash focus on deleveraging. The American consumer is doing the same. In fact, from where I sit, it appears as though everyone except Uncle Sam is working like mad to strengthen his balance sheets. The legitimate fear across the country is that Washington’s refusal to join our common-sense parade will result in higher taxes, more regulations, more inflation and Japanese-style stagflation. In other words, Washington’s attempts at stimulus through spending are having the opposite effect. Businesses and consumers stay hunkered down.

I know this is counterintuitive to the college-freshman Keynesian analysis from above, but as a business owner, I can tell you an additional stimulus would create more fear and further dampen demand in the private sector. Keynes was correct in focusing on aggregate demand as critical, but the confidence context and potential behavior responses have to be considered, and that requires real-world, Main Street knowledge - not just textbook theory. In this environment, if the federal government announced a real road map to fiscal soundness, the impact would be truly stimulating. If American businesses and consumers saw that Washington was really cutting, not just reducing future increases, there would be tremendous relief and an increase in confidence across the country. Job creators would sing “hallelujah”; they would get off their wallets, start hiring, and then you’d see that Keynesian multiplier kick in.

Modern Keynesians suffer from the misguided notion that government is the great engine that will restore our economy to prosperity. In fact, the great engine is a diverse system of private citizens anxious to go to work to provide for their families and build their businesses.
3759  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Politics: Weiner Seat - Brooklyn and Queens go Republican! on: September 14, 2011, 10:14:32 AM
Nice coverage by Prentice on this:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1864.msg54279#msg54279

This is a big deal.  8 point R victory, 19 point swing in the district since Obama won it by 11 in 2008. In a Dem year, Weiner ran unopposed in 2006 and won 100% of the vote.

This means that Obama is a net loss if he campaigns for a senate and congressional candidate in districts and states as conservative as NYC!  We already saw him have to drive around Wisconsin where he won by 14% just 3 years ago.

The Duck is not Lame, he is radioactive.

(If someone else on the Dem side would like to enter the Presidential nomination race, today would be a good day to jump in.)
3760  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: September 14, 2011, 10:00:09 AM
"While I am quite sympathetic to the conclusion, I object to the methodology. The Salvation Army is not a charity as likely to appeal to someone from SF as from South Falls."

That would be Sioux Falls, largest town in S.D.  smiley

I'll never forget when some years ago the daughter of Keith Ellison's predecessor, a prominent leftist in her own right, told us in a small social group (in my Republican friend's living room - drinking his wine and eating his food) that "the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats care more about others and Republicans care more about themselves". 

The study above may not be scientific but is about as stereotypical as you can get for a red state vs. blue state behavior comparison.  Salvation Army I think is about as well-known symbol as there is for helping the poor anonymously and out of your own pocket.  So they took the above hypothesis and tested it.  It failed.  More work is needed on that hypothesis.  wink
3761  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Latest news on spreading wealth, Poverty rate up every year, 15.1% this year on: September 13, 2011, 09:35:05 PM
Once again the WSJ a day behind the forum but I still appreciate them reporting what most won't.  A side effect of robust economic growth is that the people most invested tend to gain soonest and most.  The obvious corollary is that when growth is negative and unemployment soars and stays, disparity may lessen, the rich are still rich but less rich, but people who relied on each and every paycheck are screwed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576568973957080358.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The Wall Street Journal
 REVIEW & OUTLOOK
 SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

Growth and Inequality: 2010
The latest news on spreading the wealth.

An abiding—make that the primary—goal of the Obama Administration has been to reduce income inequality. When the Affordable Care Act finally passed, White House economists and liberal pundits did a victory dance in their favorite publications boasting about how the bill would spread the wealth. So how's that inequality project working out?

One answer came yesterday with the Census Bureau's annual snapshot on living standards. The official poverty rate—defined as a family of four earning less than $22,314—rose to 15.1%. That's up from 14.3% in 2009 and 12.5% in 2007. The official rate significantly overstates poverty by missing government income transfers, but this increase is faster than during any three-year period since the early 1980s.

Meanwhile, the share of Americans without health insurance rose to 49.9 million, or 16.3%, from 48.99 million, or 16.1% in 2009. The share of Americans on private insurance continued to decline while those on Medicare and Medicaid rose. ObamaCare doesn't fully kick in until 2014, but we already know that it isn't reducing the cost of health insurance.

President Obama inherited a recession, and some increase in poverty was inevitable on his watch. But the magnitude of the increase underscores how feeble the current economic recovery has been, and how essential rapid economic growth is to lifting incomes for lower-income Americans in particular.

The lesson we draw is that politicians who support policies that make economic growth their top priority raise everybody's incomes even if some incomes rise more rapidly than others. Politicians who put income redistribution above overall economic growth do worse by everybody, especially the poor.
3762  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tax Policy: The 2013 Tax Cliff on: September 13, 2011, 08:59:57 PM
It turns out that the super secret jobs program that waited for the vacation but couldn't that couldn't wait until Thursday or until the second part was written, that we have to pass and was only half introduced at the over-hyped session, to be paid for later, was tax increases on job creators that already failed in congress and spread the wealth measures to Democrat core constituent groups.  This WSJ Editorial recognizes that the incentive measures are temporary and the tax hikes are permanent.  Who knew?

Obviously, this whole thing is a congress trap.  President Obama has no intention of getting this snake oil passed.  Just looking for an issue and a scapegoat.
---------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576567460396287134.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
    * SEPTEMBER 14, 2011,  Review and Outlook

The 2013 Tax Cliff
Business had better enjoy the next 16 months.

President Obama unveiled part two of his American Jobs Act on Monday, and it turns out to be another permanent increase in taxes to pay for more spending and another temporary tax cut. No surprise there. What might surprise Americans, however, is how the President is setting up the U.S. economy for one of the biggest tax increases in history in 2013.

Mr. Obama said last week that he wants $240 billion in new tax incentives for workers and small business, but the catch is that all of these tax breaks would expire at the end of next year. To pay for all this, White House budget director Jack Lew also proposed $467 billion in new taxes that would begin a mere 16 months from now. The tax list includes limiting deductions for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples), limiting tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and a tax increase on carried interest earned by private equity firms. These tax increases would not be temporary.

What this means is that millions of small-business owners had better enjoy the next 16 months, because come January 2013 they are going to get hit with a giant tax bill. Let's call the expensive roll:

• First comes the new tax hikes that Mr. Obama proposed on Monday. Capping itemized deductions and exemptions for the rich would take $405 billion from the private economy for 10 years starting in 2013. Taxing carried interest would raise $18 billion, and repealing tax incentives for oil and gas production would get $41 billion.

• These increases would coincide with the expiration of the tax credits, 100% expensing provisions and payroll tax breaks in Mr. Obama's new jobs program. This would mean a tax hit of $240 billion on small business and workers. That's the downside of temporary tax breaks and other job-creation gimmicks: The incentives quickly vanish, and perhaps so do the jobs.

So even if the White House is right that its latest stimulus plan will create "millions of jobs" through 2012, by this logic a $240 billion tax hike on small businesses in 2013 would cost the economy jobs. This tax wallop would arrive when even the White House says the unemployment rate will still be 7.4%.

• January 2013 is also the same month that Mr. Obama wants the Bush-era tax rates to expire on Americans earning more than $200,000. That would raise the highest individual income tax rate to about 42%, including deduction phaseouts, from 35% today. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found in 2009 that $437 billion of business income would be taxed at higher tax rates under the Obama plan. And since some 4.5 million small-business owners file their annual tax returns as subchapter S firms under the individual tax code, this tax increase would often apply to the same people who Mr. Obama is targeting with his new tax credits.

The capital gains and dividend taxes would also rise to an expected 20% rate from 15% today. The 10-year hit to the private economy for all of these expiring Bush rates: about $750 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 are two of ObamaCare's biggest tax increases: an additional 0.9-percentage point levy on top of the 2.9% Medicare tax for those earning more than $200,000, and a new 2.9% surcharge on investment income, including interest income. This will further increase the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 23.8%, for a roughly 60% increase in investment taxes in one year.

The White House's economic logic seems to be that its new spending and temporary tax cuts will so fire up investment and hiring in the next 16 months that the economy will be growing much faster in 2013 and could thus absorb a leap off the tax cliff. But this requires its own leap of faith.

Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell on President Obama's proposed tax hikes and the increase in the poverty rate.

The White House also predicted a similar economic takeoff from the 2009 stimulus that was supposed to make a tax hike possible in 2011. Then last December Mr. Obama proposed new tax incentives only for 2011 because the economy was supposed to be cooking by 2012. Now it wants to extend those tax breaks so the economy will be cruising in 2013.

All of this assumes that American business owners aren't smart enough to look beyond the next few months. They can surely see the new burdens they'll face in 2013, and they aren't about to load up on new employees or take new large risks if they aren't sure what their costs will be in 16 months. They can also reasonably wonder whether Mr. Obama's tax hike will hurt the overall economy in 2013—another reason to be cautious now.

For the White House, the policy calendar is dictated above all by the political necessities of the 2012 election. Mr. Obama will take his chances on 2013 if he can cajole the private economy to create enough new jobs over the next year to win re-election, even if those jobs and growth are temporary. Business owners and workers who would prefer to prosper beyond Election Day aren't likely to share Mr. Obama's enthusiasm once they see the great tax cliff approaching. Look out below.
3763  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: September 13, 2011, 12:50:50 PM
"Wow. Wesbury is starting to get tired digging for the pony."

Wesbury has his politics right from my point of view.  What is in question is his optimism that things can improve anyway, without the policy corrections.  I believe he posts honest views, but because he is employed by an investment house he selects from all his observations mostly positive things to say. 
3764  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 13, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
Thank you CCP for weighing in on this: "From a public health point of view it is clear this vaccine should be given to all."

I thought Perry already admitting his mistake.  It was a freedom-based error made in the interest of saving lives.  It is too late to wait and see if you need a vaccine.  If he had a friend tied closely to the vaccine, then he had someone he trusted telling him what you just said (repeating): "From a public health point of view it is clear this vaccine should be given to all."

When it is not a mandate, it is thrust strongly on you from what perhaps should be your most trusted person, your Pediatrician.  That happened to me with my daughter.  I had very strong reservations about it and said yes.  To say no meant to research it endlessly to know enough to prove him and the whole profession wrong.  Based on my comments on other subjects, in the back of my mind that is possible.  It feels much better to have you agree with Perry adviser and our doctor and the association of pediatricians etc. because I know that in this forum you would freely speak up against them if you felt that way.   smiley

It's far more invasive than seat belts, booster seats, motorcycle helmets, smoke and CO detectors, and all the other things we do in the name of public health.  We deserve the freedom to make our own decisions.  Parents deserve that when the subject is their kids.  But it is common place in America to be legislating public health mandates from government.  Those of us who assume people will make the responsible decision on their own will be offended, but most people accept most of this, especially if they are getting the science right.
----
Sounds like Bachmann's comment of it causing mental retardation in a specific family she spoke to is another glimpse at over the top leaps that she is willing to make.  Another example of shooting (without looking) in the wrong direction.  Her political causes I think would do very well with Perry as President; the person she should be trying to defeat is in the White House.
3765  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Environmental issues on: September 13, 2011, 12:19:38 PM
Cranewings: "...I still believe in man - made global warming, but it would be nice if something like this could really be proven to marginalize the man - made aspect."

There is an aspect or two of human behavior that would tend in the direction of warming, but the agenda people turn that into an inference that it is either totally caused or mostly caused by cars and coal plants and that is not true.  Certainly just having roads and roofs instead of prairies and forests has some effect on heat retention.  Every molecule of hydrocarbon consumed releases one of CO2; there is some increase and there is some effect, but it is very small.

I would like to update my calculation with new inputs (when I have time) but with the best information available 4 1/2 years ago I estimated that we are warming the planet at the rate of 3/100,000th of a degree Celsius per decade during this short period of earth's history and life that humans are so reliant on fossil fuels for our energy:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=976.msg9268#msg9268

If I were an environmental scientist, a belief in less than a ten thousandth of a degree of man made warming per decade would require me to say yes, humans are contributing to the warming of the planet.  But earth's own power to correct itself is perhaps a hundred thousand times stronger. 

There is no excuse for being reckless, wasteful or stupid with our God-given resources, but starving ourselves of energy even to the point of killing off our economy, jobs and prosperity, even if the effort was global, would be many magnitudes under the margin of error of what the best scientists can measure.
3766  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics - extending unemployment benefits on: September 13, 2011, 11:32:41 AM
Thank you JDN for that.  Of course it is a political conundrum.  Extend the benefits and you extend unemployment.  Refuse to extend and you get painted as heartless etc.  The tough love measures need to be accompanied with real pro-growth policies.

Unemployment is another one of those poorly defined and measured terms.  We just know there is too much of it.
3767  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: September 13, 2011, 11:13:23 AM
"[producing oil is] a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist"

Good f'ing grief.

"Doug...This is not Obama, but Oil Experts saying that our increased production will NOT affect world oil prices.  Got it?  Will not affect world oil prices...."

And you understand that I oppose rule by experts and I think they are full of sh*t and I gave you specific information as to why.  Repeating BS doesn't make it smell better.  Got it!  wink  Did you see the price volatility charts I posted.  Who with a sane mind thinks that these input factors around the world don't move price in that market?  The answer is clearly someone with a competing agenda and non-existent professional morals, unless you are quoting them out of context.  I don't have time to chase down the motives of why a scientist, a politician or a think tank is willing to deceive to accomplish their anti-production agenda.  It is simply not rational to allow consumption, prohibit production, wonder why the economy tanks, say you have a laser focus on jobs, then not pick any of the low hanging fruit in the job growth business.  The Obama administration even admitted those are the easy jobs to add when they attack their enemy Texas.  Shameful.  They should ask themselves, what are their job growth  numbers without Texas.

Experts also said it would create a million new jobs in a very short order.

That part is obvious.  My point is that it also affects every other sector of the economy.  If you deny supply affects price, then that point is moot - with you.  Still you could give me the courtesy of an answer on what part of demand for energy, if that is where we choose to attack this, comes from our bloated public sector.  Not a mention of that from a guy who travels with his family in separate jets.

The repetitive loop here includes no acknowledgment whatsoever that the data these 'experts' base their nonsense on is off by a factor of 8.5 not counting a trillion barrels of recoverable oil from shale.  It is okay for you to exclude these proven reserves because others more credentialed than either one of us did?

I have made no impact on you but it was fun to see my words picked up again by the WSJ.  wink 
-----------
(Crafty;)"Indeed!  Look at the volatility of the oil futures market!  Though in fairness it should be noted that the low margin requirements may well magnify the volatility."

Yes, but on the downward side those forces magnify the move down.  The world oil price would easily be cut in half at least momentarily.  The question is where would the equilibrium price land and it would certainly be *significantly* lower than where it is now.  More importantly, the runaway increases would be halted as supplies become less volatile so that  business people in this one respect could begin to make business decisions with some sort of confidence.
3768  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: September 13, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Crafty: "...US energy prices would be lower than would otherwise be the case."

It's not my post but I would like to insert the word *significantly* lower.

The point is that the price is artificially high right now because of a social engineering experiment.  Our government doesn't want us to drive, or manufacture, or recreate, etc.  We need to urgently get the production all the way up to just the level that is safe and efficient to produce in the context of the times we live in and then people can adjust and make their decisions about where to live, what to drive, where to locate their businesses, where to vacation, etc. 

If the same amount of government control and intervention had been exerted on the consumption side, perhaps an IRS style agent at every gas station scrutinizing your mileage log about where you drove and why, we would be in an uproar.  Instead we stifle production and go after the consumer like a frog in water on a heating stove.

JDN's argument that a little more production won't make a noticeable impact is what they said about ANWR.  They said the oil at full production wouldn't even make to market for 10 years.  That was more that 10 years ago!  Large projects like that and others tell the world that we are going to produce.  That weakens the power of the cartels and motivates other suppliers to get their product to market. Futures markets do not wait 10 years to respond.  The effect on prices of a serious change in policy would be nearly immediate and yes it would be global.

Demand at the margin is very inelastic because people already only buying what they need to do the things they want to do.  The amount of supply at the margin is extremely, extremely crucial in determining price.  Even the perception of future supplies moves prices.
3769  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy - Prof. Laffer Enterprise zones on: September 13, 2011, 10:02:21 AM
Art Laffer is perhaps my favorite on policy but on enterprise zones I think he is half right.

He ends with: "he can then extend enterprise zones to cover the whole country", but that is the whole point.  The USA needs to become one large enterprise zone and entice the able mind and bodied who are unproductive among us to join in.

Our ex-Gov. here (Pawlenty) had a program like this, and as Laffer is suggesting, it is a way of letting a little freedom out of the gate in a leftist-run electorate.  But it still extends and validates the piecemeal, left-Dem strategy of targeting this and targeting that instead of applying all laws evenly to everyone.

He is right about these dysfunctional inner city zones in America where enterprise is dead and gone.  In local political arguments I challenge liberals to name one profit seeking competitive enterprise who has started, relocated, expanded, hired, built anything that is unsubsidized in left ruled North Minneapolis and the same could be said for the south side of Chicago, east L.A., most of Detroit etc.  Why can't these locations produce and compete?  The question is complicated but waiving all rules and all taxes is just a better form of selective subsidy and unequal treatment that plagues our tax code already.

Laffer's idea is what Obama as a liberal should have chosen instead of more tax and spend.  Our side should be designing and articulating a realistic and sustainable framework for the entire nation.  And our side should be calling for implementation now, not in 2013, and pin the obstructionism on their side. 

To go from a culture where people don't work and get paid anyway to a culture where people work but don't have to pay in what the rest of us do is a continuation of what is fundamentally wrong IMHO.

It reminds me of a similar error made by Pres. Reagan.  His tax cuts were not only across the board but would remove million of taxpayers off the rolls altogether, he bragged.  That helped to sell his program to the Dem votes he needed and I'm glad it passed, but that aspect of it in hindsight was shortsighted.
3770  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 13, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
GM 9/12/11:  "It's worse than a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scammer can't use the force of law to compel you to participate in it."

Chcago Tribune Editorial 9/13/11: "The Texas governor owes a big apology to Charles Ponzi. Sure, Ponzi fleeced investors, but they at least had a choice about participating. Social Security operates on a compulsory basis."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-socialsecurity-20110913,0,6514632.story

That's the President's home town paper admitting the so-called right wing extremist in the race didn't go far enough.  Who says we aren't making a difference.   grin
3771  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 13, 2011, 09:21:09 AM
They were baited into attacking each other instead of taking turns showing the country how they would conduct a general election campaign against President Obama and how they galvanize the people around an agenda and mandate for recovery and prosperity.

Pawlenty and Bachmann had a similar snippy exchange against each other and now both are irrelevant.

Romney believed he needed to take Perry down a notch, but others across the spectrum were already doing that.  Only problem with attacking him on SS comments is that Romney has used the exact same words.  Romney makes the distinction that congress raiding the funds is what he was calling the criminal enterprise, but congress raiding the funds IS the status quo that Perry was attacking.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/12/romney_and_perry_argue_over_social_security_at_tea_party_debate.html

Perry drew attention to the problem magnificently, as if he were about to announce the solution, and then didn't.

Romney drew attention to his 59 point economic plan ahead of the President's speech and left the key points vague and uncommitted.

My advice to all of them at the beginning of all this was to pursue clarity.  Still waiting.
3772  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Proven oil reserves 8.5 times understated not counting another trillion barrels on: September 13, 2011, 12:17:44 AM
JDN, You may not believe supply or demand affect price but I would not recommend disclosing that right away if you are to apply for a job teaching economics, lol.

I'm sorry that you were duped on the term "proven oil reserves" in the United States. "...our reserves don't even rank in the top 10..."  This one is not wholly your fault.  You are repeating and reposting what other people are alleging without an interest in veracity.

“Proven oil reserves” in the U.S. only counts the petroleum that is available for development under current government regulations and it is 8.5 times understated from what the best science available tells us, and this figure doesn’t include oil shale, which has recoverable reserves of 1 trillion barrels, according to DOhttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

March 30, 2011 by  John Hinderaker
On Energy, Obama Lies With Statistics
...
Obama: "America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.  What that means is, is that even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess — offshore and onshore — it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs.  We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil.  We only have 2 percent of the reserves.  Even if we doubled U.S. oil production, we’re still really short."

This is a perfect example of lying with statistics. Obama knows that most people assume that “proven oil reserves” equals oil known to be in the ground. And, in fact, in most countries around the world, that is more or less what it does mean. In Saudi Arabia, for example, “proven oil reserves” are whatever the government announces they are.

But in the United States, “proven oil reserves” is a legal term, not a scientific term. It is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. We wrote about this in detail in Obama’s Long Nose On Energy. This is the definition, unique to United States law, of “proven oil reserves:”

    Proved reserves. The quantities of hydrocarbons estimated with reasonable certainty to be commercially recoverable from known accumulations under current economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations. Current economic conditions include prices and costs prevailing at the time of the estimate. Estimates of proved reserves do not include reserves appreciation.

The definition is in part economic; every time the price of oil rises, our “proved reserves” rise, too; likewise when the price falls. Most important, however, is that “proven oil reserves” only counts the petroleum that is available for development under current government regulations. So, to take two obvious examples, the petroleum in ANWR is not included in our “proven oil reserves,” even though the petroleum there is known to be vast, nor is the offshore petroleum in those areas–the large majority–where drilling is not permitted by current law. It is not nature, but Barack Obama and Congress that are limiting America’s energy resources.

It is disgraceful that the President of the United States is willing to deliberately mislead the American people in order to justify billions, if not trillions, of dollars in wasteful, politically-motivated boondoggles.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028724.php
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952
----
The Institute for Energy Research writes:

    In a recent report, CRS [the Congressional Research Service] said that the U.S. has 19.1 billion barrels of proven reserves, which is the number President Obama cites as 2% of the world’s oil. CRS, however, showed that between our proven reserves and oil predicted to be found, there is likely to be a combined 164.1 billion barrels, or 8.5 times as much as the president alleges. And this figure doesn’t include oil shale, which has recoverable reserves of 1 trillion barrels, according to DOE.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028574.php
3773  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / re. 2012 Presidential: Perry and Islam on: September 12, 2011, 12:59:37 PM
Crafty posted this link to a piece soft on Islam in Teas curriculum asking for comment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/the_real_perryaga_khan_curriculum_is_bad_for_children.html
-------
If the main job of a President was how to teach people about Islam, this piece might expose naivete and weakness.  Considering this election is going to be about shrinking government other than defense and growing the economy and jobs, I highly doubt this will derail anything.

If Perry looked weak on defense, weak on the war against terror or weak on support for Israel, this might be used to undercut him.  I don't think he has those vulnerabilities. 

Most people don't want to learn or believe that Islam is by definition a war against us.  People want to believe, even if false, that the violent few are misinterpreting the teachings.  Writings in our own Holy Books are not assumed by most to be taken 100% literal. Any candidate who attacks him against the peaceful side of Islam will become the one painted as extreme IMO.  And no one will.

The piece is interesting to me because it is the first I have read that explains the allegedly controversy that he has.   Perry has either a friendship or political tie to anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist, a Methodist whose wife is of Palestinian descent  That was the onlything I saw previously that showed some tie to Islam.  Especially as compared to his general election opponent.  Perry looks rock-solid on his faith and that allows him to move forward to other issues.  There are leftists, atheist and moderates who hate Christians,  buy they wouldn't be voting for him on the issues either.

One of Perry's good qualities has been the ability to say he was wrong as he did with the forced immunization issue.  If a missing chapter in a Texas k-12 textbook becomes the key issue and there is something fundamentally wrong here, he can apologize, separate himself from it and move on, because it didn't fit some  pre-conceived image or weakness he was trying to shake. (IMHO)
3774  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 12, 2011, 12:02:05 PM
Posing an obvious question here that follows from the discussion on Glibness and Energy:

JDN, Your writings of your views on economics, taxation and now energy IMHO fit far better with Obama than with Huntsman.  Unless other big differences emerge, these are the key issues.  You can handle that dissonance any way you want, but from nearly everything you write I would say that Republicans once again would gain nothing by offering up a so called moderate.  We should continue to vet out a real conservative leader to nominate for President, let all the left leaning voters go all the way left, and then defeat them all the way up and down the ballot and begin to rebuild the foundations of this once great country.   smiley 
3775  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: September 12, 2011, 11:46:48 AM
Regarding the Krugman post on the 911 forum, must love Crafty's title, 'Krugman is Scum' and Krugman's own ending punchline: "I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2231.msg54131#msg54131

3776  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: September 12, 2011, 11:36:50 AM
"As before, I acknowledge a positive job impact.  But please acknowledge a negative environmental impact."

I abhor wanton the spewing of poisons and I don't know anywhere in America where that is still allowed.  There is no freedom to recklessly poison your neighbor.

Where I live, the air and water quality has only gotten cleaner in my lifetime, both are rated an A by even the most extreme environmental activists.  When we continue to emit less and less and cleaner and cleaner, the impact of these emissions is actually positive - because the earth at least where I am is cleaning itself faster than we are polluting.

Now, did you answer my question about how many vehicles the State of California (government) owns? -  or the federal government.  The best thing government could do right now to lower energy usage would be to radically downsize their own operations.  Has any leftist thought of THAT?

The most prosperous countries have historically and consistently been the cleanest.  Being poor doesn't solve problems.  You ignored the distinction between putting sulfur and soot in the air and the fact that the cleanest burning of a fossil fuel still releases CO2.  So does a deer, a moose and an eagle, lol.  I'm okay with reasonable steps to use everything more cleanly, wisely and efficiently.  I also favor keeping some freedoms such as the freedom to emit small amounts of CO2 for a non-essential drive to have the kids visit Grandma.  Do you favor a total immediate ban on all recreational and non-essential uses of gasoline, or why not?  Do you agree with the Obamas' behavior (and Edwards, Reid, Pelosi, Gore, etc.) that if it's me doing it, and I am important, who cares?

BTW, whatever happened to Huntsman's natural gas for transportation initiative.  That is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, yet the left has begun a war against it.  I favor all affordable and reasonable efforts to clean up our act and I will put my footprint up against anyone for frugality and efficiency.  For this so-called hottest summer on record and we used one portable air conditioner for one hour, the first time in more than a dozen years.  I have an electric bike, a wind powered boat, a 40 mpg old car, a light duty solar system, I've filled dozens of houses with small CFL bulbs, smaller high efficiency furnaces and 1.0 gpm showerheads, I close off from heat at all the coldest and draftiest parts of our house in winter and I carpooled Saturday to visit my friend who just sold his company for a billion dollars.  That said, I don't favor federal mandates to make everyone do all these things.  Everyone's circumstances are different.

Alleging that the world's second largest producer of oil, who intentionally leaves it's resources in the ground and skews the whole world market, cannot make an impact on price is economically absurd and patently false.  Maybe we can take a sharp political turn here toward energy production, test the theory and prove one of us wrong.  Oil prices work off of a futures market.  The impact of new production on prices will hit long before the product makes it to market.

Yes there is a world price for oil, but location matters and so does refining capacity and output.  If we could quit (the net) import of oil (prohibiting import and export makes no sense), the world market would return to its natural balance, where buyers and sellers come to agreement, presumably much lower than it is today with America using its (eroding) wealth to disproportionately buy up available supplies.  Besides rescuing our economy, that move would favor economic growth in all markets that buy our other products and help to alleviate poverty in third world countries.  You deny that or oppose that?
3777  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 12, 2011, 10:03:53 AM
JDN, You are confusing the issue of putting toxic poisons in the air we breathe with the existence of the safe and essential trace molecule carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  That is appropriate on this thread because so is Obama, although only in his rhetoric.  I am looking forward to an actual case of a human, plant or animal health issues caused by breathing air with an elevated level of CO2, lol.  BTW, how come they won't keep Air Force One out of LAX when he comes only for a fundraiser?

In the spirit of fighting back on this not in my backyard argument I hereby offer my yard and garage for the storage of nuclear waste casks sealed to Yucca Mountain safety specs at the market rate that utilities pay for storage.  Our all time Richter record here is 0.0.  Not totally risk free but safer than a mountain motorcycle ride and cleaner than a solar panel or CFL factory.
3778  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Energy Politics & Science: 1.2 million jobs could come from an energy expansion on: September 12, 2011, 09:33:23 AM
A follow up here from the energy argument over on 'Glibness':

10 of the last 11 recessions were preceded by oil price spikes. http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/08/oil-price-shocks-and-the-reces  Oil prices spike when supplies don't keep up with demand and especially when there are interruptions or fears of interruptions in times of tight supplies.  This is not theoretical.  Healthy economies have abundant supplies of reasonably affordable energy available.  Places with unreliable energy supplies such as third world countries with frequent grid shutdowns make lousy locations for business expansions.

I don't understand the denial that our failure to produce sufficient energy is hurting our national security and our geo-political strength.  We compete with China to import oil, but they are using our dollars.  When our next confrontation with Russia comes we can ask, who artificially stimulated their economy at our expense?  We did.

If oil prices can double in a period of months and not years, how can anyone deny the sensitive relationship between having adequate supplies and having affordable prices?
---
The energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie released a report on Wednesday http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/API-US_Supply_Economic_Forecast.pdf  that attempted to quantify the additional jobs and revenue that would result from a relaxation of the federal government’s current anti-energy policies. You can read the report in its entirety, but here is the bottom line:

    Wood Mackenzie’s analysis found that U.S. policies which encourage the development of new and existing resources could, by 2030, increase domestic oil and natural gas production by over 10 million boed, support an additional 1.4 million jobs, and raise over $800 billion of cumulative additional government revenue.

Wood Mackenzie compared a “current path case” against a “development policy case” to derive these figures. This is the current path case; i.e, continuation of the Obama administration’s policies:

    • The “Current Path Case” assumes the following policy and regulatory initiatives:

    • Continued “slow walk” of Federal permitting for offshore Gulf of Mexico
    •The case assumes an increase from current offshore exploration and development activity levels, but not back to pre-Moratorium rates

    • Tighter Federal hydraulic fracturing and water disposal regulations which are beyond the current state regulations
    • Slow down of onshore drilling due to increased cost of well completions. Results in a negative impact on development economics

    • No opening of new areas for exploration and development
    • No new exploration and development in frontier areas of Alaska, Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific offshore, and Federal Rockies

    • Restrictions on new pipeline development from Canada
    • Curtailment of oil sands pipeline infrastructure into the U.S.. No development of the Keystone XL pipeline or other future Canada to U.S. pipelines

If the federal government got serious about job creation, we would have the development policy case:

    • The “Development Policy Case” assumes the following policy and regulatory initiatives:

    • Opening of Federal areas that are currently “off limits” to exploration and development
    • Commencement of leasing, drilling and development activity in currently closed regions. Regions to be opened include: Eastern Gulf of Mexico, portions of the Rocky Mountains, Atlantic OCS, Pacific OCS, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) – 1002 Area, National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA) and Alaska offshore

    • Lifting of drilling moratorium in New York State
    • Commencement of drilling and development of Marcellus shale in New York State

    • Increased rate of permitting in the offshore Gulf of Mexico
    • Allows for a return to pre-Moratorium exploration and development activity

    • Approval of the Keystone XL and other future Canada to U.S. oil pipelines
    • Facilitates additional Canadian oil sands development, thereby increasing the demand for U.S. supplied equipment and infrastructure

    • Regulation of shale resources remains predominately at the State level
    • Environmental regulation of shale gas and tight oil plays are not duplicative or unduly burdensome. Permitting levels are at sufficient rates to develop resources in a timely manner



3779  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness: Separate Jets? on: September 12, 2011, 08:39:45 AM
GM, On the Andy Rooney film, very funny.  On the Obamacare anchor, very sad but true.

Thank to our moderator for indulging us on this thread.  We know what impact bad energy policies have on our economy.  The question is why our we doing this to ourselves?

Thanks to JDN for bringing the other viewpoint front and center on the forum; we are lucky to have you have advancing these arguments with a straight face:

"Decrease demand, not increase Supply."

If that is what Obama believes... how do we explain everything he does?  The only way you would separate energy use from economic activity is to change EVERYTHING that we do and if you really believed that as leader you would set some kind of consistent example from the top.  Who is more visible, more influential, better able to change mindsets and behaviors than someone who waltzed in with a 69% approval rating in Jan 2009.

Pres. Obama is not unique for being a hypocrite nor unique among Presidents for the security needs of flying he wasteful Jumbo jets for personal transportation.  But he was supposed to be different.

Does anyone remember the picture of the motorcade this summer?  Just the energy to build 2 million dollars of buses as his styrofoam pillars for 2 days of campaigning is odd, but did you see the entourage that requires?  Just security needs, one might argue.  And they fly the largest jet past their destination to board the photo-opp bus.  How about the security needs of the Spanish villa trip?  The President didn't even go - the wife needed a get-away.  We've trashed the wastefulness of American Las Vegas, let's go to Spain. Who hasn't felt the need to get away to Spain with all the stress and whatnot.  Fire up the jets, close the beaches, we're comin' in.   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300852/Spanish-police-close-public-beach-Michelle-Obamas-250k-Spanish-holiday.html

I think it all started with the well-publicized "date night" in NYC.  Boosting his popularity up among rich women perhaps to show his romantic getaway side seemed to make sense but 'flew' right in the face of changing the way we use energy.  You others out there need to put air in your tires.  He was just proving my point.  If I want to go see the most spectacular sights in the Rocky Mountains, I have to put gas in my car - 3 times each way.  Same goes for him but with a bigger budget on a million-fold scale.

Let's say we accept that, a little first couple togetherness and he gets the jet fuel free anyway.  How about the used of separate jets on subsequent trips,  anyone follow that story?  True that the dog BO flew on a separate jet.  I'm sure it was going there anyway.  But how about the first lady?  Couldn't travel with the husband?  Not enough room on Air Force One?
---
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/08/19/michelles-separate-travel-costs-taxpayers-thousands/
"Michelle Obama and President Obama traveled to Martha’s Vineyard just hours apart, costing taxpayers thousands in additional expenses so she could have just a bit of extra vacation time....

The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.

Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.

This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation."
---

Only if you are a global warming denier do you measure the cost of separate jets in dollars - and then not care.  Whatever they say about Perry can be said right back at the First Lady and Commander in Chief.  These arrogant, self-indulged people don't give a rat's ass about energy use or carbon emissions.  Bringing down the economy knowingly was done in the name of "fairness", not conservation, and now they are conflicted about what to do with the political fallout.
3780  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness: Produce 4 terawatts or send billions out on: September 12, 2011, 12:12:58 AM
To JDN and Pres. Obama:  [This has already been well answered.]  Energy use is tied to economic activity.  We make efficiency gains over decades but in the immediate term lower energy use means fewer people going to work and less product produced.  Anti-growth economics -  Obamanomics - is the POLAR OPPOSITE of having a laser focus on jobs.  That's why we call it 'cognitive dissonance'.  You can shrink economic activity or you can grow jobs.  You can't do both simultaneously.  If you don't know that energy prices are a major component of everything and differences at the margin matter greatly, I honestly don't know how to help you. 

"Decrease demand, not increase Supply."

Fill our tires, eat our peas.  Oil will spill and nuclear plants melt down, let's do without more energy?  That's the thinking that got us into this mess.  You can do without growth - you can do without jobs, - but you will also do without a second term.  If you don't put fuel into the planes, trucks, cars, ambulances etc. they don't go.  It's physics.  Heat and AC are used in commercial buildings only if people are working there.  Oil is used in manufacturing, not just transportation, also to grow food.  Put transportation on the electric grid and you will need to ad kilowatts.  Actually gigawatts.

"The USA consumes 25% of the world's energy..."  yes, about 4 terawatts, and 25% of the world's oil.  We produce 11% of the world's oil.

25%  is a better guideline of how much we should produce.  That would stop the flow of billions of dollars leaving the country every day to buy oil and we have the resources. 

Small changes in supply make big differences in price.  OPEC has prospered on that fact?

I'm unreasonable, yet candidate Huntsman came out as a complete energy  production hawk, the same proposals and you support him.  Can't follow your logic.  Is it because I'm black?
3781  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance Glibness: We're better off with foreign oil JDN, Really? on: September 11, 2011, 04:13:45 PM
You continue to amaze me.  I wish I could tell when you are just pulling my chain.

"I also can see the severe disadvantages of increased domestic energy production."

As much as I love Canada and wish the best for Mexico, our failure to produce more of our own energy also enriches enemies and adversaries as far away Iran, Venezuela, Russia and tea party havenTexas.  It plays a major role in our trade deficit, which causes other problems monetary.  It makes us vulnerable in terms of both security and economics.  It caused us to use strategic reserves for extremely temporary political purposes.  It is such a beautiful day here I hate to expand on this but I could.

"Drilling for oil is going to make the local colleges, the local hospitals operate more cost effectively and be more competitive?   huh "

JDN, Really?  You don't know that every factory, every university, every everything that we do relies on energy and reasonable energy prices?  And that cost just DOUBLED under this President's policies.  How many vehicles does UCLA own?  How about the state government of California?  How much oil does tghe federal government use?  That money could be used for stimuli and helping out the people who don't want to work.  What is the energy bill in a year for everything that happens in a year in a hospital, not just the lights, heat and AC, but the shipping of medicines and everything else.  How about an outage?  Who on a heart lung machine in  a hospital might that hurt?  Who cares??

Then off goes the argument to China.  China doesn't have a net trade deficit like we do.  They are using OUR dollars to buy THEIR energy and drive our costs and deficits up even further.  Also they are building new plants and chasing new sources at an amazing rate so the comparison fails.  While Obama is stopping them.  You think Japan doesn't have an energy crisis right now?  What?? I think I could find traces of it on at least 5 threads on this board.  You like their growth rate?  The additive effect of these huge economies importing instead of producing energy, and Germany held hostage to Russian natural gas supplies does not make our failure okay, it makes it far worse.  How is Japan without oil analogous to us leaving ours in the ground - while subsidizing production in Brazil?  You approve of that? Really??

"isn't "clean coal" an oxymoron?"

You don't know the difference between today's best plants and those that spew soot and sulfur into the air?  Really? http://webecoist.com/2009/04/15/clean-coal-dirty-coal-plants/   Or is this a CO2 argument.  Fine, then back to nuke. Zero CO2.  Big construction potential.  Not in the speech.

While you are entitled to your opinion that you would rather have energy produced further from home, transported in danger of spill, and funding those who arm the people who kill our troops, the question at hand is: ...  What should a failed leader that is laser-focused on jobs do?

Our massive energy production deficit is a force raising the price of all energy everywhere, especially at home, killing jobs and job growth.  BTW, we drill and spill in deep water when our regulators ban rigs near shore.  Like it or not, that is cognitive dissonance.
3782  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness: Low Hanging Fruit on: September 11, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
The details of this can go under energy, but it must be pointed out under dissonance that even though the Obama crowd says the job growth in Texas was mostly about energy (13% IIRC), the word 'energy' does not appear anywhere in his jobs speech.

John Hinderacker of Powerline has a headline that articulates my view better than I can:
"Want More Jobs? The Low-Hanging Fruit Is Energy".  

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/want-more-jobs-the-low-hanging-fruit-is-energy.php

A friend just came back from Williston, ND, a state where the unemployment rate is 3% and said the hotel rooms are all booked through next March.  They don't come there for the scenery or for horse racing or pro football or concerts or for the weather or the beaches.  They come for energy, energy jobs and for the economic activity all of that is generating.  Rocket fuel, not rocket science!

But Pres. Obama did not even use the word energy in his jobs speech.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-obama-speech-remarks,0,3432522.story

Energy production doesn't just create energy production jobs.  It makes every factory, every delivery service, every office building, every college, every hospital, every bridge construction project, every farm, etc. operate more cost effectively and to be more competitive in a growing global market.

Yet no mention whatsoever.  Not the word 'energy', not 'oil', not 'drill', not 'explore' or 'exploration', not 'refine' or 'refinery', not 'pipeline', not new 'nuclear', not clean 'coal' or carbon sequestration, not 'natural gas', and not 'power generation' of any kind.  We are going to quadruple exports, re-open our factories, train and hire back our workers by the millions and we are going to do it on pedal power??  Even that is not mentioned.  To do it efficiently would require pedals made in China and shipped without using even more imported oil.

The topic is jobs and the message is, 'you listen, I'll talk'.  That's not audacity, it is arrogance, short-sightedness and stupidity.  If you don't have the answers Mr. President, respectfully, shut your mouth for a moment and open your eyes and big ears. and let some obvious common sense from others seep in.

But a conservative site to him with an obvious answer to the exact challenge he faces gets just a reaction that they are barbarians, 'enemies' and sons of bitches.  'Stop listening to them!'
3783  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Homeland Security this 9/11 on: September 11, 2011, 09:39:03 AM
There remains a line of thought within our political spectrum that our own foreign policy is the problem and that our response should be to absorb the losses, bring forces home, and move on.  This seems to me a moment to remember that related attacks on Americans and American interests were occurring before 9/11 and have continued since.  Examples include the 1993 WTC bombing, two 1998 embassy bombings, and the 2000 USS Cole bombing.  Our strategy of not responding or not being able to respond to these attacks against us served only to embolden and empower, not to dissuade the planners and perpetrators of the devastating attacks that followed.

Always prudent to question the details and strategies of war but I cannot ever agree that it is sufficient or wise to absorb and accept losses and not take war to our enemies wherever they are for as long as they are committed to destroy us.

To point out the obvious: The carnage of terror and the war against terror and against the terrorists and those who plan, harbor or help the destruction is the fault of the forces of destruction, not of those who seek to stop and end it.
3784  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: September 10, 2011, 01:02:17 AM
Pat and all, I have gone through the links to those writings and others and am extremely impressed.  Though I am a big picture person, there are many pieces in this puzzle that are interesting topics of their own and apply to other topics here as well.

It is fascinating (scary) to see how the government sponsored entities like Fannie and Freddie went, in a short time, from just a way to open home ownership up to a few more people to a takeover of 95% going on 100% of the market.  Hard to follow that story and not think of what is happening in health care. 

This passage from 'Forces Facing The Housing Market' applies to a discussion on tax deductions today:  "Debt reduction commissions have recommended that one manner to increase income to cover debt would be in eliminating the mortgage deduction. The affect of any such action would immediately crash the housing market. For many, the deduction is the single most important reason to buy a home. Eliminate the deduction, you eliminate purchases, and the result is another round of decreasing home values."

We need to solve problems in this country but we don't need to move so radically against a largely positive thing when we could correct about a hundred thousand worse policies first.

There are other points I would like to explore, one is how impending inflation will affect housing.  Pat made a powerful point in loan modifications that pushing the excess principle past the original term of the mortgage allows those dollars to be paid back in 30 year forward dollars for example- far cheaper for the borrower without requiring a principle write down now for the lender.  The effect of inflation even at 3-4% is an integral part of a 30+ year money equation and inflation that is coming is likely much higher. 

A big factor in the housing recovery is how general economic conditions affect how we work our way past the foreclosure and underwater inventory excesses.  The 6, 10 or 20 year recovery time estimates assume I think that we keep trudging forward at Obamanomic economic stagnation speed.  Another scenario is that we may not be that far away from an economic growth resurgence that is more robust than experts are predicting.  6 million more foreclosed homes sold may only require somewhere between 6 and 12 million new jobs, which is not unprecedented or out of the realm of possibilities.

On the demographic front, I would add the possibility of a pro-active immigration policy, bringing in some measure of investment, skill and youthfulness.  For example, one idea is to offer the best and brightest of those who already come here for our universities the possibility of staying under certain positive conditions.  New entrants might be more welcome, appreciated and assimilate better and faster if they are small business entrepreneurs and employers, energy or software engineers or filling other specific needs in our economy.  They are more likely to acquire housing of their own if they are legal, documented and economically engaged.  Not just housing but social security and retirement systems survival will require new workers and new energy.  A controversial idea but food for thought.
3785  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 09, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
"Must be one of those crazy loon Tea Party types"

Barbarians!

In the re-sizing to post I lost track of crediting the source.  I took it from Steven Hayward at Powerlineblog and he credits: http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=8333

They missed the new catch phrase: pass the bill.

Pres. Obama needed, since the beginning of his Vineyard stay, to tell us this on Wednesday. Thursday was going to be too late.  On Thursday he said pass the bill, pass the bill, pass the bill, perhaps two dozen times, but no bill Wednesday or Thurs. Today is Friday... No bill.  He has already been humiliated by CBO this year who said they score bills; they don't score speeches.

925 days without a jobs bill was the headline around Aug 31.  Many things werre done faster.  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/09/01/what_can_happen_in_fewer_than_925_days  Lewis and Clark reached the Pacific in 542.  Now before it's written he wants it passed without reading it.  Really without writing it.  Then he wants it passed without reading it or debating it or running it by the constituents who may in fact hold more wisdom than him and his cash for clunkers chief adviser.  We did this with healthcare. We did this with TARP.  We did this with Stimulus 1 and Stimulus 2, and QE1 and QE2.  We did this with Dodd Frank.  We did this with the debt ceiling super-anti-constitutional committee formation.  What could possibly go wrong someone asked.  Pretty much everything, as we have seen.

Certain stunts and maneuvers have been named after people, like a Lewinsky.  Is he pulling an Obama here again?
3786  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bureaucracy and Regulations in action: The Fourth Branch of the US Govt. on: September 09, 2011, 03:42:14 PM
Yes, they are only gold in coloring.   That is a little deceptive, the cartoon look would be more honest.  With the full faith and credit gone, you go with what you have.  They are not commonly used, it would be a little hard to slip a couple of million of them into circulation unnoticed.  Imagine the size though - on a microscope - if they were gold.  Ron Paul had a funny line that gas still is 10 cents - a silver dime is worth about a gallon.

Yes, who knows how much CO2 is emitted in the excess printing of devalued dollars.  Innocent trees with their lives cut short, for no good reason.  Maybe we can get the federal regulators to cap them. 

Most money really of course exists only as an electronic accounting entry.
3787  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bureaucracy and Regulations in action: The Fourth Branch of the US Govt. on: September 09, 2011, 01:26:41 PM
Very funny GM!  Which side is heads and which is considered the side symbolizing where the excrement comes out.
3788  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 09, 2011, 01:23:52 PM
"For the record I live some 15-20 miles from Santa Monica.  I drive a 21 year old truck and make my living teaching martial arts."

On a brighter note, your truck jumped in value under Obama.  The replacement model may have the Fred Flintstone drive system mandated.
3789  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bureaucracy and Regulations in action: The Fourth Branch of the US Govt. on: September 09, 2011, 01:14:33 PM
I am caught wondering how big a one dollar gold coin can be, at roughly 1/32000th of a pound.   sad   Does it have Obama or Bernancke's mug on it?
3790  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness: The no-jobs speech on: September 09, 2011, 01:10:19 PM
I still haven't gathered the strength of stomach to read or watch the speech yet.  Fascinated by what a non-news story it is.  We had back-to-school curriculum night last night as did thousands of school districts I'm sure and I made the right choice.  I will read the bill when there is one.  One revelation seems to be that Obama had another half-tril of cuts he was willing to make but was hiding and saving those to offset new spending.  We will see.  This time maybe we can pass the cuts and skip the new spending and 'revenue enhancers'. 

It seems to me he set his own trap and caught himself being the anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-private sector president that he is.  It was a mistake to draw attention to his worst quality.  'Pass it and I'll tell you what's in it.' Should instead have made one more speech on the killing of OBL, then say he needs to spend more time with family - and golf without criticism - and will not be running again.

People with better senses of humor than me set out to enjoy the pre-game speech with BINGO boards and drinking games.  Let's drag out the film and pass out the board markers.  See how many you can get:

Bingo!
3791  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: September 09, 2011, 12:10:01 PM
"Lets take that to the Tax thread please." (from 'Glibness')

The mortgage deduction and charitable contributions will be the last two to go.  In theory, I prefer very low rates and no deductions with no social engineering, but the home mortgage deduction was a very long institution of encouraging home ownership, neighborhoods, stability that people have long relied on.  This is not a great time in housing to make things dramatically worse, nor does that save us money, see housing thread.  If we did, a multi-year phase out does less damage.  Don't we already cap and limit the mortgage deduction?

The point is IMO, is get the garbage out of the tax code, get the rates down to what a rich person with options would be willing to pay and you will get more growth and more tax collections.
3792  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: September 09, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
One link on the lawsuit story: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/u-s-takes-hard-line-in-suits-over-bad-mortgages/  Feds suing institutions that are federally insured...  Cut off new funding and existing losses get worse.  Yes, very confusing when there is no painless way out.

PP,  Great to you have you back in. A bad situation but very helpful info.  I have made good use of the info you already posed; not getting rich but avoiding new mistakes.  Combining the numbers Fannie, Freddie, FHA and VA, mortgages are 95% federal(?) and the other 5% I assume are federally insured banks?  And none of it is savings based, as in the old S&L concept.(?) As one who is greatly exposed to the continued downturn, this is painful.  Housing is tied to jobs and income so the ending of bailouts and closing of failed agencies needs to follow the policies that will lead back to growth, meaning no time soon.

Other groups tied to property values include the property tax authorities across the country.  I wonder what percent of foreclosed homes never make it back to life.  90,000 in Detroit alone? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703950804575242433435338728.html
(I hear the Kelo property in New London is still available.)

The reforms needed lead to higher mortgage interest rates, but that is in addition to the certainty that rates out of the Fed eventually will rise and that rise could be severe when new dollars already printed have their known effect.  People only pay the monthly that they can afford so it follows that values will drop further.  Plenty of people are still in adjustables at artificially low rates partly because they can't qualify to refinance what they already owe, so when rates go up and up, down go more more properties into default.

Besides aging baby boomers with fading birth rates, net immigration I think is close to zero so demographics won't bring any explosion of demand.

I favor privatization wherever possible, but that alone doesn't make any of this go away.  Only sustained, robust economic growth can make a positive difference on housing IMO.  That could be years out?
3793  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 09, 2011, 10:05:02 AM
Some follow up points because this is central to evaluating this president and this election - then back to the other threads.   

We hold Gov Perry to results in Texas during his time and Romney in Massachusetts for his.  But the operative Obama line is "when we got here" meaning post-crash Jan. 2009, and that everything that happened when they took control of both chambers of congress, took control of domestic policy and bragged swaggeredly about taking full control  in Nov 2006 did not count.  We can blame Bush for losing that midterm election and losing congress and losing all control of domestic policy but Jan. 2007 is certainly when they got there, if one is talking about control and direction of policies in Washington.

One could also say that Obama was only a junior senator and only one senator of 100 but he was the rock star in the party even as a candidate ever since his keynote speech at the 2004 convention and he was a de facto leader in the senate and congress the day he arrived in Washington.  When they took the majority two years later he waited less than 30 days to launch his successful Presidential run.  Hillary was the presumed nominee and next President but his only policy difference with Hillary turned out to be that he opposed the individual mandate.  Go figure.  The direction of the Pelosi-Reid congress under lame duck Bush was something Obama had a direct hand in or should have, while saying he was ready to run it all.  They were saying trust us to govern and then they were saying watch what we do, correcting disparities etc. and they did, and now I am pinning those results on them just as they wished - back then.

The tie between investment results and unemployment is economic and inextricable.  It follows policies choices and policy mistakes, not calendar years or names on office doors.  We attempted this discussion before.  If wealth went up slightly during brief interludes on the graph posted, like when unemployment went from 10.2 to 9.1, then so be it.  They are still linked.  If you kill investment and wealth, you kill jobs and opportunities for workers and young people.  

My real point is that disparity during economic growth is a fact.  When policies move away from job-killing to more neutral and economic growth resumes or better yet grows gangbusters, those who are invested in the economy, putting their own money on the line, owning stocks and small businesses, holding the faith, taking the risks and making the innovations, those are the ones who will benefit first and disproportionately the most, as compared with those who have nothing of their own at stake and are sitting this one out.  It is a fact of economic life and it is not atrocious, it is freedom and choice.  To the disparity-phobics I say - get over it.  A growing economy with all its unfairness, unevenness and blemishes is far better than the alternatives, as we now see!  To the have-nots, it represents only opportunity to do anything you want, not a trickle-down.  Whether or not they take advantage of that opportunity depends on personal choices, not a government program.
----
"the rich are able to avoid taxes much easier than the middle class"

Yes but only by avoiding productive investment and taxable income.  Once it hits line 32 or whatever it is - it gets taxed.

"I'd rather see a lower number like Huntsman suggested, but eliminate ALL the deductions and tax havens"

Me too!

"Frankly, I bet a lot of the rich end up paying more if all their precious deductions are eliminated."

No, they end up paying a lot more when rates are lowered.  The purpose of allowing deductions like business expenses is to calculate income accurately.  The failed attempts at social engineering should be limited to the spending side and limited to what we take in in actual revenues.  It wasn't the rich who wrote the precious deductions, it was the greedy, power hungry, know it all, technocrat, representatives of the people.  For example, how did healthcare creep even further into the tax code under Obama if we were really trying - laser focus - to energize private sector jobs?  Isn't that a public spending question?  Really a personal and private one?

3794  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 09, 2011, 01:41:50 AM
"the disparity of incomes is truly atrocious."

The disparity in what different people produce in the economy is 'atrocious'.

3795  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 09, 2011, 01:26:46 AM
Sorry but I don't speak emotocon very well and I think we have had this argument before.

"Obviously, they are NOT "paying MORE as a percentage of the load"."

Sorry, nothing is obvious to me.  Please link or support that.  You are saying their income went up in a progressive rate system.  If so, their load increased.

Yes, the economy is growing consistently now at about 0.0% under Obama so it is possible that people are getting richer.  Your March data ignore the summer crash and the years you point to deny when power actually changed in Washington:

The policy arrow in Washington turned over to the spread-the-wealth /tax-the-rich direction in Nov 2006.  That was when the young glibness and cohorts took majority in both chambers of congress and that was when W took lame duck status according to every liberal leftist pundit and awake observer:

Washington Post Nov. 2006:  "Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada told supporters, "All across America tonight . . . there is in the air a wind of change." "  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110700473.html

Yes.  Change for the worse.

CBS 2006: "Bush Is Now A Lame Duck"  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/17/opinion/meyer/main1623700.shtml

Yes.  Democrats will be calling the shots and are promising to raise taxes and spread wealth.  Probably expand the CRA too and get the last homeless person into home ownership...

Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2006: Bush faces daunting challenges in his lame-duck years  http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1108/p09s01-cojh.html

Washington Post  October 18, 2006:  Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701586.html

Huffington Post:  Bush was a lame duck President after the 2006 Mid-terms according to Democrats like Harry Reid and Nanci Pelosi and the CBS,ABC,MS­NBC,NPR,CN­N,NYT,AP,R­UETERS,DNC­, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/GulfportM/gdp-us-q2-second-quarter-expectations_n_913032_99898728.html

50 months consecutive job growth ended at this moment.  What changed?  You've got a different theory?



"And we are suppose to reduce their taxes??"

No.  You aren't supposed to do anything.  But if you want to stop the job killing you will have to alleviate the disincentives to produce.  You are supposed to fight back for more job killing and we are supposed to defeat you.  (Why do you revert to arguing anti-growth economics while endorsing Huntsman before and after he came out with a supply side plan?)

For all of this time in power there has been a promise that tax rates will be raised on the rich right around the next corner.  For the most part that never happened so we got the Murphy's Law combination of all of the production and wealth destruction with none of the revenue increases that the higher rates would have allegedly yielded.  Completely braindead economics.  His new chief economic adviser was the architect of cash for clunkers.  Now it is the OBAMA tax cut extensions that need to be made permanent, yet he refuses to remove this warclub from over their heads while he piles on page after page of new regulations and presiding over a doubling of energy costs.  

What part of OWNERSHIP of their results do they not understand?
 


3796  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 08, 2011, 09:45:06 PM
I agree with JDN. - Just kidding.  wink

First this: "The rich get richer and the middle class pays."

What did that mean?  As rich get richer, they pay more and more in dollar and percentage of the load.  Is there any data that say otherwise?  In what way does the middle class pay at a higher rate than the rich?  At the median 50th percentile (middle) taxpayer, the federal income tax they pay is zero.

When a news story conflicts with what you see with your own eyes it is time to dig deeper.  A couple of things stand out that I see.  For one thing, in the story they admit the total number still has not recovered to pre-recession levels.  For another thing, the 'illusory gains' mentioned in the March story unfortunately were wiped out by the market performance over the summer.

The rich do get richer in times of real economic growth.  But now we have stocks down again.  Real estate down.  Sure some are getting richer - likely investing outside the reach of the regulatory hurricane and the impending U.S. tax increases.  

The point really is just that the plights of investors and workers are inextricably linked.  When you attack investment, you hurt jobs.  You don't spread the wealth.  You destroy the wealth.

The story that caused me to make that comment was this in the WSJ last week:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512501087811480.html?mod=googlenews_wsj&_nocache=1315498848661&mg=com-wsj

Review and Outlook - Wall Street Journal  - AUGUST 17, 2011

Millionaires Go Missing
There's nothing like a recession to level incomes.



Speaking of "millionaires and billionaires" (see above), the real tax news is that there are fewer of both these days. This month the IRS released more detailed tax data for 2009, and the nearby table records the decline of the taxpaying rich.

In 2007, 390,000 tax filers reported adjusted gross income of $1 million or more and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such filers, a decline of 39%. Almost four of 10 millionaires vanished in two years, and the total taxes they paid in 2009 declined to $178 billion, a drop of 42%.

Those with $10 million or more in reported income fell to 8,274 from 18,394 in 2007, a 55% drop. As a result, their tax payments tanked by 51%. These disappearing millionaires go a long way toward explaining why federal tax revenues have sunk to 15% of GDP in recent years. The loss of millionaires accounts for at least $130 billion of the higher federal budget deficit in 2009. If Warren Buffett wants to reduce the deficit, he should encourage policies to create more millionaires, not campaign to tax them more.

The millionaires who are left still pay a mountain of tax. Those who make $1 million accounted for about 0.2% of all tax returns but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of tax filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 billion in total personal income taxes. This means the top 3% paid more than the bottom 97%. Yet the 3% are the people that President Obama claims don't pay their fair share. Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5% of the income tax.

For the past three decades, the political left has obsessed about income inequality. As the economy experienced one of the largest and lengthiest economic booms in history from 1982-2007, the left moaned that the gains went to yacht club members.

Well, if equality of income is the priority, liberals should be thrilled with the last four years. The recession and weak recovery have been income levelers. Those who make more than $200,000 captured one-quarter of the $7.6 trillion in total income in 2009. In 2007 the over-$200,000 crowd had one-third of reported U.S. taxable income. Those with incomes above $1 million earned 9.5% of total income in 2009, down from 16.1% in 2007.

It's an old story: The best way to produce income equality is to destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. Everyone loses, but the rich lose relatively more than the poor and the middle class. By that measure, if few others, Obamanomics has been a raging success.
3797  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: September 08, 2011, 01:14:09 PM
JDN,  I guess you either missed or disagree with my point but that is a relatively small improvement in exports - not much bang for the buck - considering the fiscal and monetary carnage that was involved to get there.  Further I would add that the American consumer is also harmed by losing the option of choosing to buy a Japanese made Japanese car which traditionally held a higher value in the used market than its American made counterpart.  Not only exports, but also the right to buy from elsewhere and the ability to travel reasonably overseas are economic assets.  Pretty insulting  to have foreigners place a low value on our currency.

Exporting was my business and a weak dollar is one factor in sales.  Since the US is not a low cost producer in the first place, far more important factors are things like a climate and reputation for world leading innovation and manufacturing competitiveness that appear to have come and gone.  
3798  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: September 08, 2011, 11:14:32 AM
"In the last year, exports are up 15.1% while imports are up 13.6%."

People will have to judge for themselves if the hundred year collapse of the currency was worth it.  Even after $5 trillion in Obaman Keynesian stimuli, demand is stronger elsewhere?

I wonder how much of those increased exports came from Solyndra solar, electric cars and new Marxism-based battery technologies and how much came from the surviving free market players out doing the hard work in competitive private enterprise.
3799  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spread the Wealth? Millions fewer millionaires was not a good jobs program. on: September 08, 2011, 11:00:21 AM
Perhaps the most memorable and candid moment from the summer of Obama 2008 was this line in a long explanation of how good his elaborate economic tinkering could be for this country:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/spread-the-weal/

My observations 3 years later:

a) When we had economic growth, the emphasis of the left was always on disparity, not success or opportunity.

b) Obama succeeded in the first part: there are now millions fewer millionaires.

c) Destroying, capturing and hindering the creation of obscene, excess wealth did not help the downtrodden whatsoever.  To pick the one group where his message resonates best, black unemployment doubled since Dems took power in Washington.  Who knew?

d) Lastly and the reason I bring that quote back is that he was specifically and memorably admitting that we had wealth in this country just before he won the Presidency.  In 3 years we went from an academic argument about what to do with our wealth to not being able to find any.
3800  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: September 08, 2011, 10:31:47 AM
S&P lowered its rating after the deal, not during the stalemate.  That blame argument rings hollow for anyone paying attention.  The

If that false blame argument slips into the speech, like he did in SOTU at the Supreme Court with false characterization of the Citizens United decision, those this time on the receiving end of it should quietly and politely stand up and walk out.  Freedom of speech does not include any kind of compulsion to listen, and that shows more openmindedness than not showing up in the first place which is what I would probably do in their situation.

Moving the decimal point on the cuts in the last deal to the new unit trillions, that draconian 'cut' was $0.02 trillion and it lasted one month until tonight where the President will likely propose another half trillion in new spending.  Yes the tea party picked the wrong fight on debt ceiling and lost it.  Don't minimize however that the tea party succeeded in drawing enormous attention to the problem of spending, deficit and debt even in the middle of summer when conventional wisdom says that no one is paying attention.

They lost because there was no republican consensus on making 40% cuts in spending in a recession nor any ability to win that argument with the senate and executive even if there was.  The debt ceiling was going to go up right from the beginning and the rest was about drawing attention to the problem.

Those making the blame tea party case OTOH are not exactly winning.  They got their debt limit raised and their license to keep on spending at quite a cost.  Obama's approval on his economic policies is down to just immediate family and a couple of journalists and it is still falling.  If spending does increase dramatically now, and I don't see how, he would then face another debt ceiling fight just before the election.

If the President wants $400 billion more here or there for new domestic initiatives, first tell us which failed domestic initiatives you will end to free up the funds.

Next step if there is no stomach for real cuts is to freeze spending (END ALL BASELINES) and get focused on growth.
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 122
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!