Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2014, 10:28:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79137 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 31 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 145606 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #950 on: September 09, 2011, 09:59:06 AM »

Well, we are starting to drift into Liberal Fascism territory here, but I would submit that the tax code is a major, perhaps THE major tool of fascism (both liberal and corporate). 

The poor are told "We are taxing the rich."

The rich are told "Don't worry, its all a game, here's some shelters, loopholes, and deductions"

The special interests are told "We will funnel money to you via the workings of the tax code according to how much you donate to our campaigns."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #951 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?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #952 on: September 09, 2011, 11:12:50 AM »

I'd love to see the Home mortgage interest deduction eliminated. Let's see how you all in the blue states like that. After all, you're rich, right JDN?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #953 on: September 09, 2011, 11:20:18 AM »

Hi, wearing my Thread Continuity Nazi Hat right now grin

Lets take that to the Tax thread please.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #954 on: September 09, 2011, 11:27:17 AM »

"A", I'm NOT rich, too bad though,  sad  but frankly I would like to see the home mortgage deduction phased out.  At the moment, impossible,
but a home is a place to live, not necessarily an investment.  Why is there a mortgage deduction, worse people get a second and third line of credit that is deductible, but a poor/middle class person who rents is not able to deduct any interest?  There is no mortgage interest deduction in Canada, Australia or England.  However home ownership is just fine. 

So I agree, let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and a lot more deductions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?pagewanted=print
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #955 on: September 09, 2011, 11:29:13 AM »

Hi, wearing my Thread Continuity Nazi Hat right now grin

Lets take that to the Tax thread please.

Sorry, I responded without reading your quote, but also, while we are on the subject of appropriate threads, is there a way
to move whole threads to another thread?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #956 on: September 09, 2011, 11:40:05 AM »

"A", I'm NOT rich, too bad though,  sad  but frankly I would like to see the home mortgage deduction phased out.  At the moment, impossible,
but a home is a place to live, not necessarily an investment.  Why is there a mortgage deduction, worse people get a second and third line of credit that is deductible, but a poor/middle class person who rents is not able to deduct any interest?  There is no mortgage interest deduction in Canada, Australia or England.  However home ownership is just fine. 

So I agree, let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and a lot more deductions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?pagewanted=print

Define "rich". You live in a gated community in Santa Monica, right? I'm pretty sure that's not poor. You have more than others, got to spread that wealth around!
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #957 on: September 09, 2011, 12:02:16 PM »

Huh?   huh   I don't live in Santa Monica or even near Santa Monica (Crafty does) nor do I live in a gated community.

Then again, I never said I was "poor" either. 

For example, my neighbor behind me is a LAPD Police Captain.  My neighbor across the street is a Superior Court Judge.
Both make good money, but both will deny that they are "rich".
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #958 on: September 09, 2011, 12:04:55 PM »

Hey, "rich" is relative. You don't live in a housing project in Watts, right? I bet your fellow Obama voters there would define you as rich and insist that you spread your wealth around.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #959 on: September 09, 2011, 12:29:29 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.   tongue
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #960 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!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #961 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.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #962 on: September 09, 2011, 02:52:06 PM »

Whoever came up with that bingo board is OBVIOUSLY a racist biggoted person. wink

Must be one of those crazy loon Tea Party types. cheesy



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #963 on: September 09, 2011, 04:12:19 PM »

Whoever came up with that bingo board is OBVIOUSLY a racist biggoted person. wink

Must be one of those crazy loon Tea Party types. cheesy





Very uncivil and with a violent subtext to boot.   rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #964 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?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #965 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!'
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 02:03:54 PM by DougMacG » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #966 on: September 11, 2011, 03:04:33 PM »

While I can see some benefits, I also can see the severe disadvantages of increased domestic energy production. 

Yet, I don't quite understand your comment,

"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."

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

I find it interesting that while China has an enviable record of economic and job growth, their industries seem rather "cost effective and competitive", yet China is able to do so with minimal domestic energy production.  The same applies to Japan, Germany, and many other countries without oil reserves.

By the way, isn't "clean coal" an oxymoron?  It isn't just the Federal government; disastrous oil spills have prompted state governments to prohibit additional oil drilling.  There is a reason no one wants oil drilled in their back yard.  In survey after survey people overwhelmingly vote for environmental concerns over drilling.  I too would rather have pay a few more cents at the pump than have another oil spill off California. 


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #967 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.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #968 on: September 11, 2011, 04:48:29 PM »

Doug, let's be a little reasonable.  I think YOU are pulling my chain.   smiley  Drilling in America is going to lower prices so factories in America, UCLA, etc. will be more effective?   huh

"The problem is this: While increased oil and gas drilling in the United States may create good-paying jobs, reduce reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade deficit, it will have hardly any impact on gas and oil prices.

That's because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world consumes.

Plus, any extra oil the country did produce would likely be quickly offset by a cut in OPEC production.

"This drill drill drill thing is tired," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for the motorist organization AAA. "It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm

According to the CONSERVATIVE American Enterprise Institute,

Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

But experts disagreed about how much impact additional drilling could have. Crude oil is a global commodity, Green said.

"The world price is the world price," Green said. "Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil," he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.

"We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil," Green added. "People don't understand that."


And please, while I know Obama is far from perfect, blaming him for World High Oil Prices is even stretching it for you.  Again, article after article
says he has very little if any control on world oil prices.  Maybe you blame him for sun spots too; he probably has equal control over that as well.

As for "clean coal" being an oxymoron, well.... it is.  It's a terrible pollutant.  Period.  Just read your own link.

Frankly, most energy production is dirty; just look at the terrible impact of oil spills,or nuclear spills so in many ways I'm "happy" to see it done somewhere else.

The answer is for America to use less energy.  Decrease demand, not increase Supply.  But no one seems to want to do that.








Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #969 on: September 11, 2011, 06:38:29 PM »

Anyone who claims that additional oil production won't drop prices obviously flunked out of Economics 101. You know, supply and demand.

Saudi Arabia has successfully been our "frienemy" since WWII due to the House of Saud altering production to offset oil price spikes for us.

Us getting back in the oil game creates jobs for us as well. Not just McJobs, but well paying ones.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #970 on: September 11, 2011, 06:50:09 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkDJpGXHsIw&feature=player_embedded
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #971 on: September 11, 2011, 08:48:43 PM »

Anyone who claims that additional oil production won't drop prices obviously flunked out of Economics 101. You know, supply and demand.

Odd; did you read my post?  Somehow THEY (the oil industry experts who probably passed Econ 2&3 as well) seem to think our additional oil production WON'T affect oil prices.  Pretty straightforward I would say. Is there something you don't understand?


Us getting back in the oil game creates jobs for us as well. Not just McJobs, but well paying ones.

Yes, it's true.  More jobs.  That's great.  No question. 
But at what price?  Oil spills?  Costing billions of dollars?  Pollution?  Destruction of the environment?  Ask the fisherman in the Golf how their job
is going? How sick they are...  How it affected the fish and the eco system....

Domestic drilling won't affect prices, so I still say, let's cut demand not increase supply.  In the end, we will all be better off.

The USA consumes 25% of the world's energy yet we have only 5% of the world's population.  Surely there is room for improvement. 


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #972 on: September 11, 2011, 10:27:28 PM »

JDN:

1) The Keynesian calamity of Obamanomics in conjunction with the attendant monetization of the US deficit has caused, as has been commented and discussed in the US dollar thread, the US dollar to dive-- thus triggering an inverse climb of commodity prices-- most certainly including oil.  Obamanomics IS responsible for high oil prices.

2) "But at what price?  Oil spills?  Costing billions of dollars?  Pollution?  Destruction of the environment?  Ask the fisherman in the Golf (sic) how their job is going? How sick they are...  How it affected the fish and the eco system...."

Of course this is why Obama is subsidizing the Brazilians to drill in the same area while puppeteer Soros profits  rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
There is also the matter of Exxon now working the Arctic with the Russians because US policies block them here.  Meantime the deep water rigs that worked the Gulf have now permanently left US waters for Africa  shocked and elsewhere-- no doubt the environmental standards there are as rigorous as the US's. rolleyes  Similarly lets make sure that the Canadians do not connect their shale oil to the US and instead build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean so the Chinese can buy it.  No doubt the planet will thank you , , ,  rolleyes

3) "Domestic drilling won't affect prices, so I still say, let's cut demand not increase supply.  In the end, we will all be better off." 

Yes I get that on the whole oil is fungible and so in a macro world economy sense prices may not be affected that much on the margin, but there is the matter of the vulnerability and political volatility of many of the supply sources (Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, the whole fg mid-east) which puts a rather stiff risk premium on the prices from those sources which would NOT be the case of US sources.  Connected to this is the cost of foreign policies motivated by securing oil supplies.

"Cutting demand"?  That's just what our teetering on collapse economy needs!  Shrewd, real shrewd.

"In the end" we will be fuct if we follow your prescriptions.



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #973 on: September 11, 2011, 11:11:41 PM »

"Odd; did you read my post?  Somehow THEY (the oil industry experts who probably passed Econ 2&3 as well) seem to think our additional oil production WON'T affect oil prices.  Pretty straightforward I would say. Is there something you don't understand?"

If the supply increases, would that result in a price drop? I'm not talking about a temporary tapping of the strategic oil reserve, where a salt cavern is damaged to put a day's worth of oil on the market at vast expense to the taxpayers, I'm talking about tapping American oil fields, creating jobs to boot.

I realize that you, like most of your peers in the PRK think food magically appears at the supermarket and gasoline magically appears at the gas station and jobs are just a government program away from becoming reality, but it isn't so.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #974 on: September 11, 2011, 11:33:55 PM »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/us-energy-summit-capacity-idUSTRE75C4B320110613

Concerns are growing over the kingdom's ability to pump more oil beyond an anticipated summer boost, leaving the world exposed to any further unexpected disruptions. The world's top exporter promised to produce as much oil as the market needs after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries last week failed to reach a deal.

Saudi newspaper al-Hayat reported Saudi Arabia would boost output to 10 million barrels per day (bpd) in July, which Goldman Sachs' global head of commodities research Jeff Currie said would leave only 500,000 bpd spare. Currie and his team have warned for months about overstated Saudi output capacity.

"If you get up to (10 mln bpd), you start to really create a very tight market relative to spare capacity," he told the Reuters Global Energy and Climate Summit in London.

"But the question that's more appropriate is when do you get to 9.5, when do you get to 10? Because when you start to look out over the horizon, their ability to create more flexibility in spare capacity increases tremendously."

Peter Oosterveer, group president for energy and chemicals with global engineering giant Fluor Corp (FLR.N), recently met with executives in the Middle East, and returned with a feeling that Saudi Arabia's capacity was not as large as some estimates.

He did not provide any specific numbers on the kingdom's overall production, but said workable spare capacity was in the range of 1.5 to 2 million bpd.

"That doesn't mean to say that it isn't ultimately available," Oosterveer said at the Summit. He added that there did not seem to be a great deal of concern in Saudi Arabia about the current level of capacity.

"There's always a lot of activity in Saudi, and there's still a lot of activity in Saudi as we speak," he added, with more focus there on exploration and production projects compared with two or three years ago.

CENTRAL BANK OF OIL

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world with a significant base of idle capacity, and therefore can act as a supplier of last resort in times of crisis. It has already ramped up output following the halt in Libya's over 1 million bpd of oil exports, and is expected to pump more shortly.

Following a wave of investment as oil surged to a record high $147 a barrel in 2008, Saudi Arabia says its capacity stands at 12.5 million bpd, giving it a comfortable cushion based on recent output estimates.

But analysts are still beginning to debate the risk of a repeat of the last decade, when years of underinvestment and a surge in Chinese demand forced OPEC to pump nearly flat out, drawing down their reserve to less than 1 million bpd.

That fundamental tightness underpinned the five-year rally that lifted prices six-fold until 2008. While few expect that to recur as spectacularly, some are warning of spikes.

"Once spare capacity falls below 2 million bpd, which will be sometime next year, then we will see substantial spikes in the oil price from time to time," Robeco fund manager Peter Csoregh told the Summit.

"There's an inherent bias, especially in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, to overstate their spare capacity."

**Wait, you mean production impacts price?   rolleyes

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #975 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?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #976 on: September 12, 2011, 12:19:00 AM »


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/04/028734.php

Posted on April 1, 2011 by Scott Johnson

The secret of Brazil’s energy success


As subtly foreshadowed here yesterday, today’s Wall Street Journal carries Steve Hayward’s “The secret of Brazil’s energy success.” Steve writes:


 The Obama administration’s energy policy is in the midst of transition from being stubbornly ideological to being wholly incoherent. That much was clear when President Obama unveiled his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future this week.
 With gasoline prices climbing above $4 a gallon, the administration is talking about tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a desperate attempt to hold down pump prices. It’s also expanding subsidies and incentives for energy supplies that cost a lot more than oil, and it’s aiming to reduce our dependency on foreign oil by one-third over the next 10 years.
 Meanwhile, in a bizarre turn, Mr. Obama recently expressed enthusiasm for aggressive offshore drilling–in Brazil.
 At least the president is practicing the green virtue of recycling. His energy address featured all the greatest hits of past presidential declarations of energy independence, including even George W. Bush’s paean to switchgrass ethanol. Yet Mr. Obama’s energy “blueprint” will get no further than all previous presidential schemes for the same reason: It is unserious at its core. . . .

You will want to read it all to discover the deep secret of Brazil’s remarkable energy success.
 UPDATE: Over at NRO, Steve footnotes his Journal column.
 JOHN adds: Since non-subscribers won’t be able to read the Journal column, here is a key paragraph:


 Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled. The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #977 on: September 12, 2011, 12:38:31 AM »

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?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #978 on: September 12, 2011, 07:56:05 AM »




http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/anchor-cartoon.jpg
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #979 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.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 08:50:28 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #980 on: September 12, 2011, 09:19:08 AM »

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/22/earth-day-ends-obamas-53300-gallon-trip

President Obama declared today's 41st annual Earth Day proof of America's ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn't include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.


 
In a two-page statement issued before leaving Los Angeles, his last stop in a three city-fund-raising tour that also included important policy pronouncements like his plan to probe what's behind high gas prices, Obama proclaimed: "For over 40 years, our nation has come together on Earth Day to appreciate and raise awareness about our environment, natural heritage, and the resources upon which generations of Americans have depended. Healthy land and clean water and air are essential to the health of our communities and wildlife. Earth Day is an opportunity to renew America's commitment to preserving and protecting the state of our environment through community service and responsible stewardship."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #981 on: September 12, 2011, 09:22:59 AM »

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=667

Harry Reid arrives at clean energy summit. . . in a fleet of giant SUVs
 
Clean, Green Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled up to the Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada last week. . . in a fleet of giant SUVs.

The Heartland Institute reports that while the Senate Majority Hypocrite "and other high-profile environmental activists blasted carbon-based fuels at the Reid-sponsored summit, Reid and other bigwigs were caught on film driving to and from the summit in several SUVs."

"I was absolutely astonished, not to mention appalled, that Harry Reid would retain a fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs so that he and a few aides would not have to walk the mere 100 yards to address environmental activists," said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor, who took the attached photo. "If greenhouse gas emissions are such a problem, you would think Reid might have actually made the short stroll through the parking lot, or at least retain Priuses rather than large SUVs for the summit," said Taylor.

Reid's arrogance is routine in Washington where pols ride in Secret Service-provided GMC Yukons and Chevy Suburbans while denouncing SUVs as wasteful transportation to the peasants.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #982 on: September 12, 2011, 09:29:38 AM »

Doug, I didn't know about Huntsman, then again I doubt if I will agree 100% with all his policies.  That's ok.  And you are black?  I didn't know...   smiley

But let's back up a minute.  First, let's agree it's a fact America increasing production will NOT alter or lower world oil prices.  That seems quite clear.  That was my main point; frankly my only
point when I initially responded.

Doug said, "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."
I do know that, but again, fact, if we produced more oil it would NOT lower the price, therefore it would have no effect on energy prices therefore margins.

And like Obama, I too like to see Brazil increase production.  Nice to have a new player other than OPEC.   


I do agree it would help stem the flow of dollars leaving the country.  That is a plus.

Further, I agree in the short run, "Energy use is tied to economic activity."  "You can shrink economic activity or you can grow jobs.  You can't do both simultaneously."
And that is the problem...  But other issues exist besides jobs.

Let me give you a personal example of from maybe 15 years ago.  A friend of mine here in LA had a furniture manufacturing plant near downtown LA.  He designed inexpensive furniture,
put it together, stained it, painted it, etc.  He wasn't small time; he employed a little over 4000 employees in LA; another 3000 employees near San Francisco.  And he was quite profitable. 
GM - this guy met my definition of "rich". 

But CA passed clean air laws. All the chemicals he used, the glue, etc. was polluting the air.  My friend had to shut down his operation, lay off 7000+ employees, and move to Mexico.

Did CA lose jobs.  Heck yes.  Was my friend unhappy?  Yes, although he liked Mexico and we would fly in his plane quite often down to Mexico.

But am I glad CA closed down the furniture industry?  Yes I am.  I lost a good friend, but Air pollution in CA is much better because CA became very strict about air pollution.  My point is maybe you are right
we needs jobs so desperately now we have no choice, but we will pay indirectly for those jobs in the long run through spills and air pollution.  Air pollution isn't just tears in the eye,
it's numerous medical problems ($$$) including various cancers, clean up problems, and negative effect on the ecology.  So in the long run, CA is better off without his business.  (other stupid CA policies not being discussed here).

So yeah, looking long term, it's not nice, but I would rather have Brazil increase production, offer us an alternative oil source, and let them destroy their environment versus America doing the same.

As a side note, the price of oil in general is not going down.  Further, oil is a finite resource.  So if we drill now, or in 10 or 20 years from now, we might be further ahead.  The oil
isn't going anywhere.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #983 on: September 12, 2011, 09:38:17 AM »

"Did CA lose jobs.  Heck yes.  Was my friend unhappy?  Yes, although he liked Mexico and we would fly in his plane quite often down to Mexico."

Did the pollution magically only appear on the Mexican side of the border?

Air pollution from China crosses the Pacific and contributes to SoCal's smog. It appears you pollu-apatheid plan doesn't work, JDN.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #984 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.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 10:06:37 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #985 on: September 12, 2011, 10:10:31 AM »

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html

A dirty secret about California’s energy economy is that it imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for the shortfall caused by having too few power plants. Up to 20 percent of the state’s power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Montana, and another significant portion comes from large-scale hydropower in Oregon, Washington State, and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas. “California practices a sort of energy colonialism,” says James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners, a Washington, D.C.–area investment group. “They rely on western states to supply them with power generation they are unwilling to build for themselves”—and leave those states to deal with the resulting pollution.

Another secret: California’s proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country—nearly twice the national average, a 2002 Milken Institute study found—largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales. Twenty years ago or so, you could count eight automobile factories in California; today, there’s just one, and it’s the same story with other industries, from chemicals to aerospace. Yet Californians still enjoy the fruits of those manufacturing industries—driving cars built in the Midwest and the South, importing chemicals and resins and paints and plastics produced elsewhere, and flying on jumbo jets manufactured in places like Everett, Washington. California can pretend to have controlled energy consumption, but it has just displaced it.

It isn’t just the high price of power that’s compelling California businesses to shift operations to other regions. The state’s unreliable power grid has its economic costs, too. A 2003 U.S. Department of Energy report noted that “a recent rolling blackout in the greater San Francisco Bay area caused an estimated $75 million in losses in the Silicon Valley.” A 20-minute outage at a Hewlett-Packard circuit-fabrication plant, the report observed, “would result in a day’s production loss at a cost of $30 million.” As Jack Gerard, then-president of the National Mining Association, put it in a 2001 speech: “Events are proving that the most expensive kilowatt is the one that’s not there when needed.”

The shortages are starting to rattle some Silicon Valley heavyweights. Intel chief executive Craig Barrett, for instance, vowed in 2001 not to build a chip-making facility in California until power supplies became more reliable. This October, Intel opened a $3 billion factory near Phoenix for mass production of its new 45-nanometer microprocessors. Google, meanwhile, has chosen to build the massive server farms that will fuel its expansion anywhere but in California. The most celebrated is an enormous installation along the Columbia River in The Dalles, Oregon, a facility that will house tens of thousands of computers, requiring mind-boggling amounts of power. A 1.8-gigawatt hydroelectric power plant will offer Google power for a small fraction of what it would cost in the Golden State. The irony is that the Silicon Valley companies that have become the face of California’s twenty-first-century economy are increasingly building the facilities that will give them their future value in other states.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #986 on: September 12, 2011, 10:22:50 AM »

GM:

That's important stuff.  Lets post in on the Energy thread.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #987 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/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #988 on: September 20, 2011, 01:11:01 PM »

solargate.

Great one; genius for the ages; most brilliant President we have ever had;

lost money in a stock he claims he didn't even know he invested in while he was lobbying for the company.

This is impeachment stuff.  Though I guess he was a senator at the time?

Here comes the what "is is" stuff and she had sex with me not vice versa stuff.  Oh and how can I forget.  A "right wing conspiracy".  And racist stuff will of course be thrown in.

I guess no fifth spot on Mt Rushmore?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #989 on: September 20, 2011, 01:18:52 PM »

solargate.

Great one; genius for the ages; most brilliant President we have ever had;

lost money in a stock he claims he didn't even know he invested in while he was lobbying for the company.

This is impeachment stuff.  Though I guess he was a senator at the time?

Here comes the what "is is" stuff and she had sex with me not vice versa stuff.  Oh and how can I forget.  A "right wing conspiracy".  And racist stuff will of course be thrown in.

I guess no fifth spot on Mt Rushmore?


Tony Rezko's buddy? No way!   rolleyes
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #990 on: September 20, 2011, 02:50:49 PM »

"lost money in a stock he claims he didn't even know he invested in while he was lobbying for the company."

I am not following here.  Are you saying Baraq held stock in Solyndra while he lobbied for it as a Senator?  If so, I have not seen this elsewhere , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #991 on: September 20, 2011, 10:50:18 PM »



It's going to take a lot of bowing to fix this one......
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #992 on: September 21, 2011, 10:40:13 AM »



http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/20/which-foreign-leader-did-obama-call-first/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #993 on: September 23, 2011, 08:17:06 AM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE&feature=player_embedded
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #994 on: September 23, 2011, 09:39:15 AM »

GM,
Brock is giftwrapping 2012 for the Repubs.
Thank God he didn't pull one of the phoney triangulation schemes ala the BS artist extraordinaire Clinton.  He would have had a shot at 2012. 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #995 on: September 23, 2011, 10:23:46 AM »

For the record, with regard to post 991 by GM, I happened to see a clip of this.  The photogs were taking an inordinate amount of time and finally BO politely raised his hand to as part of saying "Yo! Can we wrap this up please?" at just the moment the photog snapped the photo.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:10:29 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #996 on: September 23, 2011, 02:18:19 PM »

Well coming from the Bamster who feels the DOJ should be expanding civil rights units (aka, get the hetero white men) I suppose this should be no surprise.  Like the DOJ shouldn't be doing far more urgent and important matters than going after school kid bullying.

So what in the world is this crap now?:

"Social Innovation and Civic Participation Council"

"The group leads a number of social justice global initiatives and espouses an ideology that government intervention is necessary to fix what it claims are various social and racial injustices that permeate U.S. society."

No, we don't have a communist in the white house cry

***New Obama czar moonlighting for whom?
Organization accuses U.S. of 'structural racism,' promotes government intervention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 22, 2011
9:10 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
 
The newly appointed chief of President Obama's Social Innovation and Civic Participation Council doubles as the director of a social justice group funded by George Soros.

The organization, the Aspen Institute, works closely with Soros and even was reportedly used by the billionaire in a failed attempt to engineer the defeat of President Bush in the 2004 elections.

Jonathan Greenblatt was appointed the new head of Obama's Social Innovation Unit earlier this month.

Get the New York Times best seller that exposes ALL the Obama czars – $4.95 today only!

Greenblatt is the founder of a civic service company that works in partnership with Google and the Huffington Post. He has several ties to Google.

Greenblatt also serves as director of the Impact Economy Initiative at the Aspen Institute.

Aspen's mission statement says the nonprofit seeks "to foster values-based leadership, encourag[e] individuals to reflect on the ideals and ideas that define a good society, and ... provide a neutral and balanced venue for discussing and acting on critical issues."

The group leads a number of social justice global initiatives and espouses an ideology that government intervention is necessary to fix what it claims are various social and racial injustices that permeate U.S. society.

Aspen's website says the group is dedicated to repairing what it terms "structural racism."

The group contends that "public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity in every key opportunity area, from health, to education, to employment, to income and wealth."

A member of Aspen's board is Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor who sparked a national race controversy in July 2009 when Obama criticized local Cambridge police who had arrested Gates after a burglary had been reported on his property.

Aspen runs a program that provides training and seminars for federal judges.

'Clandestine' Soros summit

Soros has provided significant funding to the Aspen Institute. His Open Society Institute has provided more than $400,000 to the group since 2004.

The New Yorker magazine reported on a 2004 "clandestine summit meeting" that took place at the Aspen Institute.

"The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy," said the magazine, including Soros and four other billionaires who "shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election."

Soros himself spoke at numerous Aspen events, including a 2004 seminar entitled "America's Role in the Fight Against Global Poverty" that also featured Al Gore as a speaker.

Aspen hosted Soros in 2006 for a talk about his new book, "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror."

Discover the Networks notes that Jim Spiegelman, Aspen's director of communications, formerly worked as a "special assistant" to Soros.

Also, Arjun Gupta, who serves on Aspen's board of overseers, is a vice president at the Chatterjee Group, which advises the Soros Fund Management Group.

Meanwhile, Greenblatt is the founder and president of All for Good, an open source, Web-based initiative that says it seeks to engage more Americans in service. It is the largest database of volunteer listings ever compiled and provides content to a wide range of government, nonprofit and personal websites.

Greenblatt has stated he was inspired to found All for Good in December 2008 by Obama's call for more participatory civic service.

Greenblatt formerly served on the Technology and Innovation working group of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition team.

All for Good was built by a group of volunteers from Google, the Craigslist Foundation and other organizations, reportedly with input from Arianna Huffington. The group currently maintains strategic partnerships with Google and the Huffington Post.

With additional research by Chris Elliott.***
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 750


« Reply #997 on: September 25, 2011, 04:04:27 AM »


  Obama tells blacks to 'stop complainin' and fight
By MARK S. SMITH - Associated Press | AP – 4 hrs agotweet96Share14EmailPrintRelated Content
President Barack Obama delivers his remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's …

President Barack Obama delivers his remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation …
  WASHINGTON (AP) — In a fiery summons to an important voting bloc, President Barack Obama told blacks on Saturday to quit crying and complaining and "put on your marching shoes" to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.

And though he didn't say it directly, for a second term, too.

Obama's speech to the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus was his answer to increasingly vocal griping from black leaders that he's been giving away too much in talks with Republicans -- and not doing enough to fight black unemployment, which is nearly double the national average at 16.7 percent.

"It gets folks discouraged. I know. I listen to some of y'all," Obama told an audience of some 3,000 in a darkened Washington convention center.

But he said blacks need to have faith in the future -- and understand that the fight won't be won if they don't rally to his side.

"I need your help," Obama said.

The president will need black turnout to match its historic 2008 levels if he's to have a shot at winning a second term, and Saturday's speech was a chance to speak directly to inner-city concerns.

He acknowledged blacks have suffered mightily because of the recession, and are frustrated that the downturn is taking so long to reverse. "So many people are still hurting. So many people are barely hanging on," he said, then added: "And so many people in this city are fighting us every step of the way."

But Obama said blacks know all too well from the civil rights struggle that the fight for what is right is never easy.

"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."

Topping the to-do list, he said, is getting Congress to the pass jobs bill he sent to Capitol Hill two weeks ago.

Obama said the package of payroll tax cuts, business tax breaks and infrastructure spending will benefit 100,000 black-owned businesses and 20 million African-American workers. Republicans have indicated they're open to some of the tax measures -- but oppose his means of paying for it: hiking taxes on top income-earners and big business.

But at times, Obama also sounded like he was discussing his own embattled tenure.

"The future rewards those who press on," He said. "I don't have time to feel sorry for myself. I don't have time to complain. I'm going to press on."

Caucus leaders remain fiercely protective of the nation's first African-American president, but in recent weeks they've been increasingly vocal in their discontent -- especially over black joblessness.

"If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House," the caucus chairman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, recently told McClatchy Newspapers.

Like many Democratic lawmakers, caucus members were dismayed by Obama's concessions to the GOP during the summer's talks on raising the government's borrowing limit.

Cleaver famously called the compromise deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich."

But Cleaver said his members also are keeping their gripes in check because "nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."

Still, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., caused a stir last month by complaining that Obama's Midwest bus tour had bypassed black districts. She told a largely black audience in Detroit that the caucus is "supportive of the president, but we're getting tired."

Last year, Obama addressed the same dinner and implored blacks to get out the vote in the midterm elections because Republicans were preparing to "turn back the clock."

What followed was a Democratic rout that Obama acknowledged as a "shellacking."

Where blacks had turned out in droves to help elect him in 2008, there was a sharp drop-off two years later.

Some 65 percent of eligible blacks voted in 2008, compared with a 2010 level that polls estimate at between 37 percent and 40 percent. Final census figures for 2010 are not yet available, and it's worth noting off-year elections typically draw far fewer voters.

This year's caucus speech came as Obama began cranking up grass-roots efforts across the Democratic spectrum.

It also fell on the eve of a trip to the West Coast that will combine salesmanship for the jobs plan he sent to Congress this month and re-election fundraising.

Obama was leaving Sunday morning for Seattle, where two money receptions were planned, with two more to follow in the San Francisco area.

On Monday, Obama is holding a town meeting at the California headquarters of LinkedIn, the business networking website, before going on to fundraisers in San Diego and Los Angeles and a visit Tuesday to a Denver-area high school to highlight the school renovation component of the jobs package.

___
                                                              P.C.
Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #998 on: September 25, 2011, 10:07:33 AM »

The only ones holding Blacks back are Blacks.   Ironically Brock is doing more to hurt then to help them with expansion of government.  He is not empowering them in their minds.

Herman Cain knows it.  West knows it.  And more and more are finally realizing it.

The Indians have had no problem coming to the US and working their behinds off to be quite successful.

Does anyone think they were welcomed with open arms?

Does anyone remember the Spike Lee movie years ago which shows some middle age Blacks sitting and drinking beer all day looking at the Koreans accross the street running a successful business and one of them says to the other, something to the effect how come they come here and do well and we are just sitting here drinking beer and complianing.
Logged
AndrewBole
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 65


« Reply #999 on: September 26, 2011, 08:30:01 AM »



YES !!!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 31 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!